# Question for Iraq war supporters



## mattskramer (Dec 18, 2007)

Is anyone willing to say that Bush should have at least inspected the hospitals before he had us go to war?  Can you say that there is anything that you think would be obvious that Bush should have done differently?  (Im not talking about hindsight being 20/20. Im talking about foresight that would make you think that Bush jumped into war too quickly.) Would anyone say something along these lines, Wow?  You screwed up here. Didnt it ever dawn on you that this action would be more appropriate?   - or do all pro-Bush and Pro-Iraq people think that all of Bushs decisions throughout the war in Iraq to this point were reasonable and well-planned-out.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 18, 2007)

> Can you say that there is anything that you think would be obvious that Bush should have done differently?  (Im not talking about hindsight being 20/20. Im talking about foresight that would make you think that Bush jumped into war too quickly.)


There is nothing to indicate that we jumped into the war too quickly.


----------



## Meemer (Dec 18, 2007)

> There is nothing to indicate that we jumped into the war too quickly.


You're kidding, right, Shooter? A holiday joke thing you got going there?

Riots, plundering, too few troops, the beginning of open civil unrest between religious groups, primarily Sunni and Shi'a; and an almost total infrastructure breakdown (which hasn't been rectified yet).

Didn't jump in too quickly, you say? Ah, yes, those elusive WMD's. Something I've always wondered about and questioned while watching Powell's dog and pony presentation before the UN (with the not-too-happy visage of Tenet always visible off Powell's right shoulder). All those photos of suspected chem/bio labs and mobile units; all those WMD factories and storage facilities. Meanwhile, back in Iraq, the UN had searchers on the ground looking for those alleged WMD thingies. Why did not the US transmit the location of the coordinates of those alleged sites to the UN teams on the ground? All photos have those coordinates. But, nope, Geo. the Lesser announced his war would begin and for the inspectors to high tail it out of harm's way.  Didn't jump into war too quickly, you say?
Ah, I don't think so.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 18, 2007)

Meemer said:


> Riots, plundering, too few troops, the beginning of open civil unrest between religious groups, primarily Sunni and Shi'a; and an almost total infrastructure breakdown (which hasn't been rectified yet).


Presuming for the moment that these things actually happend to the degree that you believe they did -- how do they indicate that we 'jumped into the war too quickly'?



> Didn't jump in too quickly, you say? Ah, yes, those elusive WMD's....All those photos of suspected chem/bio labs and mobile units; all those WMD factories and storage facilities. Meanwhile, back in Iraq, the UN had searchers on the ground looking for those alleged WMD thingies.


Hans Blix, 26 FEB 2003:
""I do not think I can say there is evidence of a fundamental decision [by Iraq to disarm]"
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,79671,00.html
That covers the WMD issue.


----------



## jillian (Dec 18, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Presuming for the moment that these things actually happend to the degree that you believe they did -- how do they indicate that we 'jumped into the war too quickly'?
> 
> 
> Hans Blix, 26 FEB 2003:
> ...



Perhaps you should try looking at the final Blix Report instead of what they said on FauxNews.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 18, 2007)

jillian said:


> Perhaps you should try looking at the final Blix Report instead of what they said on FauxNews.


You were SO falling all over yourself to rip Fox News that you didnt take the time to see they had posted an AP story.   

Not surprising, but so very, very sad.

No fundamental decision to disarm.  All you need to know.


----------



## jillian (Dec 18, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> You were SO falling all over yourself to rip Fox News that you didnt take the time to see they had posted an AP story.
> 
> Not surprising, but so very, very sad.
> 
> No fundamental decision to disarm.  All you need to know.



You mean the big bad liberal media aided in the run up to the war? shocked I tell ya....

My point either way (and perhaps I was a little quick to jump on poor little FauxNews) is that the Blix Report said something real different.


----------



## mattskramer (Dec 18, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Presuming for the moment that these things actually happend to the degree that you believe they did -- how do they indicate that we 'jumped into the war too quickly'?



Uh.  If we had prepared adequately, we would have went in with an overwhelming ground force, after first clearing the area with an overwhelming number of armored vehicles.   We would have had more than enough soldiers to squelch the riots and guard places from plunder.  We would have then immediately had engineers there, fully protected by armored soldiers, to immediately start rebuilding the infrastructure after we destroy it.  There would not have been so many kidnappings if I had decided that we go to war and led the war.  It is as simple as that.

P.S. The hospitals should have been ready.


----------



## Annie (Dec 18, 2007)

jillian said:


> Perhaps you should try looking at the final Blix Report instead of what they said on FauxNews.



Here's a link to the text of Blix report, what part do you disagree with Jillian?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.transcript.blix/index.html


----------



## Gunny (Dec 18, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> Is anyone willing to say that Bush should have at least inspected the hospitals before he had us go to war?  Can you say that there is anything that you think would be obvious that Bush should have done differently?  (Im not talking about hindsight being 20/20. Im talking about foresight that would make you think that Bush jumped into war too quickly.) Would anyone say something along these lines, Wow?  You screwed up here. Didnt it ever dawn on you that this action would be more appropriate?   - or do all pro-Bush and Pro-Iraq people think that all of Bushs decisions throughout the war in Iraq to this point were reasonable and well-planned-out.



As I've said more than once ...

Bush's decision to invade Iraq was a mistake.  Sure, Saddam was everything Bush claimed he was, and none of the weak-ass arguments have disproven it.

But Saddam was the lesser of two evils.  The DoD assessment back in 91 was that if Saddam was taken out, it would create a power vaccuum and lead to factional fighting, and a (as predicted then) a rush for control by Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Syria.  While some of the players have turned out to be different, the result has been essentially the same.

Strategically, as long as Saddam was in power, he stood between all the factions and kept them at bay.


----------



## Annie (Dec 18, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> As I've said more than once ...
> 
> Bush's decision to invade Iraq was a mistake.  Sure, Saddam was everything Bush claimed he was, and none of the weak-ass arguments have disproven it.
> 
> ...



maybe I'm weird, but this just strikes me wrong:



> Is anyone willing to say that Bush should have at least inspected the hospitals before he had us go to war? Can you say that there is anything that you think would be obvious that Bush should have done differently?


Do you understand how lame this is?


----------



## Gunny (Dec 18, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> maybe I'm weird, but this just strikes me wrong:
> 
> Do you understand how lame this is?



The hospital question?  I just ignored it and went with the intent of his question.  I have no idea what matts is talking about in regard to hospitals.  Perhaps he will enlighten us.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 19, 2007)

jillian said:


> You mean the big bad liberal media aided in the run up to the war? shocked I tell ya....
> 
> My point either way (and perhaps I was a little quick to jump on poor little FauxNews) is that the Blix Report said something real different.



I dont see where Blix recants his statement in the report.
I also see lots of places where Blix says that Ieaq cannot account for numberuns WMDs it said it had.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 19, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> Uh.  If we had prepared adequately, we would have went in with an overwhelming ground force,


Uh...  we did.  Iraq fell in three weeks.



> after first clearing the area with an overwhelming number of armored vehicles.


We sent 2 infantry divisions; the UK sent one armored division.
How did they not overwhelm the Iraqi army?



> It is as simple as that.


There's -something- simple here, that's for sure...


----------



## mattskramer (Dec 19, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Uh...  we did.  Iraq fell in three weeks.  We sent 2 infantry divisions; the UK sent one armored division.
> How did they not overwhelm the Iraqi army?



Did I say anything about the Iraqi army?  Im not just talking about the army.  Im talking about all of the mess in Iraq:  the looting, the delay in restoring the infrastructure, the kidnappings, and the unnecessarily large number of injuries to our soldiers. This would not have happened if we had sent in enough people.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 19, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> Did I say anything about the Iraqi army?  I&#8217;m not just talking about the army.  I&#8217;m talking about all of the mess in Iraq:  the looting, the delay in restoring the infrastructure, the kidnappings, and the unnecessarily large number of injuries to our soldiers. This would not have happened if we had sent in enough people.


Its pretty clear that you've committed yourself to parroting the usual talking points.  
Let me know if and when you decide you actually want to listen.


----------



## mattskramer (Dec 19, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Its pretty clear that you've committed yourself to parroting the usual talking points.
> Let me know if and when you decide you actually want to listen.



I have been listening to your replies.  Tell me something besides I&#8217;m a parrot or my ideas are impossible. If they are talking points, refute the talking points.  It is as simple as that.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 19, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> I have been listening to your replies.


No, you haven't.
If you had, and if you were willing/able to think for yourself, you wouldnt be droning on and on with the same, tired, worn, talking points.


----------



## mattskramer (Dec 19, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> No, you haven't.
> If you had, and if you were willing/able to think for yourself, you wouldnt be droning on and on with the same, tired, worn, talking points.



How do you know that I dont think for myself?  I learn things.  I examine issues from both sides.  Then I draw my own conclusions.  If my conclusions are similar to those of others, so be it.  I like Bush in certain respects.  I think that he is right in what he does.  Sometimes I think that me makes foolish choices.  Im not a parrot for one political party or the other.  Im listening to you yet I have not grasped anything you have said to me on the issue except for name calling, saying that my ideas are impossible and have never been taught, and things of that nature.  Give me some explanations.  Why are my ideas actually impossible?  Why have they never been taught? While you are at it, why not answer my simple question concerning the hospital?  whether it is a parroted question or a talking point or not.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 19, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> How do you know that I dont think for myself?


Asks the guy that believes that it -is- possible to think of, and then plan for "every" possible contingent when going to war.   

Do you understand what every possible contingent means?

If you did, you'd undertsand why its pretty clear you dont think for yourself.


----------



## tigerbob (Dec 19, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Asks the guy that believes that it -is- possible to think of, and then plan for "every" possible contingent when going to war.
> 
> Do you understand what every possible contingent means?
> 
> If you did, you'd undertsand why its pretty clear you dont think for yourself.



Planning for "every possible contingent" would be difficult.  

An asteroid strike, for instance, might have been tough to take into consideration.  A plague of frogs would have been difficult to foresee.  

And a power vacuum after a dictator's removal?  Who would have thought?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 19, 2007)

tigerbob said:


> Planning for "every possible contingent" would be difficult.


Its not just difficult, its impossibe -  you cannot possibly know if you have 'everything' covered, and a huge number of things that you come up with cannot be planned for.


----------



## mattskramer (Dec 19, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Its not just difficult, its impossibe -  you cannot possibly know if you have 'everything' covered, and a huge number of things that you come up with cannot be planned for.



Well.  Thats sort of an answer, so Ill comment.  Oh well.  We disagree.  I think that before deciding to go to war, people can and should consider everything.  I wonder if Bush planned for the possibility that Iraqi citizens might not be terribly excited about fighting along side us for the cause.  I wonder if Bush thought that the religious factions, without national leader Saddam to maintain brutal order, might cause problems.  I wonder if Bush thought that people supportive of Saddams Iraq or hateful toward American involvement might come to fight against American soldiers in Iraq.  and as I asked several times, I wonder if you would criticize Bush for not checking on military hospitals before the war.


----------



## mattskramer (Dec 19, 2007)

tigerbob said:


> Planning for "every possible contingent" would be difficult.
> 
> An asteroid strike, for instance, might have been tough to take into consideration.  A plague of frogs would have been difficult to foresee.
> 
> And a power vacuum after a dictator's removal?  Who would have thought?



An asteroid has just as much chanced of striking America as it does of striking Iraq.  A plague of frogs would be a nuisance but not a hindrance. 

Okay.  Suppose that I replace the superlative every and replace it with many  as in Bush should have considered many possibilities and made sure that we were provided with twice the armor and supplies necessary to thwart such possibilities?  It is my contention that this is possible and that Bush did not do a good job in preparing for the war and the many possibilities that could await our soldiers throughout this Iraq war.


----------



## MasterChief (Dec 19, 2007)

Ummmm,
You are all aware that after the battle of Bull Run during the American War Between the States, Abe Lincoln's decision to fight to save the Union looked pretty stupid.

That being said--I think having Donald Rumsfeld as SOD was pure lunacy.  Here was a man who wanted to micro-manage all military matters and run war on the cheap. He refused to allow military units to fight in the way they had trained.  When I heard he'd refused to allow the 101st to bring its artillery to Afghanistan, I knew we were in trouble. Likewise, when he was talking Iraq and the 3rd was not allowed to disembark in Turkey yet he did not see that as a problem, I could only shake my head and knew that we were not prepared for this war.


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 20, 2007)

MasterChief said:


> Ummmm,
> You are all aware that after the battle of Bull Run during the American War Between the States, Abe Lincoln's decision to fight to save the Union looked pretty stupid.



apples and oranges


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 20, 2007)

It was the 4th Infantry Division that didn't get out in Turkey. But no problem.

Further it did not disembark because Turkey refused to allow it after agreeing to it. It was to late to stop the Invasion. Further the argument we should have had more troops ignore the fact that Kuwait was basicly stacked to the gills. The 4th had no where to go because there was no where left in Kuwait for them. We couldn't have added another 100k much less 200k troops to Kuwait.

Maybe we should have ask Syria or Iran for permission to use their territory?

It is sumple, the argument about armored vehicles is stupid. We had NEVER before faced the level of road side bombs as in Iraq. No one expected it. Rear area vehicles were never armored. The military had x number of armored vehicles based on how the units were built and trained to function. The Military rushed every available armored vehicle it could from non involved units. 

Further the armor breaks the vehicles down. They were not designed for it. It is to heavy, it causes extreme wear and tear on the vehicle. It also does not actually protect the occupant from a roadside blast. It protects them from shrapnel if they are not IN the blast zone. No truck or Hummer can survive a 155 mm artillery shell going off next to it, which is what a lot of the early road side bombs were.

The armor for troops was a flak jacket, every one had one. We had never developed any special approved body armor. The argument that this armor or that was better was bogus. Further combat troops do NOT like the extra armor, it is heavy, cumbersome and hard to function in. The combat zone is HOT and the armor makes it even HOTTER.

And like it or not one does " Go to war with the army they have" Every war is like that, no one has a crystal ball to know what will happen in future wars, so in effect we arm train and prepare for the last war.

The biggest mistake we made was allowing the Republican Guard to avoid battle and disappear into the country side. The second biggest mistake we made was dismissing the entire army after we did not destroy it.

We never should have disbanded the army , that sent the wrong message. We never expected the cops to quit in mass either.


----------



## DeadCanDance (Dec 20, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> As I've said more than once ...
> 
> *Bush's decision to invade Iraq was a mistake.*  Sure, Saddam was everything Bush claimed he was, and none of the weak-ass arguments have disproven it.
> 
> ...




for once, I am in agreement.  Saddam was a thug, but he was the lesser of two evils.  Now, we have a fractured, failed nation-state on our hands. 

The ultimate expenditure of over a trillion dollars, and tens of thousands of dead and wounded american soldiers was one of the biggest foreign policy mistakes in our history.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 20, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> Well.  Thats sort of an answer, so Ill comment.  Oh well.  We disagree.  I think that before deciding to go to war, people can and should consider everything.


If that's truly the case, then it's impossible for you to cite a war in which we "propoerly" planned for.


----------



## mattskramer (Dec 20, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> If that's truly the case, then it's impossible for you to cite a war in which we "propoerly" planned for.



I think that our invasion of Grenada was well done. Even if it werent, your comment is irrelevant.  Just because something has never been done does not mean that it cant be done.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 20, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> I think that our invasion of Grenada was well done.


Aside from the fact that if you really knew about the operation, you would know better...
What makes you think everything was properly planned for?



> Even if it werent, your comment is irrelevant.  Just because something has never been done does not mean that it cant be done.


Ah, that's it -- hold GWB to a standard that's never, ever, been met.

And you say you think for yourself.


----------



## mattskramer (Dec 20, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Aside from the fact that if you really knew about the operation, you would know better...
> What makes you think everything was properly planned for?



Did I say that everything was properly planned for in Grenada?  We made intelligence mistakes and we had communication problems in Grenada but we had 7300 people on our side (military people) going in against 2200 opponents (Grenada people and Cubans). Compare that to the Iraq war.  At the start of the Iraq War, Saddam had more military personnel than we did.  I know that times had changed and that we had better fighter power and equipment (what we had).  I still think that we should have gone in with many more armored vehicles and soldiers.

Perhaps I don&#8217;t have an ideal war for comparison.  I still think that we committed glaring errors and miscalculations in the Iraq war.  I guess that I would just prepare more thoroughly for a war than would most leaders (as costly as that overly-preparedness may be).  When I heard about the disrepair of the hospital, I thought, &#8220;Uh.  Hello leaders, didn&#8217;t you think to run a check of the hospitals before going to war?&#8221; That would have been an obvious step in preparing for war. &#8220;Hey, the enemy might have a lot of explosives and supporters.  Perhaps we should double up on armor and supplies.&#8221;  I mean that these are like a given.  




> Ah, that's it -- hold GWB to a standard that's never, ever, been met.
> 
> And you say you think for yourself.



No.  There you go again putting words in my mouth. I would hold all presidents to an equal standard.  I don&#8217;t know if I posted a criticism here but I think that Clinton really messed up in Somalia.  Like Bush, he did not send in nearly enough armor, vehicles, or soldiers.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 20, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> Did I say that everything was properly planned for in Grenada?


You used Grenada as an example of an operation where things were properly planned.



> No.  There you go again putting words in my mouth. I would hold all presidents to an equal standard.


Good.  Please beging decribing their errors and how they are accountable.
In total, and in detail.


----------



## mattskramer (Dec 20, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> You used Grenada as an example of an operation where things were properly planned.



I said that I think that our invasion of Grenada was well done - in that we went in with overwhelming odds on our side and swiftly took care of business and got the job done.



> Good.  Please beging decribing their errors and how they are accountable. In total, and in detail.



Similarly to the Iraq War, in Operation Gothic Serpent we didn&#8217;t send in nearly enough vehicles, weapons, or soldiers to take care of business.  We had 600+ while the enemy has around 20,000+.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gothic_Serpent

_&#8230;the United Nations Security Council issued Resolution 837 calling for the arrest and trial of those responsible for the ambush. US warplanes and UN troops began a concentrated attack on Aidid's stronghold. Aidid remained defiant, and the violence between Somalis and UN troops escalated....

In Mogadishu, the task force occupied an old hangar and construction trailers under primitive conditions. The force even lacked potable water and was subject to frequent mortar fire._ 

This sort of reminds me of the trouble we had in getting Saddam and the trouble we seem to be having in trying to find Osama.  I call it half-hearted efforts and tiddly winks.

-----

P.S. What ever happened to Adid?
The United States withdrew its forces soon afterwards and the United Nations left Somalia in 1995.  Aidid then declared himself President of Somalia in June 1995. Aidid died on in 1996 as a result of gunshot wounds sustained a week earlier in a fight with competing factions.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 20, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> I said that I think that our invasion of Grenada was well done


Yes...  after I said that "If that's truly the case, then it's impossible for you to cite a war in which we "propoerly" planned for"

So, I'll give you a chance to clarify:
Was Grenada, as you define it, properly planned for, or not?

Given your standard, can one name ANY military operation that was properly planned for?



> Similarly to the Iraq War, in Operation Gothic Serpent we didnt send in nearly enough vehicles, weapons, or soldiers to take care of business


You have several hundred more to go.


----------



## mattskramer (Dec 20, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Yes...  after I said that "If that's truly the case, then it's impossible for you to cite a war in which we "propoerly" planned for"
> 
> So, I'll give you a chance to clarify:
> Was Grenada, as you define it, properly planned for, or not?



Okay.  Okay.  I think that I see what you are driving at.  I already removed superlatives and absolutes regarding war preparedness.  Now cut me some slack.  No.  Grenada was not perfectly planned for but I think that it was better planned for than was the Iraq war.  



> Given your standard, can one name ANY military operation that was properly planned for?



No but some are better than others and I think that Bush blundered badly in Iraq one, relatively speaking.


----------



## ReillyT (Dec 20, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Yes...  after I said that "If that's truly the case, then it's impossible for you to cite a war in which we "propoerly" planned for"
> 
> So, I'll give you a chance to clarify:
> Was Grenada, as you define it, properly planned for, or not?
> ...



M14,

Do you think it is possible to say that any military action is better planned for than any other military action?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 20, 2007)

ReillyT said:


> M14,
> Do you think it is possible to say that any military action is better planned for than any other military action?


Of course it is.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 20, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> Okay.  Okay.  I think that I see what you are driving at.  I already removed superlatives and absolutes regarding war preparedness.


Good.
So now, your argument is... what?


----------



## ReillyT (Dec 20, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Of course it is.



By what criteria do you judge if a military endeavour is well planned or badly planned?


----------



## mattskramer (Dec 20, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Good.
> So now, your argument is... what?



1.	My point is still that war is hell and death.  We should not be quick to go to war.  When we decide to go to war, we should take time to overly-prepare.  Knowing that we can&#8217;t think of every possibility, we should think of as many possibilities as we can and then get twice as many vehicles, twice as much armor, and twice as many soldiers as we think that we will need.  

2.	While no war is perfectly planned for every possible eventuality, I think that Bush handled the Iraq war very poorly.  At the very least, he should have had hospitals inspected for a possible influx of injured soldiers.  He should have also seen to it that our soldiers had a huge surplus of armor for protection.


----------



## MasterChief (Dec 20, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> The biggest mistake we made was allowing the Republican Guard to avoid battle and disappear into the country side. The second biggest mistake we made was dismissing the entire army after we did not destroy it.


At least you admit some mistakes were made.  The "go with the army you've got" statement was a callous remark made by the SOD to a question poised by a soldier who wanted to why they did not have enough body armor or armored Humvees. Rumsfeld, a civilian, refused to listen to the military planners--before and after military operations began.  He also quibbled over each item going to the theater of operations and forced units to improvise on the fly, instead of fighting as trained. Rumsfleds directives has lead to needless fatalities. This is documented in both Fiasco by Thomas E. Rick and Not A Good Day To Die by Sean Naylor.  I stand by my statement that the biggest mistake of the war was having Donald Rumsfled as Secertary of Defense but I'd add that listening to Paul Wolfowitz and L. Paul Bremer was equally misguided.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 20, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> When we decide to go to war, we should take time to overly-prepare.  Knowing that we cant think of every possibility, we should think of as many possibilities as we can and then get twice as many vehicles, twice as much armor, and twice as many soldiers as we think that we will need.


I see.
Then your criticism isnt founded in reality.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 20, 2007)

MasterChief said:


> At least you admit some mistakes were made.  The "go with the army you've got" statement was....


... the absolute truth.


----------



## ReillyT (Dec 20, 2007)

By what criteria do you judge if a military endeavour is well planned or badly planned?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 20, 2007)

ReillyT said:


> By what criteria do you judge if a military endeavour is well planned or badly planned?


There are many critera.  Problem is, the information necessary to judge them is often unavailable.

The outcome of the operation, or how well the operation went, or difficulties encountered in that operation, are not, alone, sufficient to judge anything.


----------



## ReillyT (Dec 20, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> There are many critera.  Problem is, the information necessary to judge them is often unavailable.
> 
> The outcome of the operation, or how well the operation went, or difficulties encountered in that operation, are not, alone, sufficient to judge anything.



I agree that the outcome of the operation is generally insufficient to judge whether a military endeavour was well or poorly planned.  But, acknowledging that one can never (or very, very rarely) have all the information, what are the main criteria by which you would judge if a military action were well or poorly planned?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 20, 2007)

ReillyT said:


> I agree that the outcome of the operation is generally insufficient to judge whether a military endeavour was well or poorly planned.


....even though that's the majority basis for the argument that the operation in Iraq was poorly planned... 


> ...But, acknowledging that one can never (or very, very rarely) have all the information, what are the main criteria by which you would judge if a military action were well or poorly planned?


Knowing that I cannot possibly have all the information necessary for such a judgement, it is -impossible- to make that judgement.


----------



## ReillyT (Dec 20, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Knowing that I cannot possibly have all the oinformation necessary for such a judgement, it is -impossible- to make that judgement.



So, in hindsight, your response to my original question "Do you think it is possible to say that any military action is better planned for than any other military action?",  your answer is "no" because one never has all the information.  Is that correct?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 20, 2007)

ReillyT said:


> So, in hindsight, your response to my original question "Do you think it is possible to say that any military action is better planned for than any other military action?",  your answer is "no" because one never has all the information.  Is that correct?


No, its quite possible to say that some are better planned than others, because alsmost necessarily, some -must- be better planned than others.

The question, oif course, is: can you determine which operations are, comparitively, better planned?

And that depends on the information you have available.

At this point, the only information available regarding Iraq is that some non-combat troops didn't have the body armor and armored vehicles normally issued only to combat troops when they found themelves in combat.  Arguing that this means the war was poorly planeed is, at best, an 'outcome of operation' judgement.


----------



## ReillyT (Dec 20, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> No, its quite possible to say that some are better planned than others, because alsmost necessarily, some -must- be better planned than others.
> 
> The question, oif course, is: can you determine which operations are, comparitively, better planned?
> 
> ...



So, with enough information (short of complete or nearly complete information - which is impossible), one can say whether a military action was well planned or poorly planned.  Sorry to harp on this, but imagining a scenario like Grenada or D-Day, what criteria do you use to determine whether an operation was well planned or poorly planned?  

It would just be easier to discuss issues like this if I knew what criteria you thought were important in making a judgement like this.


----------



## MasterChief (Dec 20, 2007)

Dr Grump said:


> apples and oranges


Allow me to enlighten you...prior to the battle of Bull Run many in the political establishment thought the War Between the States would be easy, a cake walk so to speak.  Many left Washington with pick-nick baskets to go watch the Union troops whip the rebels.  After the battle and the Union troops and the political observers retreated back into the battle works surrounding capital, they realized this war would be much harder than previously thought.

Likewise, in run up to continuing the conflict with Iraq from Gulf War I, Paul Wolfowitz and others said removing Saddam would be easy and American troops would be greeted as liberators. The common politcal preconception's turned out to be overly optimistic just like those politcal views prior to the battle of Bull Run.  In both cases, the actual conflict turned out to be much harder than the politicians thought. 

War is ugly, bloody, and painful: whether it be in the times of Sun Tzu, Alexander the Great or Tommy Franks. The lessons are the same. So don't discount what was learned in another conflict to easily. War is the use of organized violence to impose the state's will on another state, or to defend the state from having another state's will impose on them.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 20, 2007)

ReillyT said:


> So, with enough information (short of complete or nearly complete information - which is impossible), one can say whether a military action was well planned or poorly planned.


I would think so, yes.
After all, results only say so much.



> Sorry to harp on this, but imagining a scenario like Grenada or D-Day, what criteria do you use to determine whether an operation was well planned or poorly planned?


You would have to see the plans themselves, especially in terms of what they expected to face and how they planned to deal with it.  You'd also need to see what forces were available, their state of supply, etc.

Then, you'd take the information you have, and apply to them both the principles of war and the thrreads of continutiy to see if they held to thoe principles.

I knew Montgomery couldn't take Caen on D-day or D-plus-10.
And I said so.


----------



## mattskramer (Dec 20, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> I see.
> Then your criticism isnt founded in reality.



How is it not?  It is possible.


----------



## ReillyT (Dec 20, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Youw woudl have to see the plans themselves, especially in terms of what they expected to face and how they planned to deal with it.  You'd also need to see what forces were available, their state of supply, etc.
> 
> Then, you'd take the information you have, and apply to them both the principles of war and the thrreads of continutiy to see if they held to thoe principles.
> 
> ...



By what criteria do you judge a plan?  For instance, if the plan envisioned taking objective A on day 3, but objective A wasn't captured until day 8, does that mean it was a bad plan?  Was it necessarily poorly drawn up, executed, etc.?  Did something necessarily go wrong (assuming events mid-stream didn't change objectives)?

If not meeting the objectives as envisioned isn't the criteria, then what is the criteria for judging a plan, or troop levels, or troop readiness, or anything else?  How do we know if a plan or state of readiness was insufficient or poorly designed?

Sorry.  That is a lot of questions.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 20, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> How is it not?  It is possible.


Its possoible to say, sure.

But "Plan for everything you can think of and then double what you think need' isnt possible in reality.

See, in reality, you have limits, limits that cannot be ignored or moved at the wave of a hand or dimissed by simply saying that 'we are the most powerful nation in the world'.  No matter how hard you try, some things just can't be done, for any number of reasons, many of which are quite often completely out of your control.

There isnt a military planner, through the course of recorded history, that would not have LOVED to be able to 'figure out what you need and double it'.  Few, if any at all, have ever had the luxury to be able to do that.

If you knew -anything- about military planning, you'd understand.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 20, 2007)

ReillyT said:


> By what criteria do you judge a plan?  For instance, if the plan envisioned taking objective A on day 3, but objective A wasn't captured until day 8, does that mean it was a bad plan?  Was it necessarily poorly drawn up, executed, etc.?  Did something necessarily go wrong (assuming events mid-stream didn't change objectives)?


I think I addressed this.

And, as you agreed, outcome-of-operation isnt, in and of itself, a valid criteria.

Two things are certain in war:
-The enemy rarely will do what you expect, and never what you want, them to do;
-No OPLAN ever survives initial contact.


----------



## maineman (Dec 20, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Its possoible to say, sure.
> 
> But "Plan for everything you can think of and then double what you think need' isnt possible in reality.
> 
> ...



I know enough about the sorts of contingency plans that the Pentagon has always wasted its time on to KNOW that they certainly have enough manpower (if not civilian brainpower) to have planned for the contingency that shiites, who, while in the minority, had been brutally subjegated by sunni baathists, would, when Saddam was gone, not want to play nice with the now leader-less sunni minority.


----------



## ReillyT (Dec 20, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> I think I addressed this.
> 
> And, as you agreed, outcome-of-operation isnt, in and of itself, a valid criteria.
> 
> ...



I agree that outcome is insufficient, and I have my own criteria for how I judge these endeavours which is basically the same as I judge all endeavours.  I am just wondering how you judge these endeavours.  

Taking a step back from actual military operations (tactics) and looking at strategies, assuming you had all the information you could want, and assuming that the US planned an occupation of Iraq (for at least 2 years at a minimum in this hypothetical) how would you judge if we sent an adequate number of troops to control Iraq post-invasion?  What are the criteria that you would use to make this judgment - acknowledging that outcome is only one factor?  What information is necessary to you in order to make this judgement?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 20, 2007)

ReillyT said:


> Taking a step back from actual military operations (tactics) and looking at strategies, assuming you had all the information you could want, and assuming that the US planned an occupation of Iraq (for at least 2 years at a minimum in this hypothetical) how would you judge if we sent an adequate number of troops to control Iraq post-invasion?  What are those criteria - acknowledging that outcome is only one factor?  What information is necessary to make this judgement?


I havent a clue.  See, I know I know a lot.  I know there are things I don't know.  And there are things I don't know I don't know.  I'd need to know all these things.

One of the things I -do- know is that, long term, its very hard to predict what an adversary will do, to the level that, two years before he does it, you can make sure you have the right equipment in the right place at the right time.  No one has that sort of foresight, and it rather to silly to argue that someone should.


----------



## ReillyT (Dec 20, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> I havent a clue.  See, I know I know a lot.  I know there are things I don't know.  And there are things I don't know I don't know.  I'd need to know all these things.
> 
> One of the things I -do- know is that, long term, its very hard to predict what an adversary will do, to the level that, two years before he does it, you can make sure you have the right equipment in the right place at the right time.  No one has that sort of foresight, and it rather to silly to argue that someone should.



Okay, I can buy that.  Depending on the scenario, I might disagree whether someone should have the foresight to prepare for things sufficiently ahead of time, but as long as you are consistent in how you apply your metric... I can buy it.  Considering your standards, I can see why you choose not to opine on something like the Bay of Pigs (not a slight by the way, I can respect your viewpoint).


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 20, 2007)

ReillyT said:


> Okay, I can buy that.  Depending on the scenario, I might disagree whether someone should have the foresight to prepare for things sufficiently ahead of time, but as long as you are consistent in how you apply your metric... I can buy it.  Considering your standards, I can see why you choose not to opine on something like the Bay of Pigs (not a slight by the way, I can respect your viewpoint).


Fair enough.

Just for the record...
Its my understanding that the Bay of Pigs failed, in large, part, due to a lack of support from the US, primarily in the form of airpower.  This wasnt a fault in the planning, its was a fault in the decision to not provide the air support that was planned.

In that, if the failure was due to the lack of air support, and that support was lacking because of a decision to not send it, then the fault, so far as that goes, lies with the person that decided to not send the air support.  the planning itself may have been perfect, but, obviously, if a principle part of the plan is deliberately held back, you cannot fault the plan (or the planners).


----------



## ReillyT (Dec 20, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> Just for the record...
> Its my understanding that the Bay of Pigs failed, in large, part, due to a lack of support from the US, primarily in the form of airpower.  This wasnt a fault in the planning, its was a fault in the decision to not provide the air support that was planned.
> ...




But maybe we can't fault the person who decided not to send air support either - unless we know why exactly they didn't send the air support. Maybe there were political considerations, maybe information was held up,  maybe faulty information was passed along...?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 20, 2007)

ReillyT said:


> But maybe we can't fault the person who decided not to send air support either


Well, at least part of the reason it failed was because of him.
He may have had good reson, he may not have, but that's why it failed.

IF an effort fails because of an external decision to hold back an element of a plan, you cant (necessarily) blame poor planning for the failure.


----------



## ReillyT (Dec 20, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Well, at least part of the reason it failed was because of him.
> He may have had good reson, he may not have, but that's why it failed.
> 
> IF an effort fails because of an external decision to hold back an element of a plan, you cant (necessarily) blame poor planning for the failure.



Well, to the extent we have the information, we know it may have failed because there wasn't air support.  Perhaps a downed phone line or typo was responsible for that (or something else we have no idea about), so Mr. X (whose identity we don't know) shouldn't be blamed on suppositions.

I think I like this approach.

However, you are right that if this is what occurred, one shouldn't blame the planners - although I still personally believe in the "buck stops here" approach, so I will continue to blame Kennedy.  I say tomato, You say... tomato (damn it if it isn't spelled the same).


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 20, 2007)

ReillyT said:


> Well, to the extent we have the information, we know it may (b/c we can't be sure of the alternate outcome) have failed because there wasn't air support.  Perhaps a downed phone line or typo was responsible for that (or something else we have no idea about), so Mr. X (whose identity we don't know) shouldn't be blamed on suppositions.


No, from what I understand, there was a decision was to not send the aircraft.



> However, you are right that if this is what occurred, one shouldn't blame the planners - although I still personally believe in the "buck stops here" approach, so I will continue to blame Kennedy.


I doubt the airpower was withheld w/o his approval.


----------



## mattskramer (Dec 20, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Its possoible to say, sure.
> 
> But "Plan for everything you can think of and then double what you think need' isnt possible in reality.
> 
> ...



Here is a real life example of what I mean by thinking of as many possibilities as you can and then giving yourself twice as much coverage as you had originally planned for.

My wife and I wanted to go to the Texas State Fair a few months ago.   I havent been to a fair in decades. I thought that I had considered all possibilities.  I considered how long it would take to reach the fair.  I thought about the price for tickets.  I thought about the price for food.  I considered other variables and finally I expected that the trip and amusements would cost $100.  We took $200 from our bank account.  We then decided, even at that price, that it would be worth it to get away for a while.

Well, I made some wrong turns so it took more gasoline than expected.  Then, I forgot that it cast money to park your car near the fair.  I didnt realize how much the price for amusements cost.   My wife wanted to play more games at the Midway arcade than I had anticipated.  We ate more than I thought that we would and food cost more than I expected.

The gross expense for the trip and its amusements and return home cost $178.00.  We came home with $22.00 left over that we put back into the bank. 

See?  That is all there is to it.  My idea, though it might not have been taught or tried militarily, is not impossible.  It simply asks the question:  Would this particular endeavor (visit to the fair, war in Iraq, etc.) be worth the cost we should spend to make sure that as many possibilities as we can think of are accounted for?

Wars should not be played on the cheap.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 20, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> Here is a real life example of what I mean by thinking of as many possibilities as you can and then giving yourself twice as much coverage as you had originally planned for.
> 
> My wife and I wanted to go to the Texas State Fair a few months ago....


Dude...  
Even the smallest miltary operation is FAR more complicated than your trip to Texas.  At this point, its pretty clear you are neither listening nor hearing.


----------



## mattskramer (Dec 20, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Dude...
> Even the smallest miltary operation is FAR more complicated than your trip to Texas.  At this point, its pretty clear you are neither listening nor hearing.



The same principle applies.  Instead of cars, we use tanks and jets.  Instead of a few hundred dollars, we are working with several billion dollars. Instead of a day, we are talking about several years.  Yet, the same principle applies.  Plan ahead, think of as many possible problems that might arise, consider the cost to defend against those possibilities, and then, just to be safe, double the price.  Then decide if it is worth it.

Yes.  War is more complicated than is a vacation trip.  There would be more things to consider, but the principle is the same.


----------



## Warner (Dec 21, 2007)

First off lets be reasonable.  There is no way military planners can account for "every" possibility.  There must be some limits of reasonability.  And sometimes unreasonable things may occur.

For example, in the War of 1812 the British defeated the Colonial defenders in Washington and burned the city.  The operation was well planned and succeeded.  However, there was no planning to protect the victorious British army from the HUGE TORNADO (perhaps more than one) that set down while the British troops were setting fire to the city.

http://www.afweather.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123042444

The end result was a serious defeat which probably reduced British strength sufficiently to allow the American victory at Baltimore which effectively won the war.

There is simply no planning for such things.

-----------------------------------

As for the Bay of Pigs fiasco - the CIA planned that OP, but they were unable to keep the lid on it.  The Russian's and therefore the Cuban's were ready for it.  Airpower might have made a difference, but the Soviet's were prepared with a response (in another part of the world) should JFK have decided to commit US airpower to that fight.

The plan was weak in that it depended on tight security while also depending on foreigners (the Cuban "freedom fighters").

----------------------------------

Finally, getting back to the meat of this topic, the Iraq war was ill conceived not because GWB had a bad plan for war but because he had a foolish plan for peace.  His assumption that the majority of Iraqi's would stand up for freedom and embrace a Western-style democracy was pure stupidity.

What amazes me is GHB clearly knew what invading and occupying Iraq would mean, and thus chose not to invade in the Gulf war.  Every reason he gave for not doing so has come to pass in under his son's invasion.

The war is unwinnable because the goals are unrealistic.  We must change our goals or be defeated.  At this point our primary goal should be to secure oil to pay for this fiasco, and to keep Iran from becoming the defacto ruler of Iraq.


----------



## jillian (Dec 21, 2007)

Except that if you read Daddy Bush's book, you'll know that in this case they DID know. 

So, while I agree that not every contingency can be provided for, when your State Department reports predict pretty much exactly what happened (and I say pretty much because I'm going by what the elder Bush said and haven't read it myself) then there's really no excuse besides incompetence to fail to provide for the known factors. So, even if one agrees with the initial action, one still has to acknowledge the failure of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld.

They should have at least listened to Colin Powell if they were going to proceed.


----------



## Warner (Dec 22, 2007)

Yes the fact that GHB clearly knew what invading and occupying Iraq would mean shows that GWB was a fool to do so.  I've tried to find the exact quote of Senior Bush's position on why he didn't invade but had no luck (limited time here).

This is why I believe President Bush Jr. will be remembered as the worst President the USA has ever had.

Effectively, GWB has given Bin Ladin the victory he sought - the destruction of America


----------



## tigerbob (Dec 22, 2007)

Warner said:


> Yes the fact that GHB clearly knew what invading and occupying Iraq would mean shows that GWB was a fool to do so.  I've tried to find the exact quote of Senior Bush's position on why he didn't invade but had no luck (limited time here).
> 
> This is why I believe President Bush Jr. will be remembered as the worst President the USA has ever had.
> 
> Effectively, GWB has given Bin Ladin the victory he sought - the destruction of America



Broadly agree, but to say GWB is responsible for destroying America is a bit glib isn't it?  He has harmed America's credibility globally, but that hardly amounts to destruction.


----------



## mattskramer (Dec 22, 2007)

Warner said:


> Yes the fact that GHB clearly knew what invading and occupying Iraq would mean shows that GWB was a fool to do so.  I've tried to find the exact quote of Senior Bush's position on why he didn't invade but had no luck (limited time here).
> 
> This is why I believe President Bush Jr. will be remembered as the worst President the USA has ever had.
> 
> Effectively, GWB has given Bin Ladin the victory he sought - the destruction of America



That rhetoric is a little bit extreme, isnt it?  I doubt that Bush fully understood what he was doing.  He is a clumsy war hawk who didnt sufficiently consider the consequences of his invasion of Iraq.  He didnt even make sure that throughout the war the soldiers had more than enough armor. He didnt even check on the hospitals before having us go to war.  Simple steps that I think should be obvious precautions.  

Yet, GWB did not destroy America.  America is not destroyed.   America is still one of the greatest nations  but with a clumsy and careless leader.


----------



## MasterChief (Dec 22, 2007)

Warner said:


> This is why I believe President Bush Jr. will be remembered as the worst President the USA has ever had.


You must be too young to remember the Carter Administration.


----------



## maineman (Dec 22, 2007)

MasterChief said:


> You must be too young to remember the Carter Administration.




Carter was a smart guy and well meaning.  Big difference.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 22, 2007)

maineman said:


> Carter was a smart guy and well meaning.  Big difference.



Sure thing, you would support Pol Pot if he were a democrat.


----------



## MasterChief (Dec 22, 2007)

maineman said:


> Carter was a smart guy and well meaning.  Big difference.


I did not questioning his IQ and had him for visiting prof' at Emory.  But even Carter admitted that he was taking the country in the wrong direction in a class discussion.  Having lived through his administration, I remember his Presidency very well and there is good reason why he was a one term president.  Well meaning but completely ineffective.  His "well meaning" policies brought us the Ayatollah Khomeini--but I doubt you were even born then, otherwise you wouldn't say what you said. So live with the myth, while folks like RetireGyStg and me clean up your mess.


----------



## tigerbob (Dec 22, 2007)

maineman said:


> Carter was a smart guy and well meaning.  Big difference.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents

Carter doesn't come out particularly well in the average scholar rankings of US Presidents.  At =28th, he's currently six places lower than GWB.  

And on the individual poll rankings, JC only cracks the top 20 once.  Carter also fails to make the top 10 among historians who describe themselves as liberals. Among conservatives, he's at the lower end of the scale (one place above Nixon).

It remains to be seen whether GWB's current 22nd place will stand the test of time.  It's only based on the aggregation of 2 polls currently, so I'd guess not.



Actually, I've just noticed that the further you scroll down that page, the worse the Bush adminisration looks.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 22, 2007)

MasterChief said:


> I did not questioning his IQ and had him for visiting prof' at Emory.  But even Carter admitted that he was taking the country in the wrong direction in a class discussion.  Having lived through his administration, I remember his Presidency very well and there is good reason why he was a one term president.  Well meaning but completely ineffective.  His "well meaning" policies brought us the Ayatollah Khomeini--but I doubt you were even born then, otherwise you wouldn't say what you said. So live with the myth, while folks like RetireGyStg and me clean up your mess.



Careful or Nancy will start claiming your a teenage pimple faced kid and no vet.


----------



## maineman (Dec 22, 2007)

MasterChief said:


> I did not questioning his IQ and had him for visiting prof' at Emory.  But even Carter admitted that he was taking the country in the wrong direction in a class discussion.  Having lived through his administration, I remember his Presidency very well and there is good reason why he was a one term president.  Well meaning but completely ineffective.  His "well meaning" policies brought us the Ayatollah Khomeini--but I doubt you were even born then, otherwise you wouldn't say what you said. So live with the myth, while folks like RetireGyStg and me clean up your mess.



Carter's policies did not bring us the Ayatollah... the policies of American presidents ever since Dulles and the CIA brought down Mossadegh in '53 did.

And I was alive then.  What was your rating Masterchief?


----------



## maineman (Dec 22, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Careful or Nancy will start claiming your a teenage pimple faced kid and no vet.



how is the acne coming along?  wash your face more often and quit giving oral sex to sheep and it might improve, dipstick.


----------



## maineman (Dec 22, 2007)

tigerbob said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents
> 
> Carter doesn't come out particularly well in the average scholar rankings of US Presidents.  At =28th, he's currently six places lower than GWB.
> 
> ...



George Bush can't even pronounce NUKE-YOU-LER let alone run a nuclear power plant.


----------



## tigerbob (Dec 23, 2007)

maineman said:


> George Bush can't even pronounce NUKE-YOU-LER let alone run a nuclear power plant.



Yes, I've heard that criticism several times.  It's funny but, to be honest, I really don't care how he pronounces nuclear.  In one way, it's rather like saying that FDR shouldn't have been President because he was in a wheelchair.  It has nothing to do with anything in my book.  

I prefer to judge him on his record.  20 years from now, what will his pronunciation matter?


----------



## trobinett (Dec 23, 2007)

tigerbob said:


> Yes, I've heard that criticism several times.  It's funny but, to be honest, I really don't care how he pronounces nuclear.  In one way, it's rather like saying that FDR shouldn't have been President because he was in a wheelchair.  It has nothing to do with anything in my book.
> 
> I prefer to judge him on his record.  20 years from now, what will his pronunciation matter?



Careful there tigerbob, reasoned response, and the talking heads for the left don't mix well.


----------



## maineman (Dec 23, 2007)

tigerbob said:


> Yes, I've heard that criticism several times.  It's funny but, to be honest, I really don't care how he pronounces nuclear.  In one way, it's rather like saying that FDR shouldn't have been President because he was in a wheelchair.  It has nothing to do with anything in my book.
> 
> I prefer to judge him on his record.  20 years from now, what will his pronunciation matter?



And of course his pronunciation of words is not my beef with Bush... I was clearly being sarcastic and comparing Carter's nuclear power background with Bush's rather mediocre history.  

I think that history will judge his invasion if Iraq as the single worst foreign policy decision ever made by a head of state in the modern era....but clearly, we'll have to wait and see.


----------



## Gunny (Dec 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> George Bush can't even pronounce NUKE-YOU-LER let alone run a nuclear power plant.



Sure he can.  It's you Yankee folk that talk funny.  Must be all that snow.


----------



## CSM (Dec 24, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> Sure he can.  It's you Yankee folk that talk funny.  Must be all that snow.



It isn't we Yankees that talk funny!


----------



## tigerbob (Dec 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> And of course his pronunciation of words is not my beef with Bush... I was clearly being sarcastic and comparing Carter's nuclear power background with Bush's rather mediocre history.
> 
> I think that history will judge his invasion if Iraq as the single worst foreign policy decision ever made by a head of state in the modern era....but clearly, we'll have to wait and see.



My bad - I'm not familiar with Carter's nuclear power background so I didn't get your point.  I was fairly young during the Carter administration.

I know you probably won't agree, but I think the removal of Saddam was the right thing.  But I also think the aftermath was very badly handled, and that will probably be what Bush is remembered for in terms of his foreign policy, rightly or wrongly.

I would have preferred it to have been left to the UN.  Being British, I don't have to look very hard to see the damage that has been done in many cases by the 'British Empire' meddling in the internal affairs of other countries that it did not or could not really understand (or perhaps that it chose to ignore for selfish reasons).  In cases like this, a lot can be learned from history.

That said, how long do people have to suffer before the activities of the UN actually achieve anything positive?


----------



## Warner (Dec 24, 2007)

MasterChief said:


> You must be too young to remember the Carter Administration.



Carter got a raw deal.  He came in on the fair and honesty ticket and was immediately hit with the Iran revolution and hostage situation.  Oil prices shot up further damaging an economy that was already weakened by the debt accumulated in the VN war.  His Presidency was never able to get out from under these two issues.  What could he have done differently?

=========================



tigerbob said:


> Broadly agree, but to say GWB is responsible for destroying America is a bit glib isn't it?  He has harmed America's credibility globally, but that hardly amounts to destruction.





mattskramer said:


> That rhetoric is a little bit extreme, isnt it?  I doubt that Bush fully understood what he was doing.  He is a clumsy war hawk who didnt sufficiently consider the consequences...
> 
> Yet, GWB did not destroy America.  America is not destroyed.   America is still one of the greatest nations  but with a clumsy and careless leader.



Both the ideal and the reality of America have been put in jepardy by GWB's actions:

1) The war debt, which will probably reach TWO TRILLION DOLLARS puts every American, especially the young, in serious economic danger.  In a new world economy where we will actually have to compete we will be also servicing this huge debt.  This alone may destroy America as a dominant world power within the next 50 years.

2) The USA is conceptually about freedom and civil liberties.  Both have been seriously eroded under this Administration!  Habius Corpus and the fundamental right to privacy have both been virtually eliminated under the Bush Presidency.

3)  Our Standing in the world as a country that believes in and upholds the rule of law has been totally destroyed.

4) Power has been transfered from the public to corporations without regard for the interests of the people.  You may not realize it but the right of the private individual to declare bankruptcy has been pretty much eliminated, yet corporations are still allowed to declare bankruptcy and their principals are for the most part not held accountable no matter how corrupt their behavior.  When they are held accountable, the penalties are minimal and the wrong doing has still paid off for them.

5) The power of the Presidency has been abused to the point of eliminating checks and balances.  If you read our constitution and the federalist papers upon which it is founded it is absolutely clear that congress has a responsibilty to impeach President Bush for the Libby commutation.  THIS IS SPECIFICALLY WHAT IMPEACHMENT IS FOR - it is not supposed to be used to ruin a Presidency over a blow-job, it is supposed to be used when a President uses executive powers to block investigation of his office when criminal behavior is suspected. The mis-use of "pardons and commutations" is specifically cited as when a President should be impeached!

Bin-Ladin's goal was to destroy the American way of life.  GWB's actions threaten to accomplish this goal.

This is why I believe President Bush will in fact be remembered as the worst President in US history and may even have effectively destroyed this country.  It will continue to exist, but may never recover economically or politically from the damage this man has done.


----------



## Annie (Dec 24, 2007)

Warner said:


> Carter got a raw deal.  He came in on the fair and honesty ticket and was immediately hit with the Iran revolution and hostage situation.  Oil prices shot up further damaging an economy that was already weakened by the debt accumulated in the VN war.  His Presidency was never able to get out from under these two issues.  What could he have done differently?


 Actually the hostages were taken November 4, 1979, well into his 3rd year in office. The gas hikes were not Iran, but rather OPEC. The Carter response to the energy crisis and general inflation was to increase Federal spending and slapping price caps on, needless to say that made things much worse. Then keeping with his theme of poor leadership, he came up with 'The Malaise Speech.' quite possibly the very worst speech by a "leader" of our country.





> =========================
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 That would be Habeas Corpus and where has that been eliminated from US citizens? How has your right to privacy been eliminated? Oh I know, the Patriot Act. How have you been effected? There are potential problems with it, I agree. I've yet to see the 'elimination of rights though. 





> 3)  Our Standing in the world as a country that believes in and upholds the rule of law has been totally destroyed.


 Guess you missed those remarks by Sarkozy, Merkel, Brown? 





> 4) Power has been transfered from the public to corporations without regard for the interests of the people.  You may not realize it but the right of the private individual to declare bankruptcy has been pretty much eliminated, yet corporations are still allowed to declare bankruptcy and their principals are for the most part not held accountable no matter how corrupt their behavior.  When they are held accountable, the penalties are minimal and the wrong doing has still paid off for them.


 That the rules of bankruptcy were tightened, was not a bad thing, which is why Congress, not the president decided it was time to change that legislation. 





> 5) The power of the Presidency has been abused to the point of eliminating checks and balances.  If you read our constitution and the federalist papers upon which it is founded it is absolutely clear that congress has a responsibilty to impeach President Bush for the Libby commutation.  THIS IS SPECIFICALLY WHAT IMPEACHMENT IS FOR - it is not supposed to be used to ruin a Presidency over a blow-job, it is supposed to be used when a President uses executive powers to block investigation of his office when criminal behavior is suspected. The mis-use of "pardons and commutations" is specifically cited as when a President should be impeached!
> 
> Bin-Ladin's goal was to destroy the American way of life.  GWB's actions threaten to accomplish this goal.
> 
> This is why I believe President Bush will in fact be remembered as the worst President in US history and may even have effectively destroyed this country.  It will continue to exist, but may never recover economically or politically from the damage this man has done.



Oh wow, for a bit there you seemed to have some good points, then BLAM, total BDS. Gee that poor Congress, not able to override a veto. Then again, GW can't get his appointees through either. What was that? Oh yeah, checks and balances. Libby's commutation? LOL! That's a specified power of governmental executives, your governor may also wield that sort of power. Yeah, there were the outrage of such, just like the Clinton pardons. Power is power.


----------



## steeliniraq (Dec 25, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> Is anyone willing to say that Bush should have at least inspected the hospitals before he had us go to war?  Can you say that there is anything that you think would be obvious that Bush should have done differently?  (Im not talking about hindsight being 20/20. Im talking about foresight that would make you think that Bush jumped into war too quickly.) Would anyone say something along these lines, Wow?  You screwed up here. Didnt it ever dawn on you that this action would be more appropriate?   - or do all pro-Bush and Pro-Iraq people think that all of Bushs decisions throughout the war in Iraq to this point were reasonable and well-planned-out.



LOL did we take a look at our hospitals before we went to war with Germany, Japan, and Italy in WW2?  Did Clinton look at our hospitals before we went into Somolia?  What kind of dumb comment is that?  If your point is Bush didn't do everything right then I agree with you.  But the approach you took is not very well thoughtout.  Are you implying that before every war we ever fight we need to make sure we have the best support system before defending ourselves or in this case invading?  I can see it now Time out Japan and Germany we aren't quite ready for this war come back in 10-15 years when we are.  Sometimes wars can't wait and must happen in the now without everything being perfect.  Bush and his guys along with 82% of America thought that 2003 was the time.  Did he and his guys do everything right?  Hell no, but honestly just like you said we have 20/20 hindsight now.  

I think instead of crying about the past or pointing fingers at everyone we figure out how to win this thing and get it done with.


----------



## tigerbob (Dec 25, 2007)

Warner said:


> 3)  Our Standing in the world as a country that believes in and upholds the rule of law has been totally destroyed.
> 
> .....................
> 
> This is why I believe President Bush will in fact be remembered as the worst President in US history and may even have effectively destroyed this country.  It will continue to exist, but may never recover economically or politically from the damage this man has done.



Kathianne has already answered your questions as well as or better than I could (on those questions I would feel competent to address).  I would just add observations in the above area though.

The USA's standing has not been destroyed, though it has been damaged.  The world still looks to the US for a degree of leadership.  To be sure, there is huge mistrust of GWB, rightly or wrongly, but the new administration will have the opportunity to win back a lot of that lost trust.

You made a point about freedom and civil liberties, and I agree with you to a point.  But this is essentially the basis on which the US went to war in the first place and I believe this point is too often glossed over by those who are depressed or argry about the outcome, be it in terms of the human cost, financial outlay or political capital.

Freedom is somethig many of us take for granted.  Freedom is not a right in everyone's eyes, and it frequently requires that a price be paid.


----------



## Warner (Dec 25, 2007)

Warner said:


> Carter got a raw deal.  He came in on the fair and honesty ticket and was immediately hit with the Iran revolution and hostage situation.  Oil prices shot up further damaging an economy that was already weakened by the debt accumulated in the VN war.  His Presidency was never able to get out from under these two issues.  What could he have done differently?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I will agree with you - Carter was not a good president.  I was simply trying to point out that he inherited so much baggage that he was unable to function in the way he had intended.

=========================



Warner said:


> Both the ideal and the reality of America have been put in jepardy by GWB's actions:
> 
> 1) The war debt, which will probably reach TWO TRILLION DOLLARS puts every American, especially the young, in serious economic danger.  In a new world economy where we will actually have to compete we will be also servicing this huge debt.  This alone may destroy America as a dominant world power within the next 50 years.



No comment on this one Kat?  This alone is by far the biggest reason I believe Bush will be remembered as the worst President in US history and what may cause the decline of America's super-power position.



Warner said:


> 2) The USA is conceptually about freedom and civil liberties.  Both have been seriously eroded under this Administration!  Habius Corpus and the fundamental right to privacy have both been virtually eliminated under the Bush Presidency.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



US citizens have been detained without receiving their Constitutional rights under the PA.  Some have been held for over a year without access to council or even being charged with specific crimes.  Under the PA the Administration can declare anyone an enemy and deny them their rights.  That it has only happened in a few instances is irrelevant when considering an absolute right of citizenship.



Kathianne said:


> How has your right to privacy been eliminated? Oh I know, the Patriot Act. How have you been effected? There are potential problems with it, I agree. I've yet to see the 'elimination of rights though.



You apparently have no idea the depth of the data mining that is going on in our country right now.  Virtually every phone call, every email, and every transaction is recorded for immediate or future analysis.  Cameras are appearing throughout our cities and the video is being stored and mined.  Within a few years (if not already) virtually all movements of everyone will be on record.



Warner said:


> 3)  Our Standing in the world as a country that believes in and upholds the rule of law has been totally destroyed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sarkozy - The French economy is stalled and this is just his way of trying to jump start it.  It has nothing to do with our standing with the French.  We will see where this will lead but I have little faith in the French.  None of our allies in Afghanistan have really put out.  Spend a little time there and you will see that the USA does all the hard/dangerous work there.

Merkel - she is choosing what she considers the lesser of 2 evils.  She realizes that China is the real threat to the West both economically and militarily.  Again, this does not represent any kind of improvement in America's standing with Germany.

Brown -  I assume you mean Gordon Brown?  The Brits have been more or less with us from the start.  His statements about Afghanistan are pure propoganda BS.  Things are perhaps better in Afghanistan than in Iraq, but the situation is declining not improving.



Warner said:


> 4) Power has been transfered from the public to corporations without regard for the interests of the people.  You may not realize it but the right of the private individual to declare bankruptcy has been pretty much eliminated, yet corporations are still allowed to declare bankruptcy and their principals are for the most part not held accountable no matter how corrupt their behavior.  When they are held accountable, the penalties are minimal and the wrong doing has still paid off for them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



President Bush was very much behind this legislation.

The bankruptcy rules were changed in 2005 by a congress in the pockets of big business - in particular big banks.  The problem with the change in the bankruptcy rules is that it only effects individuals.  Corporations can still duck their debt by filing for bankruptcy, but individuals cannot.

Furthermore, it puts all the responsibility for credit on the borrower.  The banks should be responsible in how they lend and not extend unreasonable amounts of credit to those insufficient means.  This change is just the end of a cycle of changes which have set up a future disaster for the American public.  First the maximum interest that could be charged was increased from 18.5% to 22.5% to 29.5% and today I believe it is something like 32%.  The basis for increasing an existing interest rate was also changed from late payments on the account in question to late payments on ANY BILL you might owe.  Thus if the paper boy reports you were late paying him your credit card company may be able to bump your rate from 8% to 29% or even higher.  Not only that but no requirement of proof of the legitimacy of the claimed late payment is required.  There have been cases of Newspapers that were not ordered being delivered and when payment was not made the credit card company bumped up the interest rate.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander!  If individuals are not allowed to escape from a debt load they cannot repay then corporations should not be able to do so either.  Of course the only way to accomplish this would be to make the shareholders liable for such debts... ya right I can see that happening!

I can agree the bankruptcy rules needed to be adjusted to prevent intentional abuse, but what has happened is to create a situation where if the country goes into recession many people will be utterly destroyed when they can no longer pay their debts and the creditors can attach whatever meager sources of income they might have.  The result is these people will end up on the street.[/QUOTE]



Warner said:


> 5) The power of the Presidency has been abused to the point of eliminating checks and balances.  If you read our constitution and the federalist papers upon which it is founded it is absolutely clear that congress has a responsibilty to impeach President Bush for the Libby commutation.  THIS IS SPECIFICALLY WHAT IMPEACHMENT IS FOR - it is not supposed to be used to ruin a Presidency over a blow-job, it is supposed to be used when a President uses executive powers to block investigation of his office when criminal behavior is suspected. The mis-use of "pardons and commutations" is specifically cited as when a President should be impeached!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There is a huge difference between the Clinton pardons and Bush's commutation of Libby's sentence.  None of Clinton's pardons (or commutations) could be construed to have been done to protect the Whitehouse from investigation.  The Libby commutation clearly does so.

If you read the Constitution and the Federalist papers, particularly those authored by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, you will see that the one place where the President's right to exercise his power to pardon or commute sentences is impeachment.  Furthermore it is clear that the use of pardons or commutations to block investigations preliminary to impeachment are themselves grounds for impeachment!

How can the system work if the President is able to shut down all investigation?

Personally I don't really care if Bush is or is not impeached, however there is a principal to be considered here - is the President above the law?

Just how many of our principals can we give up before we find we have in fact given up our freedoms?


----------



## Annie (Dec 25, 2007)

Warner said:


> I will agree with you - Carter was not a good president.  I was simply trying to point out that he inherited so much baggage that he was unable to function in the way he had intended.


 and I pointed out the problems weren't 'inherited', rather of his own making and/or handling.





> =========================
> 
> 
> 
> No comment on this one Kat?  This alone is by far the biggest reason I believe Bush will be remembered as the worst President in US history and what may cause the decline of America's super-power position.


 Nope, I don't comment on what I agree with in a rebuttal. Do you? 





> US citizens have been detained without receiving their Constitutional rights under the PA.  Some have been held for over a year without access to council or even being charged with specific crimes.  Under the PA the Administration can declare anyone an enemy and deny them their rights.  That it has only happened in a few instances is irrelevant when considering an absolute right of citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> You apparently have no idea the depth of the data mining that is going on in our country right now.  Virtually every phone call, every email, and every transaction is recorded for immediate or future analysis.  Cameras are appearing throughout our cities and the video is being stored and mined.  Within a few years (if not already) virtually all movements of everyone will be on record.


 Yes, I do. Are you aware that it's always been such? They may be holding onto transmission tapes longer, but the NSA has always had the ability to do such.

Cameras are for the most part a local issue. Not so big in my area of Chicago suburbs, huge in the city, but then again, they are issuing tickets based on them. 





> Sarkozy - The French economy is stalled and this is just his way of trying to jump start it.  It has nothing to do with our standing with the French.  We will see where this will lead but I have little faith in the French.  None of our allies in Afghanistan have really put out.  Spend a little time there and you will see that the USA does all the hard/dangerous work there.
> 
> Merkel - she is choosing what she considers the lesser of 2 evils.  She realizes that China is the real threat to the West both economically and militarily.  Again, this does not represent any kind of improvement in America's standing with Germany.
> 
> Brown -  I assume you mean Gordon Brown?  The Brits have been more or less with us from the start.  His statements about Afghanistan are pure propoganda BS.  Things are perhaps better in Afghanistan than in Iraq, but the situation is declining not improving.


 I disagree with all of the above analysis, with the generalization of GB. As I've got to get going on dinner, I'll have to return to this later. 





> President Bush was very much behind this legislation.
> 
> The bankruptcy rules were changed in 2005 by a congress in the pockets of big business - in particular big banks.  The problem with the change in the bankruptcy rules is that it only effects individuals.  Corporations can still duck their debt by filing for bankruptcy, but individuals cannot.
> 
> ...


 Actually, while he signed it in 2005, it was 8 years in the making.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7575010/

_Bush signs tougher
bankruptcy bill into law
Legislation makes it difficult
for Americans to fully wipe out debts

Larry Downing / Reuters
President Bush shakes hands with co-sponsors of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. The act of Congress I sign today will protect those who legitimately need help, stop those who try to commit fraud and bring greater stability and fairness to our financial system, Bush said.

updated 3:58 p.m. CT, Wed., April. 20, 2005

WASHINGTON - President Bush signed the biggest rewrite of U.S. bankruptcy law in a quarter century on Wednesday, making it harder for debt-ridden Americans to wipe out their obligations.

Bankruptcy should always be a last resort in our legal system, Bush said. If someone does not pay his or her debts the rest of society ends up paying them.

Many debtors will have to work out repayment plans instead of having their obligations erased in bankruptcy court under the law, which will go into effect in six months. The 500-page legislation won final congressional approval last week after being pushed for eight years by banks and credit card companies_.​


> There is a huge difference between the Clinton pardons and Bush's commutation of Libby's sentence.  None of Clinton's pardons (or commutations) could be construed to have been done to protect the Whitehouse from investigation.  The Libby commutation clearly does so.


 No it didn't, he was convicted, the time for deal making was over. 





> If you read the Constitution and the Federalist papers, particularly those authored by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, you will see that the one place where the President's right to exercise his power to pardon or commute sentences is impeachment.  Furthermore it is clear that the use of pardons or commutations to block investigations preliminary to impeachment are themselves grounds for impeachment!
> 
> How can the system work if the President is able to shut down all investigation?
> 
> ...



I've read the Federalist Papers several times, I teach Constitution. Please site the #'s and the passages. Thanks.


----------



## Gunny (Dec 25, 2007)

R. Crookshank said:


> President Bush should withdraw the troops and replace them with 10,000 Jehovah Witnesses armed with copies of _The Watchtower_ magazine.  (He could call it Operation Iraqi Conversion.) With all the Muslims hiding behind their doors pretending to be not at home, there will be an end to the sectarian violence between themselves.




Damn.  That is probably the first really effective plan I've heard to date!


----------



## mattskramer (Dec 25, 2007)

steeliniraq said:


> LOL did we take a look at our hospitals before we went to war with Germany, Japan, and Italy in WW2?  Did Clinton look at our hospitals before we went into Somolia?  What kind of dumb comment is that?  If your point is Bush didn't do everything right then I agree with you.  But the approach you took is not very well thoughtout.  Are you implying that before every war we ever fight we need to make sure we have the best support system before defending ourselves or in this case invading?  I can see it now Time out Japan and Germany we aren't quite ready for this war come back in 10-15 years when we are.  Sometimes wars can't wait and must happen in the now without everything being perfect.  Bush and his guys along with 82% of America thought that 2003 was the time.  Did he and his guys do everything right?  Hell no, but honestly just like you said we have 20/20 hindsight now.



WW II was a mush more critical war.  When Japan attacked, we may not have had time to get as prepared as we should.  I already gave my criticism of our action in Somalia.  My point is that Bush went to war much too soon.  I suggest that when we have time, which we clearly had in Iraq, that before we go to war, we check make sure that we have enough armor and supplies, and that we check on the hospitals.  I understand that some wars cant wait  especially those that call for an immediate reaction.  The preemptive Iraq war could have waited.  Do provide a link to a politically neutral web site that said that 2003 was the right time.  Even if 2003 was the right time, the hospitals could have still been checked out and there armor could have been well gathered and stockpiled.  Anyone with an interest in protecting and servicing our troops could have seen the simple possibilities of poor hospitals and inadequate armor coming.   It was not a Gee which, we could have never imagined that incident.   



> I think instead of crying about the past or pointing fingers at everyone we figure out how to win this thing and get it done with.



I agree.  I have also given ideas about how to complete this war and move on.


----------



## MasterChief (Dec 25, 2007)

maineman said:


> Carter's policies did not bring us the Ayatollah...


You are completely wrong. Carter administration put pressure on the Shan to loosen up the laws of his country and allow descent--which began the street demonstrations lead by university students, and spiralled out of control. The end result is the Shan fled the country and the Ayatollah came back. But hey...don't believe me...just read Mark Bowden's book--*Guests of The Ayatollah*. It's all right there.

And any information about me is classified so don't ask again, please.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 25, 2007)

Are you aware that Under Clinton laws were passed that allowed secret courts to try and convict citizens and legal aliens without ever informing them they were even charged with a crime? That laws were passed that allow Police to seize your money based on nothing more than travel habits and YOU have to pay to have the privilage to go to court to prove you did nothing wrong in an effort to get your money back? That laws were passed that allow police to seize your property with no formal charges and YOU have to petition to go to court to prove you should get your property back.


----------



## MasterChief (Dec 25, 2007)

Warner said:


> Carter got a raw deal.  He came in on the fair and honesty ticket and was immediately hit with the Iran revolution and hostage situation.  Oil prices shot up further damaging an economy that was already weakened by the debt accumulated in the VN war.  His Presidency was never able to get out from under these two issues.  What could he have done differently?


No, Carter did not get a raw deal.  As he admitted in a classroom question and answer session, his political philosophy was not what was needed at that particular time. First, he made deep cuts in military spending which compromised the very military readiness he needed later. Second, he applied pressure on the Shan to liberalize his society which only allowed room for Muslim radicals to operate unimpeded and laid the foundation for the Iran/Iraq War that reduced world oil supply--thus increasing world price of oil. And finally, his refusal to consider a military option only until late in the hostage crisis means the students had time to fortify their positions around the hostages and made America appear impotent to the Islamic world.


----------



## finebead (Dec 25, 2007)

MasterChief said:


> First, he made deep cuts in military spending which compromised the very military readiness he needed later.


Not true about Carter decreasing defense spending, see below; and just what did he need "military readiness" for?  I had a great fact, but since I don't have 15 posts, I could not post a link to it, but the post shows Carter increased defense spending from 4.7 to 5.2% of GDP during his 4 years in office, and as GDP grows, the spending would have been increasing also.



> Second, he applied pressure on the Shan to liberalize his society which only allowed room for Muslim radicals to operate unimpeded and laid the foundation for the Iran/Iraq War that reduced world oil supply--thus increasing world price of oil.


The Shah was an autocratic tyrant in his later years, using his secret police, SAVAK, to torture and terrorize the population into submission.  Do you believe that liberalization of that form of govt. was bad?  

You recall the first Arab Oil Embargo was in in 1973, over the US support of Israel in the Yom Kipor War, and the price of oil doubled from $3 to $6 a barrel in short order, under Nixon.  You can't lay all this on Carter, although there was a second embargo in 78. 



> And finally, his refusal to consider a military option only until late in the hostage crisis means the students had time to fortify their positions around the hostages and made America appear impotent to the Islamic world.


This makes little sense.  You mean the students were armoring the embassy?  Do you think anything they could do would stop a properly planned helicopter assault?  I believe the hostages had been separated and were being moved around in case of a rescue attempt, even knowing where they were was a problem.  Carter was in a tough spot, and any US president would have been also.


These appear to be overly broad assertions based on isolated interpretations of a broad swath of history, that attempt to discredit Carter without consideration of everything else going on at the time.

I find little correlation between the incident cited and the proposed result of that incident, if you look a little closer.


----------



## Gunny (Dec 25, 2007)

finebead said:


> Not true about Carter decreasing defense spending, see below; and just what did he need "military readiness" for?  I had a great fact, but since I don't have 15 posts, I could not post a link to it, but the post shows Carter increased defense spending from 4.7 to 5.2% of GDP during his 4 years in office, and as GDP grows, the spending would have been increasing also.
> 
> 
> The Shah was an autocratic tyrant in his later years, using his secret police, SAVAK, to torture and terrorize the population into submission.  Do you believe that liberalization of that form of govt. was bad?
> ...



Are you kidding?  I enlisted during the Carter Administration.  You had E-3's filling E-5 billets, Marines reenlisting for E-4/E-5 because most untis were at 3/4 strength at best.  We we had patched up, duct-taped and bailing-wired weapons and equipment.  In my unit, we had to buy our own damned rifle-cleaning gear because the armory had none.  We wore leftover Vietnam War cammies and boots, and ate leftover Vietnam War c-rats.  And I couldn't afford to do anything BUT live in the barracks and eat at the chow hall, and if you want to know what Hell is, eat at a 1970s-early-80s ear 29 Palms chow hall.

Carter failed the military miserably, period.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 25, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> Are you kidding?  I enlisted during the Carter Administration.  You had E-3's filling E-5 billets, Marines reenlisting for E-4/E-5 because most untis were at 3/4 strength at best.  We we had patched up, duct-taped and bailing-wired weapons and equipment.  In my unit, we had to buy our own damned rifle-cleaning gear because the armory had none.  We wore leftover Vietnam War cammies and boots, and ate leftover Vietnam War c-rats.  And I couldn't afford to do anything BUT live in the barracks and eat at the chow hall, and if you want to know what Hell is, eat at a 1970s-early-80s ear 29 Palms chow hall.
> 
> Carter failed the military miserably, period.



I joined in 79. even in 81 support Units did not issue rifles to their troops, after Reagan got all the increases that changed. From 88 on even all the support units had assigned weapons with heavy squad weapons per To&E. Hell in 81 it was a battle in support units to qualify on the range as required because of weapon shortages and ammo concerns.

81 may have been Reagan in office but it was still the budgets from Carter.


----------



## Gunny (Dec 25, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> I joined in 79. even in 81 support Units did not issue rifles to their troops, after Reagan got all the increases that changed. From 88 on even all the support units had assigned weapons with heavy squad weapons per To&E. Hell in 81 it was a battle in support units to qualify on the range as required because of weapon shortages and ammo concerns.
> 
> 81 may have been Reagan in office but it was still the budgets from Carter.



Yeah, I know.  Didn't get paid on time at the ends of FY80 and FY81.  After that, we always had a continuing resolution.


----------



## finebead (Dec 25, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> Are you kidding?  I enlisted during the Carter Administration.  You had E-3's filling E-5 billets, Marines reenlisting for E-4/E-5 because most untis were at 3/4 strength at best.  We we had patched up, duct-taped and bailing-wired weapons and equipment.  In my unit, we had to buy our own damned rifle-cleaning gear because the armory had none.  We wore leftover Vietnam War cammies and boots, and ate leftover Vietnam War c-rats.  And I couldn't afford to do anything BUT live in the barracks and eat at the chow hall, and if you want to know what Hell is, eat at a 1970s-early-80s ear 29 Palms chow hall.
> 
> Carter failed the military miserably, period.


What happened in the mircrocosm of your rifle company cannot be used to analyze whether military spending went up or down under Carter.  It proves your rifle company was underfunded, and that's all.  Money could have been going into skunk works projects for stealth fighters or stealth bombers instead, and your rifle company would know nothing about that.  The news item I found, but I can't post a link to because I have less than 15 posts (a poor rule IMO, that should be changed since it is hostile to newbies) stated the defense budget shrunk under Ford after the Vietnam war ended, and Carter raised it as a percent of GDP from 4.7&#37; to 5.2%.  Can you find any factual and broad based substantiation that Carter cut military spending?



> Contrary to Rosen's contention, statistics from the Office of Management and Budget clearly show that while federal defense spending as a percentage of the GDP did, in fact, decrease following the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam, defense spending as a percentage of the GDP increased throughout Carter's presidency -- from 4.7 percent in fiscal year 1979 (October 1, 1978, to September 30, 1979), to 4.9 percent in FY 1980. Congress again increased military spending from 4.9 percent GDP to 5.2 percent GDP from FY 1980 to FY 1981 (the final budget approved during the Carter administration). Over the entire course of Carter's presidency, spending for national defense increased from 4.7 percent GDP to 5.2 percent GDP.
> 
> http://colorado.mediamatters.org/items/200701240002



I'm new to this forum, and maybe this one customarily uses casual observation of first hand experience and does not promote research and facts to substantiate opinions.   If I'm off base, let me know, maybe this is not the right place for me.  I'm looking for a new home to post on.


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 25, 2007)

You're not off base. Beat them into submission with facts (they'll squirm and wordsmith to the cows come home, but to us neutrals, we know BS from facts)...eh Gunny..


----------



## Gunny (Dec 25, 2007)

finebead said:


> What happened in the mircrocosm of your rifle company cannot be used to analyze whether military spending went up or down under Carter.  It proves your rifle company was underfunded, and that's all.  Money could have been going into skunk works projects for stealth fighters or stealth bombers instead, and your rifle company would know nothing about that.  The news item I found, but I can't post a link to because I have less than 15 posts (a poor rule IMO, that should be changed since it is hostile to newbies) stated the defense budget shrunk under Ford after the Vietnam war ended, and Carter raised it as a percent of GDP from 4.7% to 5.2%.  Can you find any factual and broad based substantiation that Carter cut military spending?
> 
> I'm new to this forum, and maybe this one customarily uses casual observation of first hand experience and does not promote research and facts to substantiate opinions.   If I'm off base, let me know, maybe this is not the right place for me.  I'm looking for a new home to post on.



Dude, the entire Marine Corps was that way.  RGS wasn't a grunt and made the same observation.  Heard the same thing from my brother who was on the East Coast, right down to rifle cleaning gear.    

Substantiating your opinion is fine, but numbers on a piece of paper do not negate the reality on the ground.  

Saying that Carter neglected the military is NOT saying Carter cut military spending.  And your increase in spending numbers standing alone don't mean much of anything if cost went up twice as much.  

Whether or not money was going into (it was the B-1 bomber that Carter bought) special funding for whatever is irrelevant if the result was the rest of the military was neglected, which is my assertion ... not that Carter cut funding.  If in fact, that is the case, then those research items should have been funded additionally.

Since the price of everything escalates every year, I'm wise enough to not make a statement like "cut funding" when it's a game of smoke and mirrors, and it doesn't take any research to know that.

As far as the board goes, it's like any other poiltical message board.  Some people do their homework, some don't.  You're more than welcome to stay if you wish.

While you may feel that the 15 post rule is discriminatory toward newbies, its purpose is to weed out spammers and is quite effective.


----------



## Gunny (Dec 25, 2007)

Dr Grump said:


> You're not off base. Beat them into submission with facts (they'll squirm and wordsmith to the cows come home, but to us neutrals, we know BS from facts)...eh Gunny..



I'd say he's off-base depending on who he is responding to.  As already stated, his "facts" do not negate what we were living on the ground.  He is merely trying to minimalize my opinion as that of some dumb grunt who can't see past his own little world and such was not the case.

I did not address whether or not Carter cut military spending.  I was responded to as if I did.

And hey, if I get a $5. raise and cost of living goes up $10., I still get screwed regardless the smoke and mirrors with the numbers.


----------



## jillian (Dec 25, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> I'd say he's off-base depending on who he is responding to.  As already stated, his "facts" do not negate what we were living on the ground.  He is merely trying to minimalize my opinion as that of some dumb grunt who can't see past his own little world and such was not the case.
> 
> I did not address whether or not Carter cut military spending.  I was responded to as if I did.
> 
> And hey, if I get a $5. raise and cost of living goes up $10., I still get screwed regardless the smoke and mirrors with the numbers.



Can we remember this the next time the discussion about the treatment of vets comes up and I say that expenditures on veteran care went down because, given the increase in the numbers of vets needing care, the pro rata piece of the pie dropped for each of them?


----------



## Gunny (Dec 25, 2007)

jillian said:


> Can we remember this the next time the discussion about the treatment of vets comes up and I say that expenditures on veteran care went down because, given the increase in the numbers of vets needing care, the pro rata piece of the pie dropped for each of them?



No.  Simply for the reason that you and I have not had that discussion.  The only discussion on the topic I have been involved in was that Republicans CUT expenditures for vets.  See how that works?


----------



## Gunny (Dec 25, 2007)

jillian said:


> Can we remember this the next time the discussion about the treatment of vets comes up and I say that expenditures on veteran care went down because, given the increase in the numbers of vets needing care, the pro rata piece of the pie dropped for each of them?



BTW ... how much of an increase in VA expenditures were included in THIS latest budget?


----------



## jillian (Dec 25, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> BTW ... how much of an increase in VA expenditures were included in THIS latest budget?



You mean for AFTER Bush is out of office?  

You don't get off that easy... come on.... what's happened to veteran's care on Bush's watch? They getting more or less per veteran NOW?


----------



## Gunny (Dec 25, 2007)

jillian said:


> You mean for AFTER Bush is out of office?
> 
> You don't get off that easy... come on.... what's happened to veteran's care on Bush's watch? They getting more or less per veteran NOW?



Nope.  I mean right now with the almight Dems running the show.  

I'm not trying to get off easy.  I've never had the discussion with you before.  

But to answer your question, THIS veteran gets more and has gotten an increase each year.  Must be screwing somebody else.


----------



## finebead (Dec 25, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> Dude, the entire Marine Corps was that way.  RGS wasn't a grunt and made the same observation.  Heard the same thing from my brother who was on the East Coast, right down to rifle cleaning gear.
> 
> Substantiating your opinion is fine, but numbers on a piece of paper do not negate the reality on the ground.
> 
> ...


I was responding to MasterSgt in posts 103 and 104 on the previous page of this thread, where he said Carter cut defense spending.  Gunny has PM'd me and I have sent him a link to the article I found, showing Carter's increase in the defense budget.  Thanks Gunny!


----------



## Gunny (Dec 25, 2007)

finebead said:


> I was responding to MasterSgt in posts 103 and 104 on the previous page of this thread, where he said Carter cut defense spending.  Gunny has PM'd me and I have sent him a link to the article I found, showing Carter's increase in the defense budget.  Thanks Gunny!



LMAO.  Okay.  That's MasterCHIEF you were responding to.  I'm sure he'll LOVE the demotion.  You're going to have fun.  Two retired Gunnery Sergeants, an Army SgtMaj, Navy MasterChief, Navy Commander, Marine Corps Master Sgt, and few more vets ... gonna have to get your rank structure down.

And here's your link again:




> Contrary to Rosen's contention, statistics from the Office of Management and Budget clearly show that while federal defense spending as a percentage of the GDP did, in fact, decrease following the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam, defense spending as a percentage of the GDP increased throughout Carter's presidency -- from 4.7 percent in fiscal year 1979 (October 1, 1978, to September 30, 1979), to 4.9 percent in FY 1980. Congress again increased military spending from 4.9 percent GDP to 5.2 percent GDP from FY 1980 to FY 1981 (the final budget approved during the Carter administration). Over the entire course of Carter's presidency, spending for national defense increased from 4.7 percent GDP to 5.2 percent GDP.
> 
> http://colorado.mediamatters.org/items/200701240002


----------



## CSM (Dec 26, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> LMAO.  Okay.  That's MasterCHIEF you were responding to.  I'm sure he'll LOVE the demotion.  You're going to have fun.  Two retired Gunnery Sergeants, an Army SgtMaj, Navy MasterChief, Navy Commander, Marine Corps Master Sgt, and few more vets ... gonna have to get your rank structure down.
> 
> And here's your link again:



Interesting...it went up a total of one half of a percent. Wonder how much inflation went up over the same period? Too lazy yo go look myself. 

My story is no different than the other vets who have posted. The reality on the ground was a stark contrast to the propaganda about increased defense spending.  I can assure you that when you are supposed to get paid monthly or bi-monthly and it doesn't show up, you are VERY aware of where the money is and why.


----------



## jillian (Dec 26, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> Nope.  I mean right now with the almight Dems running the show.
> 
> I'm not trying to get off easy.  I've never had the discussion with you before.
> 
> But to answer your question, THIS veteran gets more and has gotten an increase each year.  Must be screwing somebody else.



Apologies. I know I've discussed the issue, thought you were involved in it. 

The budget DID increase with the Dems. The increase you attribute to Bush was passed by the Dem Congress. 

My point was that Bush never anticipated or provided for the increased needs of troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. And, while you may be lucky enough to have any services you need, that's not true for many, if not most, troops returning from battle.

And to paraphrase CSM's post above, even if there's an increase in funding, what's the increase in need based on the Iraq war and what's the increase in cost based on inflation?



> Veterans Waiting for Care and Benefits  | Print |   Email
> updated: June 29, 2007
> 
> Summary
> ...


 
http://www.iava.org/component/option,com_/Itemid,66/option,content/task,view/id,2421/


----------



## Warner (Dec 26, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> Yes, I do. Are you aware that it's always been such? They may be holding onto transmission tapes longer, but the NSA has always had the ability to do such.



The NSA's capability to store such data has increased dramatically in the last 6 years.  While they have had the capability to data mine before the PA, it was a crime to do so.  Now they can and do analyze and store everything without concern that they are violating the constitution. 



Kathianne said:


> Cameras are for the most part a local issue. Not so big in my area of Chicago suburbs, huge in the city, but then again, they are issuing tickets based on them.  I disagree with all of the above analysis, with the generalization of GB. As I've got to get going on dinner, I'll have to return to this later.  Actually, while he signed it in 2005, it was 8 years in the making.



Camera's in the suburbs are also being monitored and the data is being stored.  To an increasing degree the NSA is recording who goes where and developing the means to analyze this data to create travel maps.  Again, this is a violation of the constitution which has been enabled by the PA.  Within just a few years you will not be able to go anywhere without your movements being tracked.



Kathianne said:


> _Bush signs tougher
> bankruptcy bill into law
> Legislation makes it difficult
> for Americans to fully wipe out debts
> ._​


_

You seem to be missing my primary point here.  I do not have a huge issue with the changes to the bankruptcy laws, though I do feel they go a bit far and are especially designed to favor credit card issuers.

My problem is with the fact that no corresponding changes were made w.r.t. corporate bankruptcy, which is the bigger part of the bankruptcy problem in this country to start with.

Changes in the credit laws have been one sided for the past 25+ years.  Penalties for late payments have been stiffened, terms under which higher interest rates can be applied have been weakened, and the cap on interest rates has been increased by OVER 50&#37;.

With this change in the bankruptcy laws the lenders no longer have any incentive to negotiate a reasonable interest rate with a borrower once that borrower has fallen behind for even a short while.  Once they have you they have you - they can then charge 30% interest and have no fear you might declare bankruptcy should they fail to offer relief.

Again, it is my belief that the lender bears some of the responsibility when they lend money.  It is their responsibility to check the credit worthiness of the borrower and not make substantially more credit available than the borrower has the reasonable means to handle.  When they fail to do this they too need to be held accountable for their failure - which happens when they have to explain to the share holders why debts are not being repaid.  But now that won't happen except when the borrower is totally ruined and homeless.

We're now just one step away from debtors prisons.



Kathianne said:



			No it didn't, he (Libby) was convicted, the time for deal making was over.
		
Click to expand...


And with the commuting of his sentence it was made clear the Bush administration would protect those who refused to testify or perjured themselves in order to protect the White House from investigation.



Kathianne said:



			I've read the Federalist Papers several times, I teach Constitution. Please site the #'s and the passages. Thanks.
		
Click to expand...


Federalist Paper #69 paragraphs 6 and 9

Article 2 section 2 of the US Constitution_


----------



## Annie (Dec 26, 2007)

Warner said:


> The NSA's capability to store such data has increased dramatically in the last 6 years.  While they have had the capability to data mine before the PA, it was a crime to do so.  Now they can and do analyze and store everything without concern that they are violating the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wow, he has the power of pardons and commutations, which I said. You repeat about impeachment, please what is your point on this?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 26, 2007)

Last I read Bush did NOT pardon Libby, if that changed can I have a link to it?


----------



## maineman (Dec 26, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Last I read Bush did NOT pardon Libby, if that changed can I have a link to it?




he commuted his 30 month prison sentence.

do you need a link for THAT?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 26, 2007)

maineman said:


> he commuted his 30 month prison sentence.
> 
> do you need a link for THAT?



In other words he is still convicted of the crime, yes?


----------



## maineman (Dec 26, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> In other words he is still convicted of the crime, yes?



IN other words, he is convicted of a crime but doesn't have to do the time.

Shit.... I bet OJ wouldn't have minded being convicted of killing his wife if he had being given that level of consideration!


----------



## jillian (Dec 26, 2007)

maineman said:


> he commuted his 30 month prison sentence.
> 
> do you need a link for THAT?



Whatever happened to responsibility for one's actions? Hmmmmmmmmmm


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 26, 2007)

jillian said:


> Whatever happened to responsibility for one's actions? Hmmmmmmmmmm



30 months for a non crime? Sure thing. It was all political. Remind me how many months Bill Clinton got for ADMITTING he lied to a Judge under oath.


----------



## Annie (Dec 26, 2007)

and like I said to Warner many posts ago, the executive has the power to pardon and waive away the sentencing, with no reason given. No one said anyone had to like it, rarely are they popular moves.


----------



## trobinett (Dec 26, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> and like I said to Warner many posts ago, the executive has the power to pardon and waive away the sentencing, with no reason given. No one said anyone had to like it, rarely are they popular moves.



Of course, that matters little to those with an agenda................


----------



## mattskramer (Dec 26, 2007)

jillian said:


> Whatever happened to responsibility for one's actions? Hmmmmmmmmmm



Each managed to weasel his way out of paying the piper in full one way or another.  Clinton practically bribed Paula to drop the case.  Bush managed to get Libby to avoid jail time.  

Dont let your political biases cloud you from the facts though.  Bill Clinton and Scooter Libby were both convicted by the courts.  Both paid a legal price.  We can go on debating whether or not the conviction was correct and/or whether or not the ultimate penalties that they had to pay were sufficient. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Jones#Conclusion_of_case

*Paula Jones V Bill Clinton*

_On November 13, 1998, Clinton settled with Jones for $850,000, the entire amount of her claim, but without an apology, in exchange for her agreement to drop the appeal. All but $151,000 went to pay, what were by then, considerable legal expenses. 

In April 1999, Judge Wright found President Clinton in civil contempt of court for misleading testimony in the Jones case. She ordered Clinton to pay Jones $91,000 for the expenses incurred as the result of Clinton's dishonest and misleading answers.

Wright then referred Clinton's conduct to the Arkansas Bar for disciplinary action, and on January 19, 2001, the day before President Clinton left the White House, Clinton entered into an agreement with the Arkansas Bar and Independent Counsel Robert Ray under which Clinton was stripped of his license to practice law for a period of five years...._

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Libby

*Scooter Libby*

_Charges: 
Obstruction of Justice
Perjury
Making False Statements

Penalty: 
30 months in prison (granted clemency by GWB)
$250,000 fine
Two years of supervised release, with 400 hours of community service

Status:
Convicted (of four of five charges)_


----------



## Warner (Dec 27, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> Wow, he has the power of pardons and commutations, which I said. You repeat about impeachment, please what is your point on this?



I'm sorry I thought that it was obvious.  The Libby commutation is clearly means by which the White House shields itself from investigation, in this case regarding the Valarie Plains (sorry if I mis-spelled her name) outing.  If the President is going to utilize his power to pardon and to commute sentences to stifle such investigations of White House wrong doing then the appropriate course of action for congress is to initiate impeachment proceedings.  This would deny the President the ability to offer pardons or commutations to such witnesses in exchange for their silence or purjery.

Much as I hate to say it, President Bush should be impeached as a matter of principal.


----------



## Annie (Dec 27, 2007)

Warner said:


> I'm sorry I thought that it was obvious.  The Libby commutation is clearly means by which the White House shields itself from investigation, in this case regarding the Valarie Plains (sorry if I mis-spelled her name) outing.  If the President is going to utilize his power to pardon and to commute sentences to stifle such investigations of White House wrong doing then the appropriate course of action for congress is to initiate impeachment proceedings.  This would deny the President the ability to offer pardons or commutations to such witnesses in exchange for their silence or purjery.
> 
> Much as I hate to say it, President Bush should be impeached as a matter of principal.



I'm unsure what you don't understand about how the system works. The President doesn't have all the powers that a monarch does, which Federalist 69 aptly explains. On the other hand, there are powers, two of which you brought up. There are no exceptions to these, save one, cases of impeachment, which was not Libby. He was NOT being impeached. 

If Nixon had not resigned prior to impeachment charges being sought, Ford would not have been able to pardon him. But those charges were not brought, so he could. Did many dislike that act, yes. We got Jimmy C instead of a full term for Ford.


----------



## Warner (Dec 27, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> Each managed to weasel his way out of paying the piper in full one way or another.  Clinton practically bribed Paula to drop the case.  Bush managed to get Libby to avoid jail time.
> 
> Dont let your political biases cloud you from the facts though.  Bill Clinton and Scooter Libby were both convicted by the courts.  Both paid a legal price.  We can go on debating whether or not the conviction was correct and/or whether or not the ultimate penalties that they had to pay were sufficient.
> 
> ...



I believe individuals should not be allowed to bring such charges against a President while he is in office.  Charges such as those brought by Paula Jones should have to be brought either before the President takes office or after he leaves office.  This would not include crimes where the President was not identified until after he'd taken office nor those committed while in office, only those which could have been brought to court before he was elected.


----------



## Annie (Dec 27, 2007)

Warner said:


> I believe individuals should not be allowed to bring such charges against a President while he is in office.  Charges such as those brought by Paula Jones should have to be brought either before the President takes office or after he leaves office.  This would not include crimes where the President was not identified until after he'd taken office nor those committed while in office, only those which could have been brought to court before he was elected.



Well what YOU think should be allowed and what is according to law, are different things altogether. The statute of limitations would have run out on her bringing the case, something that would NOT fit in with our system of justice. If there were a 'Paula Jones' around now, somehow I doubt you'd think the same way.


----------



## Warner (Dec 27, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> I'm unsure what you don't understand about how the system works. The President doesn't have all the powers that a monarch does, which Federalist 69 aptly explains. On the other hand, there are powers, two of which you brought up. There are no exceptions to these, save one, cases of impeachment, which was not Libby. He was NOT being impeached.
> 
> If Nixon had not resigned prior to impeachment charges being sought, Ford would not have been able to pardon him. But those charges were not brought, so he could. Did many dislike that act, yes. We got Jimmy C instead of a full term for Ford.



No, I think it is clear that the President is denied the power of pardons or commutations with respect to impeachment proceedings.  This is specifically intended to prevent him from shielding witnesses against his office and thus to allow a proper investigation to proceed.  Otherwise, no impeachment proceeding could ever extract meaningful testimony from unwilling witnesses.  They would know in advance that Congress and the grand jury would have no power to compel testimony nor to punish perjury.


----------



## Annie (Dec 27, 2007)

Warner said:


> No, I think it is clear that the President is denied the power of pardons or commutations with respect to impeachment proceedings.  This is specifically intended to prevent him from shielding witnesses against his office and thus to allow a proper investigation to proceed.  Otherwise, no impeachment proceeding could ever extract meaningful testimony from unwilling witnesses.  They would know in advance that Congress and the grand jury would have no power to compel testimony nor to punish perjury.



Impeachment charges against Libby were not brought, nor from what I can find, ever considered. Sorry, your reference to Federalist 69 most definately does not bolster your arguments.


----------



## Warner (Dec 27, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> Well what YOU think should be allowed and what is according to law, are different things altogether. The statute of limitations would have run out on her bringing the case, something that would NOT fit in with our system of justice.



Good point.  Statutes of limitations would have to also be extended by the length of the term.



Kathianne said:


> If there were a 'Paula Jones' around now, somehow I doubt you'd think the same way.



What?  Do you mean if there was such a woman in Bush's past?  Of course I would feel the same!  She should either have made her case before he was elected or have to wait till his Presidency is over to do so, preferably the former. 

The problem is that such people are easily used by others to try to derail a President.  If Paula Jones had such a big problem with her encounter with Clinton years before he became President, why did she wait until well into his Presidency to seek redress?

Lets be clear Kat, I didn't like Clinton, and I don't like Bush.  The last decent President we had was Reagan, and before him JFK.  The last good President we had was Harry S. Truman.  Other than that we've had a bunch of loosers.


----------



## Warner (Dec 27, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> Impeachment charges against Libby were not brought, nor from what I can find, ever considered. Sorry, your reference to Federalist 69 most definately does not bolster your arguments.



Grrrr... 

No Kat, I'm saying that had impeachment charges been brought against the white house (Bush or Cheney) in the Plains case, they would not have been able to commute Libby's sentence, nor to Pardon or Commute the sentences of any witnesses called in such an investigation.

Thus, in response to Bush's commutation of Libby's sentence, Congress should institute impeachment proceedings and re-open the investigation.


----------



## Annie (Dec 27, 2007)

Warner said:


> Good point.  Statutes of limitations would have to also be extended by the length of the term.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



While I became very tired of all the allegations raised against Clinton, I did understand part of her case was intimidation by the governor at the time and state troopers at his beck and call. I suppose that would have made bringing charges against him quite intimidating prior to his move to D.C.? 

I understand your not respecting GW, you're not alone. Yet, even then impeachment has certain rules, unclear though they may be. Other than the kookiest in Congress, impeachment has been off the table, even though many of the base of the party beg for it. Another Johnson/Clinton scenario is more than unlikely.


----------



## Annie (Dec 27, 2007)

Warner said:


> Grrrr...
> 
> No Kat, I'm saying that had impeachment charges been brought against the white house (Bush or Cheney) in the Plains case, they would not have been able to commute Libby's sentence, nor to Pardon or Commute the sentences of any witnesses called in such an investigation.
> 
> Thus, in response to Bush's commutation of Libby's sentence, Congress should institute impeachment proceedings and re-open the investigation.



Again, the 'rule of law' that most on the left worry about with GW. You can't retro charges because of something that went before. Congress can investigate all they like, but it's not going to lead to impeachment from Libby, that's done.


----------



## Warner (Dec 27, 2007)

Different witnesses would be called, and Libby could be called again, just different questions would be asked and different charges used to compel his testimony.

It is funny you should say only the crackpots in congress would vote for impeachment.  About 5 weeks ago there was a motion on the floor to impeach Cheney - and it was passing.  Last I heard (as I was driving) it was something like 205 for, 190 against, WITH 168 OF THE FOR VOTES FROM REPUBLICANS!

It was at the point in the proceedings where all that Pelosi had to do was slap the gavel and it was a done deal.  But she would not do so.  One has to wonder why... clearly despite the rhetoric she is bought and paid for.


----------



## Annie (Dec 27, 2007)

Warner said:


> Different witnesses would be called, and Libby could be called again, just different questions would be asked and different charges used to compel his testimony.
> 
> It is funny you should say only the crackpots in congress would vote for impeachment.  About 5 weeks ago there was a motion on the floor to impeach Cheney - and it was passing.  Last I heard (as I was driving) it was something like 205 for, 190 against, WITH 168 OF THE FOR VOTES FROM REPUBLICANS!
> 
> It was at the point in the proceedings where all that Pelosi had to do was slap the gavel and it was a done deal.  But she would not do so.  One has to wonder why... clearly despite the rhetoric she is bought and paid for.



I think you are indulging in wishful thinking. Granted my powers to search may be rusty, but if you can find something that has traction against Bush or Cheney, please post a link. I found Kucinich's attempt at Cheney and McKinney's swipe at Bush, but neither has had luck getting out of committee.


----------



## Gunny (Dec 27, 2007)

Warner said:


> Different witnesses would be called, and Libby could be called again, just different questions would be asked and different charges used to compel his testimony.
> 
> It is funny you should say only the crackpots in congress would vote for impeachment.  About 5 weeks ago there was a motion on the floor to impeach Cheney - and it was passing.  Last I heard (as I was driving) it was something like 205 for, 190 against, WITH 168 OF THE FOR VOTES FROM REPUBLICANS!
> 
> It was at the point in the proceedings where all that Pelosi had to do was slap the gavel and it was a done deal.  But she would not do so.  One has to wonder why... clearly despite the rhetoric she is bought and paid for.



You "heard" huh?  I "heard" your unsubstantiated rhetoric ain't worth spit.  If you're going to make such an allegation, let's see the evidence.  Or is "last I heard" all you got?


----------



## Warner (Dec 27, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> You "heard" huh?  I "heard" your unsubstantiated rhetoric ain't worth spit.  If you're going to make such an allegation, let's see the evidence.  Or is "last I heard" all you got?



Grrr... I was listening to the debate.  I heard it first hand you idiot.


----------



## finebead (Dec 27, 2007)

CSM said:


> Interesting...*it went up a total of one half of a percent. Wonder how much inflation went up over the same period?* Too lazy yo go look myself.
> 
> My story is no different than the other vets who have posted. The reality on the ground was a stark contrast to the *propaganda about increased defense spending. * I can assure you that when you are supposed to get paid monthly or bi-monthly and it doesn't show up, you are VERY aware of where the money is and why.


If you will re-read my post in #118, which gunnyl posted for me, it says spending went up from 4.7 to 5.2 percent oF GDP.  As GDP grows around 3&#37; annually when we are not in a recession, the increase was much greater than 1/2 of a percent.

I have posted my facts in post 118.  As I said, the money may have gone to the air force or someplace other than your company, but my post IS NOT PROPAGANDA, those are the hard cold facts.  If you think it is propaganda, go do some searches and come back with your facts that substantiate your position, otherwise, don't refer to my post as propaganda.  I am the only one with any research to document what really happened, while you are only using tunnel vision of "your actual experience" that is valid for you, but it in no way proves anything about what was happening with Carter's military budget.

But, you said in your post, you are too lazy to go look it up.  Why bother to argue if you are too lazy to go find out what the facts are?  It doesn't seem you can learn anything this way.


----------



## CSM (Dec 28, 2007)

finebead said:


> But, you said in your post, you are too lazy to go look it up.  Why bother to argue if you are too lazy to go find out what the facts are?  It doesn't seem you can learn anything this way.



I would assume they took inflation into account when they posted the figures ... if not then they are deceitful at best. As for being too lazy to look it up....I am tired of folks coming here trying to say how great it was to be in the military under some of these Dems ("Defense spending went up! The military was well taken care of under presidnet *.*") when the reality was we had military personnel on food stamps. These 'debates' have occured over and over again on this board. Time and again a poster like yourself tries to assert that a soldier is too stupid to look beyond his own issues to know what is really going on. While the statistics look good on paper, I and many others had to live with those 'facts' and I can tell you it wasn't funny for me or my family.

As for learning, it seems to me that dismissing empirical evidence out of hand rather restricts your ability to learn. I suppose you can't tolerate anything that disputes your preconceived notions; however.


----------



## tigerbob (Dec 28, 2007)

finebead said:


> As I said, the money may have gone to the air force or someplace other than your company, but my post IS NOT *PROPAGANDA, those are the hard cold facts.  If you think it is propaganda, go do some searches and come back with your facts that substantiate your position, otherwise, don't refer to my post as propaganda.  I am the only one with any research to document what really happened, while you are only using tunnel vision of "your actual experience" that is valid for you, but it in no way proves anything about what was happening with Carter's military budget.*


*

Ive found this exchange of views quite interesting, so I thought Id have a mooch around and see if I could come up with some figures.  This is what I found (please excuse the lousy formatting).

US Military Spending as a % of GDP, 1940  2003.

1940.......41.......42.......43.......44.......45.......46.......47.......48.......49
1.7.........5.6.......17.8.....37.0....37.8....37.5.....19.2......5.5.......3.5......4.8

1950.......51.......52.......53.......54.......55.......56.......57.......58.......59
5.0..........7.4......13.2.....14.2.....13.1....10.8.....10.0.....10.1.....10.2.....10.0

1960.......61.......62.......63.......64.......65.......66.......67.......68.......69
9.3.........9.4.......9.2......8.9.......8.5......7.4.......7.7......8.8.......9.4......8.7

1970.......71.......72.......73.......74.......75.......76.......77.......78.......79
8.1..........7.3......6.7.......5.8......5.5.......5.5......5.2.......4.9......4.7.......4.6

1980.......81.......82.......83.......84.......85.......86.......87.......88.......89
4.9..........5.1......5.7.......6.1......5.9.......6.1......6.2.......6.1......5.8.......5.6

1990.......91.......92.......93.......94.......95.......96.......97.......98.......99
5.2..........4.6......4.8.......4.4......4.0.......3.7......3.5.......3.3......3.1.......3.0

2000.......01.......02.......03
3.0..........3.0......3.4.......3.7

Theres also an interesting chart on military spending as a % of discretionary outlay from 1962  2003.  I cant be bothered copying that out as well, but it appears to show the percentage lowering slightly during the Carter administration, increasing from the high 40s to the low 60s during RR and GHB, then reducing back to the high 40s at the end of the 2 Clinton terms.  This continues for the first couple years under GWB, but in the last year available there is a small spike which is presumably the beginning of the War on Terror.

Im not going to get involved in whose argument this appears to support, but Ive posted the link so whoever disagrees can Im sure find a way to rubbish the numbers.  I just always prefer raw numbers to those used in an article which are usually selected to support a point.

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size.php*


----------



## finebead (Dec 28, 2007)

CSM said:


> I would assume they took inflation into account when they posted the figures ... if not then they are deceitful at best. As for being too lazy to look it up....I am tired of folks coming here trying to say how great it was to be in the military under some of these Dems ("Defense spending went up! The military was well taken care of under presidnet *.*") when the reality was we had military personnel on food stamps. These 'debates' have occured over and over again on this board. Time and again a poster like yourself tries to assert that a soldier is too stupid to look beyond his own issues to know what is really going on. While the statistics look good on paper, I and many others had to live with those 'facts' and I can tell you it wasn't funny for me or my family.
> 
> As for learning, it seems to me that dismissing empirical evidence out of hand rather restricts your ability to learn. I suppose you can't tolerate anything that disputes your preconceived notions; however.


I never stated it was great to be in the military under any president.  Don't put words in my mouth.  

MasterChief stated Carter cut defense spending.  I went and looked up info on it, and I found the statement was not true, because Carter raised defense spending from 4.7 to 5.2% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).  That's the fact, and MC was wrong.  That's what I said.

As far as your personal experience, if you want to say that under Carter, adequate funds didn't make it to your rifle company, I would not dispute that, as I have no personal knowledge of it.  But you cannot say that because funds didn't make it to your company that Carter must have cut defense spending.  That conclusion does not follow from the facts you have presented.

I just think we should be precise, and if we're going to discuss issues, we should base the discussion on the facts and logical conclusions that can be drawn from the facts.  But you can't state a fact and then draw any conclusion from it that you'd like to.  And if you are wrong, or one of your buddies is wrong, you should have the decency to admit it.


----------



## Annie (Dec 28, 2007)

finebead said:


> I never stated it was great to be in the military under any president.  Don't put words in my mouth.
> 
> MasterChief stated Carter cut defense spending.  I went and looked up info on it, and I found the statement was not true, because Carter raised defense spending from 4.7 to 5.2&#37; of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).  That's the fact, and MC was wrong.  That's what I said.
> 
> ...



Considering this,


> The annual inflation rate rose from 4.8% in 1976 to 6.8% in 1977, 9% in 1978, 11% in 1979, and hovered around 12% at the time of the 1980 election campaign. Although Carter had pledged to eliminate federal deficits, the deficit for the fiscal year 1979 totaled $27.7 billion, and that for 1980 was nearly $59 billion. With approximately 8 million people out of work, the unemployment rate had leveled off to a nationwide average of about 7.7% by the time of the election campaign, but it was considerably higher in some industrial states.


 in fact that increase was a cut.


----------



## finebead (Dec 28, 2007)

Kathianne said:
			
		

> in fact that increase was a cut.



From the information you posted, you cannot make that statement.  My post, which stated that Carter increased defense spending from 4.7 to 5.2% of GDP, is largely corroborrated by TigerBob's post, if you consider when the pres. was inaugurated, and when the fiscal year starts and who prepared the defense budget.

Kathianne, your post cites inflation rates, but is silent on what the GDP growth was.  So, you cannot state that "if fact that increase was a cut".  Generally, during inflationary times, it tends to overstate GDP growth, since production has not gone up, but prices have gone up.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 28, 2007)

Defense spendng, FY, in billions
1977:...$97.5.....4.9&#37; GDP
1978:...$104.7...4.7%
1979:...$116.8...4.7%
1980:...$134.6...4.9%
1981:...$158.0...5.2%
http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf

GDP:...$actual..Y2000$, in billions
1977:..2030.9..4750.5 
1978:..2294.7..5015.0
1979:..2563.3..5173.4
1980:..2789.5..5161.7
1981:..3128.4..5291.7

GDP growth over previous year
...........actual$...constant $
1978:...+13.0%....+5.6%
1979:...+11.7%....+3.2%
1980:...+8.8%.....-0.2%
1981:...+12.2%....+2.5%

http://www.bea.gov/National/Index.htm

Without going too deep, it appears that any 'increases' were due to inflation.


----------



## tigerbob (Dec 28, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Defense spendng, FY, in billions
> 1977:...$97.5.....4.9% GDP
> 1978:...$104.7...4.7%
> 1979:...$116.8...4.7%
> ...



The % of GDP figures I posted pretty much agree year by year with Shooter's, the only differences being in rounding
1977 - 4.9%
1978 - 4.7%
1979 - 4.6%
1980 - 4.9%
1981 - 5.1%.

Looking at the military spending as a % of discretionary spending (discretionary spending is defined by source as "under the jurisdiction of the two appropriations committees and constitutes about one-third of the unified federal budget" - see my earlier link), this declined from 51.2% in 1976 as follows:

1977 - 49.5%
1978 - 47.8%
1979 - 48.7%
1980 - 48.7%
1981 - 51.3%
1982 - 57.0%

Unless anyone can come up with a different view, from that info it's hard to conclude that military spending increased in real terms under Carter.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 28, 2007)

tigerbob said:


> Unless anyone can come up with a different view, from that info it's hard to conclude that military spending increased in real terms under Carter.



The GDP% spent are based on raw GDP dollars.
The raw dollars went up much more than the real dollars.
I havent done this, but I think if you allow for that, you'll see no real increase.


----------



## maineman (Dec 28, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> The GDP% spent are based on raw GDP dollars.
> The raw dollars went up much more than the real dollars.
> I havent done this, but I think if you allow for that, you'll see no real increase.



and no real decrease either.... and, as I can recall, we were just winding down from a rather costly war in Vietnam and a leveling of military spending was not an unwise move


----------



## Warner (Dec 28, 2007)

tigerbob said:


> I&#8217;ve found this exchange of views quite interesting, so I thought I&#8217;d have a mooch around and see if I could come up with some figures.  This is what I found (please excuse the lousy formatting).
> 
> *US Military Spending as a &#37; of GDP, 1940 &#8211; 2003.*
> 
> ...



Umm....

(Billions of 2007 dollars)
2007: $626,  2006: $571,  2005: $554,  2004: $534,  2003: $500,
2002: $382,  2001: $348,  2000: $323,  1999: $310  1998: $289 

The figures you've given do not included the "Supplemental Spending" to support the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is not considered part of the military budget.  Money spent on maintenance of the nuclear arsenal is also not included, nor is foreign military financing and training, mandatory contributions to military retirement and healthcare and a host of other items.  These items are included in the figures above through 2006 (but not for 2007 - that figure will probably be in $700 billion range when all is said and done).

So the real figure for 2003 would be around 4.8 to 5% (not including future obligations or debt service).

Also there is a rather large chunk of change that goes to support "Black" projects which is not included as part of the budget and for which we get no numbers (since it's "black") but which appears to be in the neighborhood of $40-50 Billion.

The total cost of all past US wars (including "police actions" and foreign aid) is about $265 billion (in $2007 dollars).  The Iraq/Afghan war has cost us well over $700 billion so far and there is no end in sight!

And the real figure is actually closer to 1.2 trillion thus far (if we ended the war today) since we will have long term obligations extending at least 50 years into the future.


----------



## CSM (Dec 28, 2007)

finebead said:


> ....  And if you are wrong, or one of your buddies is wrong, you should have the decency to admit it.



so now that the figures show you are wrong (Carter did not "increase funding") are you going to admit it?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 28, 2007)

Warner said:


> The total cost of all past US wars (including "police actions" and foreign aid) is about $265 billion (in $2007 dollars).  The Iraq/Afghan war has cost us well over $700 billion so far and there is no end in sight!


The US spent $288B (in 1940 dollars) on WW2.
In 2005 dollars, that is $4,032B



> The figures you've given do not included the "Supplemental Spending" to support the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is not considered part of the military budget.


Total DOD spending, including supplemental spending bills, by FY in $B
2002: 349.0
2003: 405.0
2004: 454.1
2005: 493.6
2006: 520.0
http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf



> Money spent on maintenance of the nuclear arsenal is also not included


By FY, in $B
2002: 27.2
2003: 27.7
2004: 28.3
2005: 28.9
2006: 29.5



> nor is foreign military financing and training


Total international aid, by FY in $B
2002: 26.2
2003: 27.9
2004: 33.8
2005: 39.0
2006: 36.1
http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf



> mandatory contributions to military retirement and healthcare and a host of other items


Total non-socsec/medicare retirement benefits, by FY in $B
2002: 124.9
2003: 129.4
2004: 135.0
2005: 147.6
2006: 149.4
http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf

Presuming for the moment that EVERY dollar in the above categories went to defense-related spending, you come up with these numbers:
By FY in $B
2002: 527.3 = 5.1&#37; GDP
2003: 590.0 = 5.5%
2004: 651.2 = 5.6%
2005: 709.1 = 5.8%
2006: 735.0 = 5.6%

So, the real figure for 2003 Is NOT around 4.8 to 5%.


----------



## finebead (Dec 28, 2007)

CSM said:


> so now that the figures show you are wrong (Carter did not "increase funding") are you going to admit it?


Absolutely not.  MasterChief said Carter cut military spending.  That's all.  He did not say Carter cut military spending "in real terms" or "after adjusting for inflation".  In normal conversation, when you say "he cut spending" people will interpret that to mean, it went down.  If you want to say "he cut spending in real terms" then you need to say that.

In mid argument, Kattieanne introduced a new constraint, which was the effect of inflation.  I don't object to that, because it is part of the real world.  But it changed the argument.

As it started, MasterChief was wrong when he said Carter cut the defense budget; he did not.  I was correct when I factually reported that under Carter the defense budget was increased from 4.7 to 5.2% of GDP, which GDP was growing.  This has not been disputed.

If in mid argument, a contraint is added and now we decide we want to talk about the defense budget in real inflation adjusted dollars, that's a reasonable thing to do, but it is not the original position that was stated.  Given that the whole decade of the 70's was characterized by stagflation (stagnant economy and significant inflation), I am not sure, but it is quite conceiveable that inflation caused a real decrease in military spending, to the extent I would not go through the research to attempt to disprove it, as I don't feel that it is likely to be provable, so I have no problem with the statement that under Carter defense spending declined in real inflation adjusted dollars.

I consider this to have been a good discussion.  We have argued, changed the parameters of the argument, I learned something about the defense budget in the late 70's, I think everyone learned precisely how to state what that military budget situation was.  It's the way I am.  As a computer programmer, precision is everything.  Thanks to all for a good one!


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 28, 2007)

finebead said:


> Absolutely not.  MasterChief said Carter cut military spending.  That's all.  He did not say Carter cut military spending "in real terms" or "after adjusting for inflation".  In normal conversation, when you say "he cut spending" people will interpret that to mean, it went down.  If you want to say "he cut spending in real terms" then you need to say that.
> 
> In mid argument, Kattieanne introduced a new constraint, which was the effect of inflation.  I don't object to that, because it is part of the real world.  But it changed the argument.
> 
> ...



Remind Jillian and the other libs on this board of your complaint they set the bar for this with their claims that steady continious growth year in and year out of the VA was some how a cut by Bush.


----------



## maineman (Dec 28, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Remind Jillian and the other libs on this board of your complaint they set the bar for this with their claims that steady continious growth year in and year out of the VA was some how a cut by Bush.



so... are you admitting that Bush HAS cut VA benefits?

or are you admitting that Carter did NOT cut defense spending?

take YOUR pick


----------



## finebead (Dec 28, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Remind Jillian and the other libs on this board of *your complaint *they set the bar for this with their claims that steady continious growth year in and year out of the VA was some how a cut by Bush.


I had no complaint.  MC said Carter cut defense spending, I said he did not, and I showed a post indicating that he did not cut defense spending.  Kathianne changed the argument by introducing a new constrain, inflation, which is fine.  But what I said originally, in the original context of the argument, was correct.

I have not discussed the details of nominal vs. 'real' (inflation adjusted) spending, yet.  But if is say 'spending', my assumption is 'nominal spending' and if I want to say 'real spending' I'll say 'real spending' or 'inflation adjusted spending'.

I thought it was a good discussion, and I have no complaint.


----------



## DeadCanDance (Dec 28, 2007)

maineman said:


> so... are you admitting that Bush HAS cut VA benefits?
> 
> or are you admitting that Carter did NOT cut defense spending?
> 
> take YOUR pick




LOL


----------



## DeadCanDance (Dec 28, 2007)

Well, there must have been a few people on this thread lying their asses off. 

According to these government statistics, defense spending during carter's term (1977-1981) went from 110 billion a year to 180 billion a year. 

That's a 63% increase, or an average of nearly 16% increase annually.  

I know inflation didn't average 16 percent from 1977 to 1981.  




table 2 - National Defense Budget 

http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publicat...cal_and_Pro/U.20070607.Historical_and_Pro.pdf


----------



## tigerbob (Dec 29, 2007)

DeadCanDance said:


> Well, there must have been a few people on this thread lying their asses off.
> 
> According to these government statistics, defense spending during carter's term (1977-1981) went from 110 billion a year to 180 billion a year.
> 
> ...



I'm not sure I buy the lying their asses off bit.  Just because the posted statistics differ doesn't mean people are lying, just that they have different views and are more easily persuaded by statistics that give credence to their opinions.

And with so many statistics available, it is easy to see that after more than 100 years, Andrew Lang's comment still holds good: 

"The problem arises when statistics are used like a drunk uses a street light - for support rather than illumination".


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 29, 2007)

maineman said:


> so... are you admitting that Bush HAS cut VA benefits?
> 
> or are you admitting that Carter did NOT cut defense spending?
> 
> take YOUR pick



I never said Carter did not technically increase spending. But as has been shown he did not actually increase spending. Having lived through both events in question, dependent on those budges, I can tell you that Carter did not do anything for the military and that Bush HAS done things for the VA.

But thanks for playing.


----------



## maineman (Dec 29, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> I never said Carter did not technically increase spending. But as has been shown he did not actually increase spending. Having lived through both events in question, dependent on those budges, I can tell you that Carter did not do anything for the military and that Bush HAS done things for the VA.
> 
> But thanks for playing.



are you suggesting that actually increasing defense spending AFTER the completion of the Vietnam war and the devastation that conflict caused our budget would have been an appropriate policy decision?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 29, 2007)

maineman said:


> are you suggesting that actually increasing defense spending AFTER the completion of the Vietnam war and the devastation that conflict caused our budget would have been an appropriate policy decision?



When our armed services do not have adequate weapons, ammo and equipment, as was true even in 1979, 1980 and 1981, then it is the DUTY of the President to ask for, demand an increase. National Defense is THE biggest reason for a Federal Government.

Reagan did exactly that. He went so far as to shut down the Government until he got his increases also. I know I was told two years in a row that we probably wouldn't get paid at the end of December or mid January because he vetoed all bills that did not meet his demands.

Ohh and Congress not the President lost those fights. The Public understood quite well who was to blame.


----------



## maineman (Dec 29, 2007)

you didn't answer my question, but that is no big surprise.


----------



## MasterChief (Dec 29, 2007)

maineman said:


> are you suggesting that actually increasing defense spending AFTER the completion of the Vietnam war and the devastation that conflict caused our budget would have been an appropriate policy decision?


Look the fact is lib's like to point to the Carter Administration like it was some kind panacea in foreign affairs, that he got a "raw deal" or there were forces beyond his control--that is ludicrous. Carter made his own bed by the policies he chose to pursue. And one of those policies was reducing the military. Charlie Beckwith, the founder of Delta Force, did not have the proper funding to train his men like he wanted.  Yet he was asked to put a rescue mission together drawing from several different branches who had not worked together before.  The result is the disaster at Desert One and why now Special Op's has it's own air resources. A small percentage increase in defense spending when inflation was running 8 to 10 percent or higher is a decrease. It does not take an economic genius to figure that out. The Carter Administration is the worst presidency ever, period: high unemployment, high inflation, reduced stature in the international community, impotent foreign policy, resulting in a one term presidency. And remember Ronald Reagan didn't just win, he won in a landslide. The people at that time spoke and no amount of liberal rewriting history can change that.

During the twentieth century, after every major conflict the politic leadership's tendency is to cut military spending--understandable, but not wise.  Each time we've done that, it has come back to bite us in the...well, you know where. Do I think GWB is the greatest President? No. I absolutely despised Donald Rumsfled.  But do I think he's the worst?  No. Some presidential historians put Carter and Hoover in that category.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 29, 2007)

maineman said:


> you didn't answer my question, but that is no big surprise.



I surely did, here let me spell it out for you since you obviously have trouble reading.

Our military was short of weapons, ammo, and equipment at criminal levels. YES Carter should have insisted on more money for the military.

Better?


----------



## maineman (Dec 29, 2007)

MasterChief said:


> Look the fact is lib's like to point to the Carter Administration like it was some kind panacea in foreign affairs, that he got a "raw deal" or there were forces beyond his control--that is ludicrous. Carter made his own bed by the policies he chose to pursue. And one of those policies was reducing the military. Charlie Beckwith, the founder of Delta Force, did not have the proper funding to train his men like he wanted.  Yet he was asked to put a rescue mission together drawing from several different branches who had not worked together before.  The result is the disaster at Desert One and why now Special Op's has it's own air resources. A small percentage increase in defense spending when inflation was running 8 to 10 percent or higher is a decrease. It does not take an economic genius to figure that out. The Carter Administration is the worst presidency ever, period: high unemployment, high inflation, reduced stature in the international community, impotent foreign policy, resulting in a one term presidency. And remember Ronald Reagan didn't just win, he won in a landslide. The people at that time spoke and no amount of liberal rewriting history can change that.
> 
> During the twentieth century, after every major conflict the politic leadership's tendency is to cut military spending--understandable, but not wise.  Each time we've done that, it has come back to bite us in the...well, you know where. Do I think GWB is the greatest President? No. I absolutely despised Donald Rumsfled.  But do I think he's the worst?  No. Some presidential historians put Carter and Hoover in that category.



I am not sure I will agree that drawing down the military at the end of WWII came back and "bit us in the ass".  

I am not suggesting that Carter was a great president or even a good one.... I am saying that paring back on a war machine that had been supporting near a half a million deployed troops in a war zone for nearly a decade made sound economic sense AND sound military sense.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 29, 2007)

maineman said:


> I am not sure I will agree that drawing down the military at the end of WWII came back and "bit us in the ass".
> 
> I am not suggesting that Carter was a great president or even a good one.... I am saying that paring back on a war machine that had been supporting near a half a million deployed troops in a war zone for nearly a decade made sound economic sense AND sound military sense.



LOL, Korea ring a bell? We had so badly depleted our military that the North Koreans nearly won that one.


----------



## maineman (Dec 29, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> I surely did, here let me spell it out for you since you obviously have trouble reading.
> 
> Our military was short of weapons, ammo, and equipment at criminal levels. YES Carter should have insisted on more money for the military.
> 
> Better?



throughout the Carter administration, the ships upon which I served never were short of anything... I got to shoot lots of missiles and torpedoes and blow NGFS ranges to bits throughout his administration.  Maybe your commanding general had merely pissed off some of the logistics guys!

and your editorial use of the word "criminal" is kinda like your misuse of the word "felon".    

And I don't have trouble reading, I just have a difficult time understanding gibberish.... most folks do.


----------



## maineman (Dec 29, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> LOL, Korea ring a bell? We had so badly depleted our military that the North Koreans nearly won that one.



So.... are you suggesting that drawing down the US military after WWII was a bad idea? 

Do you really think that, had we not done so, that the Korean conflict would have ended any differently?

Oh...and the north koreans weren't close to winning anything.  the Chicoms were.


----------



## MasterChief (Dec 29, 2007)

maineman said:


> I am not sure I will agree that drawing down the military at the end of WWII came back and "bit us in the ass".


 Really? Why don't you ask the Korean vets if the post WWII draw down did not hurt the United States. Or better still give Dick Winters a call and ask him. The only way you can say that is you've never studied United States military history.


----------



## MasterChief (Dec 29, 2007)

maineman said:


> Oh...and the north Koreans weren't close to winning anything.


That is not exactly correct: when the north crossed into the south our troops had no effective anti-tanks weapons, no meaningful heavy artillery, and our air-force was still using propeller driven planes.  If I remember this correctly: they pushed us into a small little chuck of land near Pusan which extended their supply lines--supply lines we easily attacked from bases in Japan which slowed their advance, give us an opportunity to appeal to the United Nations. The Russian MIG was far superior to anything we had at the time. Luckily, communist tactical doctrine emphasis relayed on overwhelming numbers instead of individual initiative and sound tactical maneuvering and that give us a very small time period to put an effective plan together to push the North back. I know of no military historian who does not believe the north did not come close to pushing allied forces into the sea.  If you know of one, please name him and his work.


----------



## maineman (Dec 29, 2007)

MasterChief said:


> That is not exactly correct: when the north crossed into the south our troops had no effective anti-tanks weapons, no meaningful heavy artillery, and our air-force was still using propeller driven planes.  If I remember this correctly: they pushed us into a small little chuck of land near Pusan which extended their supply lines--supply lines we easily attacked from bases in Japan which slowed their advance, give us an opportunity to appeal to the United Nations. The Russian MIG was far superior to anything we had at the time. Luckily, communist tactical doctrine emphasis relayed on overwhelming numbers instead of individual initiative and sound tactical maneuvering and that give us a very small time period to put an effective plan together to push the North back. I know of no military historian who does not believe the north did not come close to pushing allied forces into the sea.  If you know of one, please name him and his work.




go back and re-read my post.  You seemed to have missed the second half.

and please, so that I can fully appreciate your perspective, can you tell me your rating?

As I have said before, I am an O-5 1110 so that you know MY perspective.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 29, 2007)

maineman said:


> go back and re-read my post.  You seemed to have missed the second half.
> 
> and please, so that I can fully appreciate your perspective, can you tell me your rating?
> 
> As I have said before, I am an O-5 1110 so that you know MY perspective.



Ahh yes, there we have it. The Officer thinks because he was an officer that makes him smarter and correct.

Korea was nearly lost because the US was so badly drawn down in its military after WW2. You either are ignorant of historical facts or are trying to pretend what happened wasn't the near disaster it was. Reserves had to be called up, men that thought their obligations had been served in WW2. All to fight a piss ant third world Country.

As for your claim that because your ship was ready does not change the fact that the Army and Marines were NOT ready in the mid to late 70's. What equipment we did have was broken and so badly worn as to be as good as broken. Every marine did NOT have a rifle and I suspect it was the same in the Army. Ammo was in tight supply. We were still using crypto gear we KNEW the enemy had captured and was compromised. Well as well as being 20 plus years old technology. I was repairing comm gear with VACUUM Tubes in it in 1981. Most of the radios the Corps had couldn't even USE crypto gear. We used hand me down trucks that the army had phased out as to old to use. Our tanks were M-48's, I wouldn't doubt the Corps still had M-47's when I joined.

Let's see, your always hot and bothered when someone doesn't fall all over themselves accepting your "expert" opinion on Naval matters or on your having served in Lebanon.

Remind me when you served in the Marine Corps or the Army. I served in the National Guard and the Marine Corps and my father didn't retire from the Army until at least 1984. CSM served in the army. GunnyL served in line units in the Corps.

Using YOUR criteria, which of us, you or us, would know more about the situation in question?


----------



## maineman (Dec 30, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ahh yes, there we have it. The Officer thinks because he was an officer that makes him smarter and correct.
> 
> Korea was nearly lost because the US was so badly drawn down in its military after WW2. You either are ignorant of historical facts or are trying to pretend what happened wasn't the near disaster it was. Reserves had to be called up, men that thought their obligations had been served in WW2. All to fight a piss ant third world Country.
> 
> ...



1.  I pointed out to the masterchief that I was in the navy too and told him my specialty.... and I asked for his.  I did not suggest or imply any superiority.

2.  I would definitely defer to YOUR ultimate knowledge about the state of the marine corps in the post vietnam era.  

3. I also asked you if you really thought that maintaining a military machine that had been supporting nearly a half a million troops in a war zone for nearly a decade would have made any sense given the other priorities facing our nation's economy in the years immediately after vietnam.


----------



## trobinett (Dec 30, 2007)

maineman said:


> 1.  I pointed out to the masterchief that I was in the navy too and told him my specialty.... and I asked for his.  I did not suggest or imply any superiority.
> 
> 2.  I would definitely defer to YOUR ultimate knowledge about the state of the marine corps in the post vietnam era.
> 
> 3. I also asked you if you really thought that maintaining a military machine that had been supporting nearly a half a million troops in a war zone for nearly a decade would have made any sense given the other priorities facing our nation's economy in the years immediately after vietnam.



Good points, and certainly a FAIR question.


----------



## MasterChief (Dec 31, 2007)

maineman said:


> and please, so that I can fully appreciate your perspective, can you tell me your rating?


No, I will not tell you my rating.  It has nothing to do with the merits of my argument, sir. Either respond to the issues or don't, but just because you were an officer does not mean you know squat about American military history. I saw my share of officers who arrogantly thought that they knew it all, only to get in trouble and get busted out. In Athens the channel to shore is a zig-zag from the anchorage point. When the officer on the Captain's Gig asked boat's why he was taking such an irregular course and did not like his response, he give him a direct order to make a straight line to the ship. The Captain's Gig ran ground on the reef and bent the shaft and the sailors walked across the reef back to shore. I had told this particular officer that he would not last a year and I'd be on the deck to salute him when he got busted out. Two week's later that officer was brought up on charges, was busted, drummed out and I saluted him as he was escorted off the ship. So respond to the argument, sire, and don't throw your rank around like it suddenly makes you more creditable or knowledgeable, because it doesn't.


----------



## maineman (Dec 31, 2007)

MasterChief said:


> No, I will not tell you my rating.  It has nothing to do with the merits of my argument, sir. Either respond to the issues or don't, but just because you were an officer does not mean you know squat about American military history. I saw my share of officers who arrogantly thought that they knew it all, only to get in trouble and get busted out. In Athens the channel to shore is a zig-zag from the anchorage point. When the officer on the Captain's Gig asked boat's why he was taking such an irregular course and did not like his response, he give him a direct order to make a straight line to the ship. The Captain's Gig ran ground on the reef and bent the shaft and the sailors walked across the reef back to shore. I had told this particular officer that he would not last a year and I'd be on the deck to salute him when he got busted out. Two week's later that officer was brought up on charges, was busted, drummed out and I saluted him as he was escorted off the ship. So respond to the argument, sire, and don't throw your rank around like it suddenly makes you more creditable or knowledgeable, because it doesn't.



in the post of mine that you quoted, you missed this part:

*"go back and re-read my post. You seemed to have missed the second half."*

I did respond.  my rank has nothing to do with it....your apparently selective reading does.

And thanks for reminding me about the goofy anchorage in Piraeus.... it brings back fond memories.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 31, 2007)

maineman said:


> 1.  I pointed out to the masterchief that I was in the navy too and told him my specialty.... and I asked for his.  I did not suggest or imply any superiority.
> 
> 2.  I would definitely defer to YOUR ultimate knowledge about the state of the marine corps in the post vietnam era.
> 
> 3. I also asked you if you really thought that maintaining a military machine that had been supporting nearly a half a million troops in a war zone for nearly a decade would have made any sense given the other priorities facing our nation's economy in the years immediately after vietnam.



Cold War ring any bells? In the 70's we still faced a Soviet Union we believed capable and determined to conquer Europe by force or threat of force.  So yes we should have maintained our Army and Marine Corps in fighting shape.


----------



## maineman (Dec 31, 2007)

that, of course, is not what I asked you.


----------



## Gunny (Dec 31, 2007)

Warner said:


> Grrr... I was listening to the debate.  I heard it first hand you idiot.



Well, Mr Firsthand, feel free to start a separate thread with a link to the transcripts.  

It you want to go the namecalling route I'll be more than fucking happy to oblige you.  Comprende?


----------



## MasterChief (Jan 1, 2008)

maineman said:


> And thanks for reminding me about the goofy anchorage in Piraeus.... it brings back fond memories.


No problem. Now back to the thread--it appears that we are so far off track, we'd do better to abandon this thread and start another. And yes, I read your post just fine and your point is just plain silly. Had the United States placed the proper military equipment in Korea the whole war could have been avoided--having infantry facing tanks without anti-tank weapons is not only suicide but it invites a stronger force to take advantage of a weaker one.  Historians have written about how United States military draw downs invited military action against the United States.  Are you forgetting that the Soviet Union fell while United States military was on a build up--not a draw down?


----------



## maineman (Jan 1, 2008)

MasterChief said:


> No problem. Now back to the thread--it appears that we are so far off track, we'd do better to abandon this thread and start another. And yes, I read your post just fine and your point is just plain silly. Had the United States placed the proper military equipment in Korea the whole war could have been avoided--having infantry facing tanks without anti-tank weapons is not only suicide but it invites a stronger force to take advantage of a weaker one.  Historians have written about how United States military draw downs invited military action against the United States.  Are you forgetting that the Soviet Union fell while United States military was on a build up--not a draw down?



I am not questioning the fact that an enormous military, always ready, always armed to the teeth with the latest and greatest military hardware, always trained to a sharp battle ready edge is a great deterrent.  Wouldn't it be great if we could always afford to have such a military - fully staffed and equipped to levels well beyond what even the most prescient military planners could possible foresee...just in case?  

I question the practicality of such a military in the wake of WWII or Vietnam.  I suggest that the guns or butter question was clearly answered by the voices of the people in both instances, and that hindsight is always 20/20.


----------



## MasterChief (Jan 1, 2008)

maineman said:


> I question the practicality of such a military in the wake of WWII or Vietnam.  I suggest that the guns or butter question was clearly answered by the voices of the people in both instances...


Okay, I hear you--after a war, the people's desire for peace is often coupled with a rejection of all things military.  However, it is the responsibility of those who study such things to remind "the people" that this path has been followed before and usually results in costing more lives and treasure than any short term gains. Carter's loss of the presidency is what happens when "the people" finally realize what military down sizing actually means. The anti-war crowd got four years under Carter but those who believe in a strong military stance and did not like the rise of Islamic radicalism got twelve years under Reagan-Bush. So in the scope of political/military trends, who actually won?


----------



## maineman (Jan 1, 2008)

MasterChief said:


> Okay, I hear you--after a war, the people's desire for peace is often coupled with a rejection of all things military.  However, it is the responsibility of those who study such things to remind "the people" that this path has been followed before and usually results in costing more lives and treasure than any short term gains. Carter's loss of the presidency is what happens when "the people" finally realize what military down sizing actually means. The anti-war crowd got four years under Carter but those who believe in a strong military stance and did not like the rise of Islamic radicalism got twelve years under Reagan-Bush. So in the scope of political/military trends, who actually won?



the people always win.  We get who we deserve...and we get what we deserve.


----------



## Doug (Jan 1, 2008)

The problem is that everything is always changing, but that we necessarily try to predict the future based on our experience of the past.

Until the 20th Century, the geographic position of the United States meant that we were secure, without a large standing army. Plus we had the historical luck that after 1815, Europe was largely at peace for a century.

The 20th Century was different. Europe's evolution towards an ever-more-democratic, ever-more-peaceful society -- which we can see today -- was radically disrupted by the First World War, which destoyed three empires and gave birth to a powerful Communist, and then a powerful Fascist, presence in the world. We spent the rest of the 20th Century trying to recover from their destructive effects.

The United States had a close call with respect to WWII. Our President then knew we had to get involved in it, but had a very unwilling nation behind him. Thank God we were able to maneuvre the Japanese into firing the first shot, so that the nation could be rallied for war, and additional thanks for the fact that Hitler was mad enough to declare war on us, which he did not have to.

Then we had to fight the Third World War ... a Cold one, mostly. Close calls there, too, as in Korea. And the Cuban Missile Crisis could have gotten very nasty, as we now know. Fortunately, socialism is a terribly inefficient system, so the USSR finally collapsed under its own weight.

Now we face new challenges -- radical Islam, Russia, China. How tempting to think we could go back to the 19th Century situation, and just let the rest of the world fight it out.

But we can't. Not only that, but the nature of modern weapons means we have to do our feeble best, in a very murky situation, which we don't understand well and which is changing all the time, to nudge the world towards becoming the sort of stable liberal democracies which generally do not go to war against each other.

No one really knows how to do this, or if it is even possible. In any case, we had better remain militarily strong.

It is a paradox, in a way. I think Maineman sees -- as I do -- that, looking at human history in the long run -- our species may be entering a new epoch, in which the whole world gradually becomes like Europe, with war a thing of the past. But if this is becoming true, it is only doing so very slowly -- the rest of this century is not going to be a peaceful one -- at best an armed truce.

So we have to keep our powder dry, and keep a lot of powder handy. Butter isn't all that good for you anyway.


----------



## MasterChief (Jan 1, 2008)

Doug said:


> It is a paradox, in a way. I think Maineman sees -- as I do -- that, looking at human history in the long run -- our species may be entering a new epoch, in which the whole world gradually becomes like Europe, with war a thing of the past. But if this is becoming true, it is only doing so very slowly -- the rest of this century is not going to be a peaceful one -- at best an armed truce.


A wise man once said "Only the dead have seen the end of war."


----------



## midcan5 (Jan 1, 2008)

Doug said:


> The 20th Century was different. Europe's evolution towards an ever-more-democratic, ever-more-peaceful society -- which we can see today -- was radically disrupted by the First World War, which destoyed three empires and gave birth to a powerful Communist, and then a powerful Fascist, presence in the world. We spent the rest of the 20th Century trying to recover from their destructive effects.



Doug,  where you been hiding?  I agree with some of that but communism grew out of the economic inequity and the instability of governments in the late 19th and early 20th century. Political solutions are tough in societies that do not have the values of our own nor its tradition. Nation building doesn't work easily, think Bush said that before he fell on his head.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 1, 2008)

maineman said:


> that, of course, is not what I asked you.



Twist it and turn it any way you want, the US Military was poorly funded and poorly equipped during Carter's Presidency. It was his watch and he did nothing to fix it. Ya that sure is irrelevent to this discussion.


----------



## Doug (Jan 1, 2008)

*MasterChief*: You may be right, but ... note that the Europeans used to regularly bash hell out of each other. But since the end of WWII, they seem to have decided that they would rather make money out of each other. An extraordinary development, but a hopeful one. And one we can take a lot of the credit for, I think. Not that they'll give it to us.

*MidCan*: I think it is too mechanical to say that Communism "grew out of" inequity and instability. Of course, it, like fascism, required various bad social conditions to flourish. But there were non-totalitarian competitors to both communists and fascists, who also addressed these bad social conditions. There were democrats, both socialist and conservative, in both Russia and Germany -- but they were out-manuevered and defeated politically, and then suppressed militarily. Neither the Russian communists, nor the German fascists, ever got a democratic majority vote in their favor. But you don't need a majority of the votes, if you have a majority of the guns.

In retrospect, is it not clear that the democratic forces in the world -- of which we are the leading, but not the only, one -- had a crucial stake in the victory of the democrats in those countries? Because the victory of the bad guys was not something that concerned those countries only, as it turned out -- these terrible ideologies are not content to sit on their conquests, but inevitably turn outwards.

How much bloodshed would have been avoided, if we could have influenced events then to prevent the totalitarians from achieving power! 

Now, maybe there was nothing we could have done. But that if there was something we could have done, it seems to me obvious that we should have done it. Almost any other outcome in either country would have been preferable to the victory of a determined gang of fanatics, ready to sacrifice themselves and others to turn the world upside down. (Note: this is not a backhanded argument for attacking Iran or nuking North Korea or invading China. Strategy and tactics are two separate realms. But if our strategy is wrong we might as well forget about tactics altogether.)


----------



## maineman (Jan 2, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Twist it and turn it any way you want, the US Military was poorly funded and poorly equipped during Carter's Presidency. It was his watch and he did nothing to fix it. Ya that sure is irrelevent to this discussion.



the point is:  you hide from questions that are uncomfortable to you.  pussy.


----------



## midcan5 (Jan 2, 2008)

Doug said:


> How much bloodshed would have been avoided, if we could have influenced events then to prevent the totalitarians from achieving power!



True, but given our track record is this really doable. We supported Saddam, certainly a ruthless dictator, and now that Bush is trying to change that, his particular 'influence,' to use your word, seems to be creating an even more terror filled world.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 2, 2008)

maineman said:


> the point is:  you hide from questions that are uncomfortable to you.  pussy.



No I answered you, your just too stupid to read the answer you don't want. WE SHOULD NOT HAVE CUT THE MILITARY AS MUCH AS WE DID, not after Vietnam and not after the Soviet Union collapsed, which is what I ALREADY TOLD YOU twice now. You just don't like the answer. Nor should we have cut it as much as we did after WW2. In every case it lead to an attack on the US. Or our interests which is the same thing, in all 3 cases it was because we were viewed as weak.


----------



## MasterChief (Jan 2, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> We supported Saddam, certainly a ruthless dictator, and now that Bush is trying to change that, his particular 'influence,' to use your word, seems to be creating an even more terror filled world.


Yes, we did, but why--why did we support Saddam? We supported him because the Ayatollah was holding Americans hostage and had violated international law by not providing security for our embassy. Saddam hated the Ayatollah, the United States hated the Ayatollah--common enemy, common interests. So we sold Saddam weapons and intel to beat up on our common enemy. The Ayatollah came to see the hostages as a liability so he released them. Iran finances Hezbollah, and has financed the PLO and Al Qaeda. The Iranians are far more responsible for terror than anything GWB has done.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 2, 2008)

MasterChief said:


> Yes, we did, but why--why did we support Saddam? We supported him because the Ayatollah was holding Americans hostage and had violated international law by not providing security for our embassy. Saddam hated the Ayatollah, the United States hated the Ayatollah--common enemy, common interests. So we sold Saddam weapons and intel to beat up on our common enemy. The Ayatollah came to see the hostages as a liability so he released them. Iran finances Hezbollah, and has financed the PLO and Al Qaeda. The Iranians are far more responsible for terror than anything GWB has done.



Except we did not sell them weapons, all we did is provide intel and some unarmed helicopters. Saddam got his weapons from the Soviets and Europe. France and Belgium in particular.


----------



## Annie (Jan 2, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Except we did not sell them weapons, all we did is provide intel and some unarmed helicopters. Saddam got his weapons from the Soviets and Europe. France and Belgium in particular.



which goes to show the threat Iran really is. Both the US and the USSR were helping Saddam, yet Iran held its own. Please pass along to Ron Paul that Iran has both an Army and Navy.


----------



## MasterChief (Jan 2, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Except we did not sell them weapons, all we did is provide intel and some unarmed helicopters.


GySgT,
That is not exactly correct. We did provide some weapons through a third party and some chem and bio weapons that Donald Rumsfled helped provide. In fact, that is how we knew that he did have WMD's at one time. However, what we provided was not enough to give Saddam a clear victory but enough to keep him in the fight.  But did we provide weapons in clearly marked United States crates on United States ships--no. That would have been stupid. We had to be able to maintain plausible deniability and that's what we did.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 2, 2008)

MasterChief said:


> GySgT,
> That is not exactly correct. We did provide some weapons through a third party and some chem and bio weapons that Donald Rumsfled helped provide. In fact, that is how we knew that he did have WMD's at one time. However, what we provided was not enough to give Saddam a clear victory but enough to keep him in the fight.  But did we provide weapons in clearly marked United States crates on United States ships--no. That would have been stupid. We had to be able to maintain plausible deniability and that's what we did.



Wrong, we sold legally allowed chemical and medical supplies under existing laws. If you can prove otherwise do so. We did however at one point allow a third party to sell weapons and parts to IRAN.

His weapons did not need nor use American ammo or American arms. It was all Russian French and Belgian. We provided some unarmed helicopters is all. check the lists of what was sold. If we had sold chemical weapons or other weapons it would be a well known fact by now and would not be a nod nod wink wink, we know they did it, but can't prove it claim.


----------



## MasterChief (Jan 2, 2008)

GySgt,
I do not want to reveal an classified information but here is a section of an article in the public domain at indybay.org...





> During the Iran-Iraq war, Iraq received the lion's share of American support because at the time Iran was regarded as the greater threat to U.S. interests. According to a 1994 Senate report, private American suppliers, licensed by the U.S. Department of Commerce, exported a witch's brew of biological and chemical materials to Iraq from 1985 through 1989. Among the biological materials, which often produce slow, agonizing death, were:
> 
> * Bacillus Anthracis, cause of anthrax.
> 
> ...


I can assure you that this was not the full extent of our involvement in the Iran/Iraq war and can only say that the Saudis and Kuwaitese were our friends and they too were very concerned about the Ayatollah. Our naval base in Bahrain was there at the time and proved to be very helpful. If you want to say that we provided arms to both sides--well, you'll get no argument from me on that minor point. But if you want to say we gave Iraq nothing but a few choppers and some intel, I can only say that I respectfully disagree.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 2, 2008)

MasterChief said:


> GySgt,
> I do not want to reveal an classified information but here is a section of an article in the public domain at indybay.org...I can assure you that this was not the full extent of our involvement in the Iran/Iraq war and can only say that the Saudis and Kuwaitese were our friends and they too were very concerned about the Ayatollah. Our naval base in Bahrain was there at the time and proved to be very helpful. If you want to say that we provided arms to both sides--well, you'll get no argument from me on that minor point. But if you want to say we gave Iraq nothing but a few choppers and some intel, I can only say that I respectfully disagree.



Those materials were legally sold. Nothing clandestine about it.


----------



## maineman (Jan 2, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Except we did not sell them weapons, all we did is provide intel and some unarmed helicopters. Saddam got his weapons from the Soviets and Europe. France and Belgium in particular.



you did not make the assertion that we had not sold him weapons *clandestinely*...only that we had not sold him weapons.


----------



## Gunny (Jan 2, 2008)

maineman said:


> you did not make the assertion that we had not sold him weapons *clandestinely*...only that we had not sold him weapons.




Depends on how literal you want to be.  The items listed above are precursors that _can be _used as weapons, not weapons in and of themselves.  

An analogy to that would be ... if i sell you a gun, and you turn around and murder someone with it, which of us is held legally accountable?  At least for now, you.

If actual military weapons wee sold to Iraq, as MChief stated, it's classifed or didn't happen.  If it was in the public domain, it would be linked to and used in message board arguments every day.  

Hindsight's 20/20.  At the time, the enemy of our enemy was our friend.  Saddam had not at that time attacked a nation friendly to us, and in our interest to keep friendly.

With that in mind, I don't really see the big deal always trying to be made about us selling Saddam "whatever."  He was in fact doing our dirty work and we were all cheering him on.


----------



## maineman (Jan 2, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Depends on how literal you want to be.  The items listed above are precursors that _can be _used as weapons, not weapons in and of themselves.
> 
> An analogy to that would be ... if i sell you a gun, and you turn around and murder someone with it, which of us is held legally accountable?  At least for now, you.
> 
> ...




RGS stated that we had only sold him unarmed helicopters (hardly weapons themselves) and not anything else...when the masterchief gave him further info, he backtracked and stated that none of those other things had been sold clandestinely.... that was not his original point.

and I agree with you about Saddam....he was our favorite bad boy and any shock and outrage over the fact that he had some bad toys was pretty contrived.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 2, 2008)

maineman said:


> RGS stated that we had only sold him unarmed helicopters (hardly weapons themselves) and not anything else...when the masterchief gave him further info, he backtracked and stated that none of those other things had been sold clandestinely.... that was not his original point.
> 
> and I agree with you about Saddam....he was our favorite bad boy and any shock and outrage over the fact that he had some bad toys was pretty contrived.



Wrong, the Master chief has not listed a single "weapon", the chemical and biological stocks we sold were not "weapons" they were sold as what they were, for medical or research material. Legal and above board, not even hidden.

Name some weapon or weapons Saddam needed from us? Our ammo was no good to him, wrong calibers. Our rifles were no good to him unless we sold huge stocks , since he used Russian weapons and some Belgian and French items, mostly heavy weapons. Our bombs were useless to him, he flew French and Russian Aircraft and helicopters. He used Russian Artillery and Russian anti air weapons, missiles and guns, again nothing in our inventory did him any good.

In fact the only people that needed American materials were the Iranians since their military had been armed with our stuff under the Shah.

The claim we sold chemical "weapons" is a bald faced lie. He didn't want our weapons, he made his own. Did he use the chemical and biological precursors we sold AS medical and research stock to make some, probably, but there was nothing illegal about our selling those items. They were NOT weapons, nor were they weapons GRADE.


----------



## finebead (Jan 3, 2008)

MasterChief said:


> GySgt,
> I do not want to reveal an classified information but here is a section of an article in the public domain at indybay.org...I can assure you that this was not the full extent of our involvement in the Iran/Iraq war and can only say that the Saudis and Kuwaitese were our friends and they too were very concerned about the Ayatollah. Our naval base in Bahrain was there at the time and proved to be very helpful. If you want to say that we provided arms to both sides--well, you'll get no argument from me on that minor point. But if you want to say we gave Iraq nothing but a few choppers and some intel, I can only say that I respectfully disagree.


MasterChief,

Could you provide the link to that article.  I have searched at indybay.org and not come up with it.

Thanks,
FB


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 3, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> With that in mind, I don't really see the big deal always trying to be made about us selling Saddam "whatever."  He was in fact doing our dirty work and we were all cheering him on.


By their argument, that if you supply someone with something to fight someone else, you have no place to later oppose the someone you supplied, the US had could not oppose the USSR during the cold war.


----------



## maineman (Jan 3, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> By their argument, that if you supply someone with something to fight someone else, you have no place to later oppose the someone you supplied, the US had could not oppose the USSR during the cold war.



Not quite.  My belief is that we should not act all outraged that Saddam had WMD's when we knew he had them and had been purposely (and no doubt, gleefully) silent when Saddam had used them against OUR enemies, the Iranians.


----------



## Warner (Jan 3, 2008)

RGS, are you saying that in the 1800's that supplying salt-peter was not tantamount to supplying gunpowder?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 3, 2008)

Warner said:


> RGS, are you saying that in the 1800's that supplying salt-peter was not tantamount to supplying gunpowder?


Yes.  And he's correct.
Supplying iron is not the same as supplying swords.


----------



## Warner (Jan 3, 2008)

LOL.

So supplying weapons grade plutonium would not be suppling nuclear capability I suppose?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 3, 2008)

Warner said:


> LOL.
> So supplying weapons grade plutonium would not be suppling nuclear capability I suppose?


Supplying a multi-use precursor to a weapon that requires that precursor to be refined and and assembled into a weapon is not the same as supplying a weapon.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 3, 2008)

Warner said:


> LOL.
> 
> So supplying weapons grade plutonium would not be suppling nuclear capability I suppose?



We did not supply weapons grade ANYTHING. We sold medical stock and research stock. All quite legally I might add.


----------



## maineman (Jan 3, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> We did not supply weapons grade ANYTHING. We sold medical stock and research stock. All quite legally I might add.



There would not have been anything illegal is we had supplied them with artillery pieces!  

And I am curious, and really don't know the answer, so I'll ask:  what would be the legitimate reason that Iraq would need anthrax?


----------



## MasterChief (Jan 3, 2008)

finebead said:


> Could you provide the link to that article.  I have searched at indybay.org and not come up with it.


My computer is not letting me cut and paste like it used to.  I needed to write it out by hand and then type it in. Hopefully, I got all the slashes and spaces right. Here it is... http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2002/03/27/1195471.php


----------



## Annie (Jan 3, 2008)

MasterChief said:


> My computer is not letting me cut and paste like it used to.  I needed to write it out by hand and then type it in. Hopefully, I got all the slashes and spaces right. Here it is... http://www.indybay.org/newitems/2002/03/27/1195471.php



I couldn't get the above to work, so I searched it:

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2002/03/27/1195471.php
The s was missing for the link above.


----------



## MasterChief (Jan 3, 2008)

Kathianne,
Thanks


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 3, 2008)

maineman said:


> There would not have been anything illegal is we had supplied them with artillery pieces!
> 
> And I am curious, and really don't know the answer, so I'll ask:  what would be the legitimate reason that Iraq would need anthrax?



Why does any country need anthrax? Completely irrelevant to the discussion. It is provided for research purposes and Iraq met the requirements to buy it.

And we didn't supply any weapons because, once again, he wasn't using anything we could supply him WITH.


----------



## MasterChief (Jan 3, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> True, but given our track record is this really doable. We supported Saddam, certainly a ruthless dictator, and now that Bush is trying to change that, his particular 'influence,' to use your word, seems to be creating an even more terror filled world.


Now back to the point--we supported Saddam for a reason: he was against the Ayatollah. That is called "real politic" and the way states stay in power and their people get what they want. 

The minute he crossed the border into Kuwait and pissed off the other Gulf states, the Gulf states and the Western powers asked if Saddam's hedge water against Iran was worth the destabilization within the gulf region. Over time the conclusion was made that Saddam had become an overall liability and from that point on, he was a dead man walking. So what?  The situation changed and we changed with it. That's a good thing.


----------



## maineman (Jan 3, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Why does any country need anthrax? Completely irrelevant to the discussion. It is provided for research purposes and Iraq met the requirements to buy it.
> 
> And we didn't supply any weapons because, once again, he wasn't using anything we could supply him WITH.



answer your own question. research purposes!  HAH!  Why WOULD Saddam need anthrax and why in the world would we sell it to him.  Do we think he was using it to make a new formula for diet free cola?


----------



## Gunny (Jan 3, 2008)

maineman said:


> answer your own question. research purposes!  HAH!  Why WOULD Saddam need anthrax and why in the world would we sell it to him.  Do we think he was using it to make a new formula for diet free cola?



The legitimate reason to sell it would be for medical reasons.  To produce the same antitoxins we were shot full of starting in 98 as a safeguard against contracting anthrax.

The fact is, everything we overtly provided Saddam with was dual-use.  Did we unofficially know what he was going to do with it?  I'd say it's highly likely.  At the same time, the technical legal deniability is there.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 3, 2008)

MasterChief said:


> Now back to the point--we supported Saddam for a reason: he was against the Ayatollah. That is called "real politic" and the way states stay in power and their people get what they want.
> 
> The minute he crossed the border into Kuwait and pissed off the other Gulf states, the Gulf states and the Western powers asked if Saddam's hedge water against Iran was worth the destabilization within the gulf region. Over time the conclusion was made that Saddam had become an overall liability and from that point on, he was a dead man walking. So what?  The situation changed and we changed with it. That's a good thing.



Depends if you want to be perceived as the good guy, which almost every American politician and person I know wants. Would have been better to either stay out of the ME altogether IMO..


----------



## finebead (Jan 3, 2008)

MasterChief said:


> Kathianne,
> Thanks


Thanks to both of you; I enjoyed the read!


----------



## finebead (Jan 3, 2008)

The discussion of the US having sold precursors of biological weapons to Iraq in the 80's is relevant the the discussion of whether Bush lied to the American people over why we invaded Iraq in the first place.

We were told:
1) Iraq has WMD, 2) Iraq poses an imminent threat to the US, and 3) Iraq had something to do with 9/11.

1) From the Kaye and Dulfer reports we know Iraq had no WMD, and 2) therefore they posed no imminent threat to the US.  3) From the 9/11 Commission report we know "Iraq had no collaborative relationship with Al Qaeda".

All of the assertions used to justify the invasion are false.  The public has used this information to state "Bush lied to us about invading Iraq".  The Bush apologists have stated that, "Well, Saddam was a bad guy, and the world is better off without him, and he killed his own people".  

That does not hold water either.  We knew Saddam was a bad guy in the 80's for many reasons, including knowing he used chemical weapons on the Iranians and on the Kurds.  If these events were worth an invasion, they were worth invading in the 80's, but there was nary a peep from us, rather Rumsfeld is pictured shaking his hand and smiling in Baghdad.

So, there is no reason that has been stated by our govt. for the invasion of Iraq that is a valid reason.  Bush has lied to the nation.  

So we are still left with the question of why we invaded Iraq.  Greenspan has said in his book the reason is it was just about oil.  Exxon and Texaco have signed 30 year oil purchase agreements with Iraq, very quietly.  I doubt we'll see a wholesale pullout of our troops; we will have to enforce the contracts.

Americans wonder why so many in the world hate us, and this is the answer, pretty much.  We talk about human rights and moral behavior, and lately we have done a poorer job of living up to the standards we talk about.

There are still several unmentioned possible reasons for the invasion.  The need for a military base in the ME that is better situated than Afghanistan, or the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) CEOs just needing to grow their businesses in a post Cold War era.


----------



## 82Marine89 (Jan 3, 2008)

finebead said:


> The discussion of the US having sold precursors of biological weapons to Iraq in the 80's is relevant the the discussion of whether Bush lied to the American people over why we invaded Iraq in the first place.
> 
> We were told:
> 1) Iraq has WMD, 2) Iraq poses an imminent threat to the US, and 3) Iraq had something to do with 9/11.
> ...



So I guess enforcing a UN resolution had nothing to do with it? Even if Saddam didn't have WMD's he bluffed and his bluff got called. Where Bush fucked up was declaring victory to early. He should never have said the mission was accomplished. It wasn't. Now we are paying for it. 

If it was about oil, why don't we have any of it? Why don't we control their oil fields? That line is cheap liberal rhetoric.


----------



## maineman (Jan 3, 2008)

82Marine89 said:


> So I guess enforcing a UN resolution had nothing to do with it? Even if Saddam didn't have WMD's he bluffed and his bluff got called. Where Bush fucked up was declaring victory to early. He should never have said the mission was accomplished. It wasn't. Now we are paying for it.
> 
> If it was about oil, why don't we have any of it? Why don't we control their oil fields? That line is cheap liberal rhetoric.




do you honestly think, with islamic extremists flying planes into our buildings, and remaining on the loose in Afghanistan, that switching targets and putting the vast majority of our ground war fighting assets into an invasion/conquest/occupation of Iraq because they violated some UN resolutions was really the best way to prioritize the threats against us and deploy forces to deal with those priorities?


----------



## 82Marine89 (Jan 3, 2008)

maineman said:


> do you honestly think, with islamic extremists flying planes into our buildings, and remaining on the loose in Afghanistan, that switching targets and putting the vast majority of our ground war fighting assets into an invasion/conquest/occupation of Iraq because they violated some UN resolutions was really the best way to prioritize the threats against us and deploy forces to deal with those priorities?



Nope, but it's too late to whine about it.


----------



## maineman (Jan 3, 2008)

82Marine89 said:


> Nope, but it's too late to whine about it.



why would you bring up enforcing UN resolutions if it was a stupid boneheaded rationale to begin with?


----------



## 82Marine89 (Jan 3, 2008)

maineman said:


> why would you bring up enforcing UN resolutions if it was a stupid boneheaded rationale to begin with?



It was in response to finebeads comment. read what I responded to.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 3, 2008)

finebead said:


> The discussion of the US having sold precursors of biological weapons to Iraq in the 80's is relevant the the discussion of whether Bush lied to the American people over why we invaded Iraq in the first place.
> 
> We were told:
> 1) Iraq has WMD, 2) Iraq poses an imminent threat to the US, and 3) Iraq had something to do with 9/11.
> ...



Your moronic drivel has been shown for what it is every time it has been spouted by you idiots. You think if you repeat the same tired lies over enough times someone will start believing you.


----------



## maineman (Jan 3, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Your moronic drivel has been shown for what it is every time it has been spouted by you idiots. You think if you repeat the same tired lies over enough times someone will start believing you.



no....we laugh when you suggest there is an expectation that politicians don't routinely use innuendo and suggestion to make points.  Clearly, there is not transcript of Bush or Cheney saying that Saddam has planned 9/11...but there was plenty of innuendo.... CHeney's claims about the Atta meeting with Iraqi intelligence in Praque....discredited, yet still repeated.... Rice's mushroom cloud comments.... you and I know the list of hints and allegations and innuendoes was massive...and while you can point to any one of them and claim that the words contained therein did not specifically tie Saddam to 9/11, the weight of the sum total of all of them is overwhelming - and clearly it was effective - demonstrably so.  People in America who knew who OBL was and what he had done back in september of 01 somehow became convinced that Saddam was responsible for it a mere two years later.

And below it all runs the scummy little undercurrent where you call Kennedy a murderer or Clinton a perjurer...or you tell out and out lies about board members all the while not getting your petticoats dirty.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 4, 2008)

maineman said:


> no....we laugh when you suggest there is an expectation that politicians don't routinely use innuendo and suggestion to make points.  Clearly, there is not transcript of Bush or Cheney saying that Saddam has planned 9/11...but there was plenty of innuendo.... CHeney's claims about the Atta meeting with Iraqi intelligence in Praque....discredited, yet still repeated.... Rice's mushroom cloud comments.... you and I know the list of hints and allegations and innuendoes was massive...and while you can point to any one of them and claim that the words contained therein did not specifically tie Saddam to 9/11, the weight of the sum total of all of them is overwhelming - and clearly it was effective - demonstrably so.  People in America who knew who OBL was and what he had done back in september of 01 somehow became convinced that Saddam was responsible for it a mere two years later.
> 
> And below it all runs the scummy little undercurrent where you call Kennedy a murderer or Clinton a perjurer...or you tell out and out lies about board members all the while not getting your petticoats dirty.



Sure thing, keep on peddling your " we all know it where I live" garbage, it doesn't sell. You have been shown the door on this issue a couple times already, you think if you just repeat it over and over suddenly it is true.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 4, 2008)

82Marine89 said:


> So I guess enforcing a UN resolution had nothing to do with it? Even if Saddam didn't have WMD's he bluffed and his bluff got called. Where Bush fucked up was declaring victory to early. He should never have said the mission was accomplished. It wasn't. Now we are paying for it.
> 
> If it was about oil, why don't we have any of it? Why don't we control their oil fields? That line is cheap liberal rhetoric.



If the US gave a fuck about UN resolutions they'd put a rocket up Israel's arse a couple of times every year. That is a red herring.

As for being about oil, it's not about the US GETTING the oil, it is having a stable supply and the affect it would have on world money/trading markets if the region became unstable. Note, in NZ and Australia we are paying record prices for oil at the moment due to the instability of the region (IMO). Kinda ironic in that IMO, that was the main reason for the invasion. But Bush and his cronies (Cheney especially) were so arrogant, and such schmucks to boot, thought they could install a Jeffersonian type democracy in a part of the world that has never known democracy, just makes me shake my head in wonder at the whole situation.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 4, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Sure thing, keep on peddling your " we all know it where I live" garbage, it doesn't sell. You have been shown the door on this issue a couple times already, you think if you just repeat it over and over suddenly it is true.



What a crap, dumbarse argument. He points out candidly the lie of the land and you put your fingers in your ears and say "nah, nah, nah, nah, nah"...pathetic..


----------



## maineman (Jan 4, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Sure thing, keep on peddling your " we all know it where I live" garbage, it doesn't sell. You have been shown the door on this issue a couple times already, you think if you just repeat it over and over suddenly it is true.



no.  you are a hypocrite.  On one hand you categorically refuse to acknowledge that innuendo and insinuation exist, existed, and were effective in changing public opinion about the immediacy of the threat posed by Saddam..... claiming that we cannot PROVE any direct lie and refusing to acknowledge that giving a deliberately false IMPRESSION is also a lie....yet on the other hand, you routinely suggest that Senator Kennedy is a murderer and that Bill Clinton is guilty of perjury.  Double standard, hack, hypocrite.

The only door that's been shown anyone on this issue is the one that slapped you on the ass on your way out.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 4, 2008)

maineman said:


> no.  you are a hypocrite.  On one hand you categorically refuse to acknowledge that innuendo and insinuation exist, existed, and were effective in changing public opinion about the immediacy of the threat posed by Saddam..... claiming that we cannot PROVE any direct lie and refusing to acknowledge that giving a deliberately false IMPRESSION is also a lie....yet on the other hand, you routinely suggest that Senator Kennedy is a murderer and that Bill Clinton is guilty of perjury.  Double standard, hack, hypocrite.
> 
> The only door that's been shown anyone on this issue is the one that slapped you on the ass on your way out.



Clinton is the easiest of the two, your claim he did not commit perjury is hilarious, he has admitted he did it, he has been punished for doing it.

As for Kennedy, only a retard believes he did not kill that girl by his actions. Are you a retard?

Do go on and make all the idiotic claims you want. They did not wash the first through 50th time and they do not wash now.


----------



## mattskramer (Jan 4, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> As for Kennedy, only a retard believes he did not kill that girl by his actions. Are you a retard?



Just a passing comment:

I think that the Kennedy family settled the issue with the Kopechne family and avoided the court/legal system in the process.  The Kennedy family probably paid the Kopechne family millions in hush money.  Otherwise, I dont understand how Robert Kennedy did not go to trial and get convicted on negligent homicide at the very least. 

The Chappaquiddick incident has often puzzled me.


----------



## ReillyT (Jan 4, 2008)

mattskramer said:


> Just a passing comment:
> 
> I think that the Kennedy family settled the issue with the Kopechne family and avoided the court/legal system in the process.  The Kennedy family probably paid the Kopechne family millions in hush money.  Otherwise, I dont understand how Robert Kennedy did not go to trial and get convicted on negligent homicide at the very least.
> 
> The Chappaquiddick incident has often puzzled me.



Teddy, not Robert.


----------



## mattskramer (Jan 4, 2008)

ReillyT said:


> Teddy, not Robert.



Ooops.  You are right.  My mistake.


----------



## finebead (Jan 4, 2008)

82Marine89 said:


> If it was about oil, why don't we have any of it? Why don't we control their oil fields? That line is cheap liberal rhetoric.



We do control it.  It is not cheap liberal rhetoric. 


> Future of Iraq: The spoils of war
> How the West will make a killing on Iraqi oil riches
> By Danny Fortson, Andrew Murray-Watson and Tim Webb
> Published: 07 January 2007
> ...


http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2132569.ece

I don't fault you for not knowing this, as it has not been widely reported in the US.  I also think this is why the US plans to leave troops in Iraq permanenty, to protect the oil fields.

From Alan Greenspan's book:


> Saturday, September 15, 2007
> Greenspan: Iraq War Is Largely About Oil
> 
> EconomicsBriefing.com has obtained a pre-release copy of former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan's new book, The Age of Turbulence. In it *Greenspan, a life-long Republican*, writes: &#8220;*I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.*&#8221;
> ...


http://www.economicsbriefing.com/2007/09/greenspan-iraq-war-is-largely-about-oil.html

From the former military commander on the ground in Iraq:


> While Hennessy, Matson, Friedman and Bryson discussed green technology, the subject of America&#8217;s operations in Iraq was also a hotly debated topic. *Abizaid, who was formerly the Commander of the United States Central Command, quickly established a connection between the two topics.
> 
> &#8220;Of course it&#8217;s about oil, we can&#8217;t really deny that,&#8221; Abizaid said of the Iraq campaign *early on in the talk.


http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2007/10/15/roundtableDebatesEnergyIssues

I have sent the links to gunnyl and hopefully he will insert them for me.  Edited: GunnyL, I passed 15 posts, so I got them updated myself!


----------



## finebead (Jan 4, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Your moronic drivel has been shown for what it is every time it has been spouted by you idiots. You think if you repeat the same tired lies over enough times someone will start believing you.
> 
> One out of three, I guess yor doing good tonight. Be so kind as to post evidence he ever said imminent threat *or that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11*. I won't hold my breath.



Vice President Cheney states Mohamed Atta met with Sr. Iraqi intelligence official five months prior to the attack... 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJiNtpIpD6k[/ame]

At least I'm out of 'post hell' and can post my own links now...


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 4, 2008)

finebead said:


> Vice President Cheney states Mohamed Atta met with Sr. Iraqi intelligence official five months prior to the attack...



How does this equate to a statement that Iraq was involved in 9/11?


----------



## finebead (Jan 4, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> How does this equate to a statement that Iraq was involved in 9/11?



How does it not?  The attack leader is meeting with Sr. Iraqi intelligence officer five months prior to the attack?  Why did Cheney say that on Meet the press if it was not relevant?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 4, 2008)

finebead said:


> How does it not?


A conversation between two people does not create a given relatonship between those two people; noting that conversation doesnt in any way make any claim as to what it was about.

Cheney claimed there was a relationship between Iraq and AQ.  There's NO claim that there is a relationship between Iraq and 9/11.


----------



## mattskramer (Jan 4, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> How does this equate to a statement that Iraq was involved in 9/11?



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm

_Mr Bush has never directly accused the former Iraqi leader of having a hand in the attacks on New York and Washington, but he has repeatedly associated the two in keynote addresses delivered since 11 September. Senior members of his administration have similarly conflated the two._


----------



## finebead (Jan 4, 2008)

> March 14, 2003 edition
> 
> The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq
> American attitudes about a connection have changed, firming up the case for war.
> ...


http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html

Where did half the american people get the conviction that Iraq played a roll in the 9/11 attacks?  From the dems?  Naw.  It was from the president giving speeches on Iraq, and mentioning 9/11 eight times.  Face it, many americans aren't that bright, and you don't have to say it specifically to get them to believe Iraq was involved in 9/11.  Just weave them into the same speech.  It looks like a propaganda technique.


----------



## Steerpike (Jan 4, 2008)

You think half the American people pay attention to the President's speeches?  I'd say that's rather optimistic.  

I suspect that once the war was underway a good portion of the American people are just stupid enough to assume Iraq had something to do with 9/11 when put to the question.


----------



## finebead (Jan 4, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> A conversation between two people does not create a given relatonship between those two people; noting that conversation doesnt in any way make any claim as to what it was about.
> 
> Cheney claimed there was a relationship between Iraq and AQ.  *There's NO claim that there is a relationship between Iraq and 9/11.*



Listen to the clip again, Cheney's statement begins:

"With respect to 9/11...."

How do you interpret that to mean Atta's alleged meeting in Prague with Sr. Iraqi intelligence does NOT indicate there is a relationship between Iraq and 9/11?


----------



## maineman (Jan 4, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Clinton is the easiest of the two, your claim he did not commit perjury is hilarious, he has admitted he did it, he has been punished for doing it.
> 
> As for Kennedy, only a retard believes he did not kill that girl by his actions. Are you a retard?
> 
> Do go on and make all the idiotic claims you want. They did not wash the first through 50th time and they do not wash now.



Clinton is not "guilty" of perjury.  period.  Perjury is a crime.  He was never charged with the crime and never found guilty of committing it.

Killing someone by your actions does not make you a murderer, does it?  retard?  Yet you call Kennedy a murderer.  why is that, you hypocritical retard??

YOu play fast and loose with libelous statements and then get all huffy when people point out that Bush's statements most certainly created a false impression.

you are a hypocrite. a liar. a moron. and a retard.  proven.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 4, 2008)

finebead said:


> Listen to the clip again, Cheney's statement begins:
> 
> "With respect to 9/11...."
> 
> How do you interpret that to mean Atta's alleged meeting in Prague with Sr. Iraqi intelligence does NOT indicate there is a relationship between Iraq and 9/11?



 

You remind me of those people that argue that the Bush 41 administration gave Saddam permission to invade Kuwait.  Is that one of your pet theories as well?


----------



## maineman (Jan 4, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> You remind me of those people that argue that the Bush 41 administration gave Saddam permission to invade Kuwait.  Is that one of your pet theories as well?



nice dodge.


----------



## finebead (Jan 4, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> You remind me of those people that argue that the Bush 41 administration gave Saddam permission to invade Kuwait.  Is that one of your pet theories as well?


Irrelevant drivel...

I have demonstrated the vice president of the USA on Meet the press, saying, "With repect to 9/11, there are reports of a meeting in Prague between Mohamed Atta and Sr. Iraqi Intelligence officers, 5 months prior to the attack".

That clearly demonstrates that the Bush administration did link Iraq and Saddam to 9/11.

That is despite the fact that the 9/11 Commission found NO link between Iraq and 9/11.

That is why the American people believe they were lied to, by this administration in the runup to the war in Iraq, and the American people are correct on that one.


----------



## Steerpike (Jan 4, 2008)

Finebead:

The only problem is, there WAS a report that the meeting took place in Prague, and as far as I know Czech intelligence stands by that account to this day.  Doesn't prove a link between Iraq and 9/11, but if the meeting took place are you saying the VP isn't allowed to mention it?


----------



## finebead (Jan 4, 2008)

Steerpike said:


> Finebead:
> 
> The only problem is, there WAS a report that the meeting took place in Prague, and as far as I know Czech intelligence stands by that account to this day.  Doesn't prove a link between Iraq and 9/11, but if the meeting took place are you saying the VP isn't allowed to mention it?


The vice president of the US has a duty to be responsible in what he says to the people he supposedly works for.  Now, everyone believes there WAS NO LINK between Iraq and the 9/11 attack.  

If there WAS NO LINK between Iraq and the 9/11 attack, why mention this meeting, that maybe it occurred and maybe it didn't occur, at all?

You would only mention it on Meet the Press in support of a point, that everyone now agrees was a false point.  So, again, why even bring it up???


----------



## Steerpike (Jan 4, 2008)

finebead said:


> The vice president of the US has a duty to be responsible in what he says to the people he supposedly works for.  Now, everyone believes there WAS NO LINK between Iraq and the 9/11 attack.
> 
> If there WAS NO LINK between Iraq and the 9/11 attack, why mention this meeting, that maybe it occurred and maybe it didn't occur, at all?
> 
> You would only mention it on Meet the Press in support of a point, that everyone now agrees was a false point.  So, again, why even bring it up???



Those are all valid points.  One thing to keep in mind though, is hindsight is always easy.  You say "everyone NOW agrees" and you mentioned the 9/11 Commission Report.  Cheney's statements were prior to that.  If he thought at the time there was a link and was trying to make than point, then I don't have a problem with it.  If he knew at the time that there was no link and was trying to create a false impression, then I have a problem with it.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 4, 2008)

Steerpike said:


> Those are all valid points.  One thing to keep in mind though, is hindsight is always easy.  You say "everyone NOW agrees" and you mentioned the 9/11 Commission Report.  Cheney's statements were prior to that.  If he thought at the time there was a link and was trying to make than point, then I don't have a problem with it.  If he knew at the time that there was no link and was trying to create a false impression, then I have a problem with it.


There was a topic that went on and on and on regardting this.

They say he lied.  For that to stick, they have to show that he knew what he said was wrong.

Knowing they cannot do so, those that claim he lied then say they dont have to show that Cheney knew better -- the're simply voicing their opinion, and as such, dont have to show anything (see the quotes and links to same in my sig).

You're right -- If he thought at the time there was a link and was trying to make than point, then neither you nor I nor anyone else -should- have a problem with it


----------



## Steerpike (Jan 4, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> There was a topic that went on and on and on regardting this.
> 
> They say he lied.  For that to stick, they have to show that he knew what he said was wrong.
> 
> ...



Yes, that was the whole problem with the WMD issue, with people claiming "Bush lied," but forgetting that it was widely accepted that Hussein had WMDs, and not only did Bush think it but foreign governments thought it and a substantial percentage of the Congress thought it, and the Clinton administration thought it.  When you make that point, people use fall back on the argument that Bush somehow deceived them all, which is ludicrous.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 4, 2008)

Steerpike said:


> Yes, that was the whole problem with the WMD issue, with people claiming "Bush lied," but forgetting that it was widely accepted that Hussein had WMDs, and not only did Bush think it but foreign governments thought it and a substantial percentage of the Congress thought it, and the Clinton administration thought it.  When you make that point, people use fall back on the argument that Bush somehow deceived them all, which is ludicrous.


Espceially given that in their next breath, the same people will tell you how stupid Bush is.


----------



## finebead (Jan 4, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> There was a topic that went on and on and on regardting this.
> 
> They say he lied.  For that to stick, they have to show that he knew what he said was wrong.
> 
> ...



In any case, the administration was WRONG about the reasons why we were led into the Iraq war.  

You can say they were WRONG but they thought they were right in which case they are simply incompetent, or you can say they were WRONG and they knew they didn't have justification so they manipulated the intelligence to make the case for war therefore they lied to us.  

I believe they knew they did not have factual evidence to back up their claims, so they manipulated the intel, effectively lying to the people so enough of them would support the war.


----------



## Steerpike (Jan 4, 2008)

finebead said:


> You can say they were WRONG but they thought they were right in which case they are simply incompetent..



That is erroneous reasoning.  It is possible to be wrong about something without being incompetent.  Particularly when you have to rely on the work of others to arrive at a conclusion and there is no reasonable way to investigate the issue for oneself (e.g. a President relies on intelligence agencies for information and does not have the ability to conduct his own intelligence gathering to corroborate the information he gets).

Likewise, the prior administration, which also believed Hussein had WMDs, didn't have to be incompetent to think that.


----------



## Annie (Jan 4, 2008)

Steerpike said:


> Yes, that was the whole problem with the WMD issue, with people claiming "Bush lied," but forgetting that it was widely accepted that Hussein had WMDs, and not only did Bush think it but foreign governments thought it and a substantial percentage of the Congress thought it, and the Clinton administration thought it.  When you make that point, people use fall back on the argument that Bush somehow deceived them all, which is ludicrous.



and Congress thought there were other reasons, 22 other reasons + WMD:

http://thomas.loc.gov/



> Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)
> 
> --H.J.Res.114--
> 
> ...


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 4, 2008)

finebead said:


> In any case....


So..  you're giving up on the "lie" thing?



> ... the administration was WRONG about the reasons why we were led into the Iraq war.


Which was discovered only after the war....  >4.5 years after the last inspectors left.

I often wonder -- what DID happen to all those WMDs that we knew were there in 1998?


----------



## Steerpike (Jan 4, 2008)

The problem with any look into the lead up to the Iraq war it that you usually find the people asking questions are disingenuous.  There are some real questions that could be answered with respect to why we may have had a systematic intelligence failure that pre-dated the Bush administration and seems to continue to the present day with Iran.

But instead of really looking at the issue, most people who want to talk about the lead up to the Iraq war really only want an excuse to bash the Bush administration, conveniently ignoring anything that doesn't fit into the misperception that the Bush admin orchestrated the whole thing and pulled the woll over everyone's eyes.


----------



## finebead (Jan 4, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> So..  you're giving up on the "lie" thing?



Not giving up on the "lie" thing at all.  



> Letter of Resignation, to:
> Secretary of State Colin L. Powell
> 
> ATHENS, Thursday. 27 February 2003
> ...


http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/archives_roll/2003_01-03/kiesling_resign/kiesling_resign.html

Now here is a 20 year insider in the State Dept. resigning his career over "systematic distortion of intelligence" and "manipulation of public opinion".

John Kiesling was not the only diplomat to resign over the war in Iraq.  But the insiders knew.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 4, 2008)

finebead said:


> Not giving up on the "lie" thing at all.


Of course not.   

Prove that they knew the information they gave was false.



> the administration was WRONG about the reasons why we were led into the Iraq war.



Which was discovered only after the war.... >4.5 years after the last inspectors left.

I often wonder -- what DID happen to all those WMDs that we knew were there in 1998?


----------



## finebead (Jan 4, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> Of course not.
> 
> Prove that they knew the information they gave was false.
> 
> ...



Read my post, #265, just above.  Mr. Kiesling, 20 yr. diplomat, resigned in protest, stating the intel was "manipulated".  You did not repond to that.  When insiders say the intel was manipulated, he is telling us the ADMINISTRATION IS LYING TO US.

Edited, he resigned BEFORE the war started.


----------



## finebead (Jan 4, 2008)

Then we have the sec. of state in Feb. 2001:



> War opponents and some Congressional Democrats have pointed to a statement Powell made on *Feb. 24, 2001*, while meeting at Cairo's Ittihadiya Palace with Egyptian Foreign Minister Amr Moussa.
> 
> Asked about the sanctions placed on Iraq, which were then under review at the Security Council, *Powell said the measures were working. In fact, he added, "(Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."*



A far cry from the admin position two years later.  But Powell was correct in Feb. 2001.



And this from Scott Ritter, former UNSCOM head of inspection in Iraq from 1991-98.


> In 1998, you said Saddam had "not nearly disarmed." Now you say he doesn't have weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Why did you change your mind?
> 
> *I have never given Iraq a clean bill of health! Never! Never! I've said that no one has backed up any allegations that Iraq has reconstituted WMD capability with anything that remotely resembles substantive fact. To say that Saddam's doing it is in total disregard to the fact that if he gets caught he's a dead man and he knows it. Deterrence has been adequate in the absence of inspectors but this is not a situation that can succeed in the long term. In the long term you have to get inspectors back in.
> *
> ...


http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,351165,00.html

Again, someone with first hand knowledge saying Iraq has no WMD, and how he knows this, and the admin is not listening.  But, he was right.  It was known, and this interview was in 2002, prior to the war.


Scott Ritter was right, John Kiesling was right, Colin Powell was right in 2001, and this was ALL KNOWN BEFORE THE WAR, not 4 years after the war.


----------



## finebead (Jan 4, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Your moronic drivel has been shown for what it is every time it has been spouted by you idiots. You think if you repeat the same tired lies over enough times someone will start believing you.



That's from back on page 16 of this thread.  

RGS said the stuff in red:


> We were told:
> 1) Iraq has WMD, 2) Iraq poses an imminent threat to the US, and 3) Iraq had something to do with 9/11.
> One out of three, I guess yor doing good tonight. Be so kind as to post evidence he ever said imminent threat or that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. I won't hold my breath.



From Kathianne's post above on the joint resolution by congress:


> Whereas Iraq both *poses a continuing threat* to the national security of the United States
> ...
> 
> Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its *continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack*, the United States



Now, from a White House press briefing by Ari Fleischer on March 5, 2003:


> Q Ari, since there is an atmosphere of the imminence of war in this White House, and since we have no direct access to the President, will you state for the record, for the historical record, why he wants to bomb Iraqi people?
> 
> MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, I dispute the premise of your question, first of all. There's regular -- there's regular access to the President. The President is asked questions all the time. And when the President --
> 
> ...


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030305-7.html

So, Helen (Thomas, I suppose) states, "There is no imminent threat".

Fleischer has the opportunity to agree and say, that's correct Helen, there is no imminent threat, but he does not agree.    He says "Helen, if you were the President, you might see things differently.  But you have your judgment and the President has others".

The clear implication of this, and Mr. Fleischer is speaking for the President, is that the President has a different view from the view that Iraq's threat is not imminent.  Logic says this means that Mr. Fleisher is saying the President views the threat as imminent, or else he would have just agreed with Helen Thomas.

From the administrations point of view, the threat from Iraq had to be perceived by the public as imminent, because if it was not imminent and grave and serious, then we did NOT HAVE TO GO TO WAR RIGHT NOW.  This was hype to justify starting the war right now.  That's all.

There was much "hyping" of the war, and words like grave threat, serious threat, etc.  These were all false.  Colin Powell had it right in 2001 when he said Iraq had no WMD and could not even mount a conventional attack on its neighbors.

Edited:  I have responded to every criticism of my original post, I believe it is on page 16.  People derided the post, they ridiculed it and basically dared me to show information that supported my statements.  Over the last 3 pages, I have done that, for every single compliant originally raised.  

We were told Iraq had WMD, we were told the threat from Iraq was imminent on March 5, 2003 by Ari Fleisher during his press briefing, and we were told that Iraq was linked to 9/11 by Vice President Chaney on Meet the Press in September 14, 2003, by the meeting of Mohamed Atta with Iraqi intelligence in Prague.  I believe I have demonstrated to RetireGySgt that my post was NOT "moronic drivel".


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 4, 2008)

finebead said:


> That's from back on page 16 of this thread.
> 
> RGS said the stuff in red:
> 
> ...



He did NOT agree either. Nor can you provide one quote or statement from the President or Congress announcing Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat. He was a threat and the President actually said he was not going to wait until he WAS an imminent threat.


----------



## finebead (Jan 4, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> He did NOT agree either. Nor can you provide one quote or statement from the President or Congress announcing Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat. He was a threat and the President actually said he was not going to wait until he WAS an imminent threat.


That is NOT what Mr. Fleischer's reply to Helen Thomas in the press briefing means.  The President is usually smart enough not to come out and bold faced lie himself.  He hires underlings to do that for him.  The underling lies, then nobody can say the President lied.  But Fleischer was speaking for the president.  The administration hyped the threat so public opinion would support starting the war.  We see Congress used the term "continuing threat".


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 5, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> He did NOT agree either. Nor can you provide one quote or statement from the President or Congress announcing Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat. He was a threat and the President actually said he was not going to wait until he WAS an imminent threat.



Which just goes to show how really dangerous the moron and his cabal are...Thank god it is 2008....not long now and it's bye bye Bush....heh..


----------



## Gunny (Jan 5, 2008)

finebead said:


> The discussion of the US having sold precursors of biological weapons to Iraq in the 80's is relevant the the discussion of whether Bush lied to the American people over why we invaded Iraq in the first place.
> 
> We were told:
> 1) Iraq has WMD, 2) Iraq poses an imminent threat to the US, and 3) Iraq had something to do with 9/11.
> ...



I disagree.  From the UN, we know that Saddam did in fact possess WMDs that as of this date have yet to be accounted for.  It is also fact that the US sold dual-use precursors and material that could be used to manufacture WMDs.

Then there is the fact Saddam used chemical weapons on Kurds in Halabja.  There are also reports I have not see substantiation for that Saddam used chemical weapons against Iran.

Then there is the fact that WMDs were not the sole reason Iraq was invaded; although, some attempt to present it that way to push a one-sided argument.

Saddam purchased, manufactured and used chemical weapons.  HE set his own precedent.  In violation of a ceasefire agreement he signed, he did NOT give UN weapons inspectors free and unfettered access to search for WMDs and/or manufacturing plants.  He in fact gave every impression that he was playing a shell game and hiding something.

Based on those facts, it is completely logical to assume that Saddam still possessed and by his own precedent was willing to use WMDs.  He is as complicit in any erroneous decision as any faulty intel by his own actions.

Further, it is completely illogical to come to the conclusion that a mass murdering, megolomaniacal thug who had pursued WMDs for decades and continually defied the US and UN in violation of an agreement he signed would suddenly just quit pursuing them out of the blue.  

Saddam was a threat to US interests in the region.  To say Saddam posed no threat to the US itself is to say al Qaeda likewise posed/poses no threat to the US itself.  What happened on 9/11 again?  

"The world" hates us because we don't just give without voicing an opinion and/or not asking for something return.  The second disaster strikes, who does "the world" come whining to and laying on the accusations in the media that we aren't doing enough?

If we shouldn't be interested in stability in the Middle East, why should we give a damn if a tsunami wipes out some 3rd world islands?  

"The world" is an ungrateful child.  It come whining when it wants and otherwise just spends its time hating the hand that feeds it.

So, no, I don't wonder why.  "The world" is pretty damn obvious.


----------



## finebead (Jan 5, 2008)

Good post Gunny.

I'll accept most of what you just said.  But that is NOT what we were told by the Bush administration.  If what you said were the facts, the American people were lied to as we were sold the war.  You said "it was logical to assume" in one of your most important points, and you know what happens when you assume...

All of this treats whether a sufficient threat existed, that the US had to do something about.  What is debated less frequently, but should be debated more, is, if we accept the situation as GunnyL described it just now, which is NOT what we were told by the Bush administration, WHAT SHOULD WE HAVE DONE ABOUT IT?

There seems to be some presumption that the truth, which Gunny is much closer to than what we were told by Bush & Co., justified going to war.  The situation Gunny described clearly did not justify going to war, by default.  There are many other options, short of going to war.  We just had Hans Blix and a team of UN inspectors go through in October 2002, so we knew we could put inspectors back in.  That would eliminate the threat from WMD, and it would do it much cheaper in $ and lives than taking over the whole nation.  There were good reasons why Bush I did NOT go on into Baghdad, and they were still valid in 2003. 

Fighting smart is achieving your objective at a low cost to yourself, provided you've determined the objective is worth achieving.  Eliminating Iraq's WMD threat was achievable at a much lower cost, and those options were not pursued.  This leads me to believe, and I do not think the Bush admin are total idiots I know they have some very smart people, it leads me to believe the real objective was not to neutralize the WMD threat.  We did not have to go to war, spend a half trillion dollars, lose over 4,000 dead, 30,000 wounded half of which cannot return to combat status.


----------



## maineman (Jan 5, 2008)

Exactly.  I always thought that it was one of Dubya's great foreign policy successes that he was able to get Hans Blix and his team of UN inspectors BACK into Iraq in November of '02.  They were doing their jobs.  They were not done with their jobs when Bush rushed to war and suggested they leave or be caught in a combat zone.  His impatience was imexplicable.  If the real issue was Saddam's compliance with UN resolutions concerning WMD's, Blix was on the brink of providing the answer to that question... but Bush could not wait.  He needed to get boots on the ground and Saddam toppled before America learned that Saddam didn't have any WMD's with which he could threaten us.  If Bush had waited for the Blix team to make its report, public support for the war would have evaporated.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 5, 2008)

maineman said:


> Exactly.  I always thought that it was one of Dubya's great foreign policy successes that he was able to get Hans Blix and his team of UN inspectors BACK into Iraq in November of '02.  They were doing their jobs.  They were not done with their jobs when Bush rushed to war and suggested they leave or be caught in a combat zone.  His impatience was imexplicable.  If the real issue was Saddam's compliance with UN resolutions concerning WMD's, Blix was on the brink of providing the answer to that question... but Bush could not wait.  He needed to get boots on the ground and Saddam toppled before America learned that Saddam didn't have any WMD's with which he could threaten us.  If Bush had waited for the Blix team to make its report, public support for the war would have evaporated.



Your an ignorant moron, but then we already knew that didn't we?


----------



## finebead (Jan 5, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Your an ignorant moron, but then we already knew that didn't we?



From this site's rules:


> Language Guidelines:
> Foul language (profanity) used in USmessageboard.com will be loosely tolerated and at the moderators discretion. *Derogatory statements directed at other members as well as direct or indirect personal attacks are permitted with the stipulation that you generally look like a fool when resorting to these tactics within a serious conversation on real issues. If you're comfortable playing the fool, feel free to do so.*



Posted without comment.


----------



## maineman (Jan 5, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Your an ignorant moron, but then we already knew that didn't we?




that is the extent of intellectual content you can muster up in response to my post?

wow.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 5, 2008)

maineman said:


> that is the extent of intellectual content you can muster up in response to my post?
> 
> wow.



Since you lack any intelligence you get treated like the moronic idiot you are.


----------



## maineman (Jan 5, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Since you lack any intelligence you get treated like the moronic idiot you are.



stop your posing and respond to #275 with some of your highly tauted intellect.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 5, 2008)

maineman said:


> stop your posing and respond to #275 with some of your highly tauted intellect.



I wouldn't respond to your idiotic content even if it had any truth to it. It is nothing more than your memorized talking points with no evidence to back it up.


----------



## maineman (Jan 5, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> I wouldn't respond to your idiotic content even if it had any truth to it. It is nothing more than your memorized talking points with no evidence to back it up.



Blix did not go back in Iraq in November of '02?  That was NOT a major diplomatic victory for Bush?  Do I really need to provide you links for that?


----------



## doniston (Jan 5, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Your an ignorant moron, but then we already knew that didn't we?


what do you hsve available to disprove his point?  Insults certainly don't do it.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 5, 2008)

doniston said:


> what do you hsve available to disprove his point?  Insults certainly don't do it.



Insults are all he understands, he wants to call me names, I too can play his silly game. As for any point he had, it all ends up with "Bush is to blame and is a liar" something he knows he can not prove, he has admitted as much, yet he continues to post his drivel like someone is suddenly going to forget he has no proof.

As for you? Have you taken your pills today to help with your senility?


----------



## Warner (Jan 5, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> I disagree.  From the UN, we know that Saddam did in fact possess WMDs that as of this date have yet to be accounted for.  It is also fact that the US sold dual-use precursors and material that could be used to manufacture WMDs.



Gunny,

Would you please stop with this "dual use" drivel?

Anthrax and other pathanagen and many other technologies transfered to Iraq in the mid-late 80's were clearly to be used to produce WMD's.  In many cases they really have no other use, and even when they do have some other possible use it was clear what they were to be used for.

Denying this is just cheap amature lawyering and it is not fooling anyone.  The point that the USA willingly supported Saddam's WMD program is undeniable.  The fact that when he did produce and use these weapons the USA did nothing about it and continued to support the regime is likewise undeniable.

Please stop obfuscating the discussion with obvious BS and stick to your points which actually have some validity.  You and everyone here will be better served if you would do so.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 5, 2008)

Warner said:


> Gunny,
> 
> Would you please stop with this "dual use" drivel?
> 
> ...



Ya isn't just heart breaking when YOUR point fails because someone else has you by the short hairs, now your gonna resort to that " gee stop that cause it makes me cry " Ploy.


----------



## Warner (Jan 6, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ya isn't just heart breaking when YOUR point fails because someone else has you by the short hairs, now your gonna resort to that " gee stop that cause it makes me cry " Ploy.



Say what?

Gunny's argument is so clearly false that even a child can see it.  I'm just asking him to please not use childish debate tactics to derail the conversation when his arguments are clearly false.

My points did not fail.  Name one point I've made in this thread that failed.  You can't!  All you can do is throw up a smoke screen to try to shut down the discussion rather than actually addressing the topic in an open and honest manner.


----------



## Gunny (Jan 6, 2008)

finebead said:


> Good post Gunny.
> 
> I'll accept most of what you just said.  But that is NOT what we were told by the Bush administration.  If what you said were the facts, the American people were lied to as we were sold the war.  You said "it was logical to assume" in one of your most important points, and you know what happens when you assume...
> 
> ...



I'm not sure where my argument differs much from what you say you were told.  They are basic facts that have been widely known for years.

I understand the reasons we did not go into Baghdad in 91, and I am aware they were as relevant in 2003 as they were in 91.  You haven't seen me argue that it is my position that invading Iraq was the right decision, and you won't.  I in fact did not agree with the decision.

That does not negate the justification for removing Saddam from power.  It just means I believe Saddam was the lesser of two evils.

We spent 12+ years playing a shell game with Saddam and WMDs.  If he had nothing to hide, he was all the more a dumbass for running such a bluff.

Sometimes decisions are made on assumptions based on far less circumstantial evidence.  The process of logical conclusion is right more often than wrong.

And we'll just have to agree to disagree because IMO, Saddam's action did lead to the conclusion that use of force was justified.


----------



## Gunny (Jan 6, 2008)

Warner said:


> Gunny,
> 
> Would you please stop with this "dual use" drivel?
> 
> ...




You CAN read, right?  I notice you conveniently left my comment to the effect that we probably knew what Saddam was going to use the stuff for.

That does not negate the fact that it was provided officially as dual-use; therefore, it is not drivel.  That as opposed to your opinion that we in fact did know.


----------



## Gunny (Jan 6, 2008)

Warner said:


> Say what?
> 
> Gunny's argument is so clearly false that even a child can see it.  I'm just asking him to please not use childish debate tactics to derail the conversation when his arguments are clearly false.
> 
> My points did not fail.  Name one point I've made in this thread that failed.  You can't!  All you can do is throw up a smoke screen to try to shut down the discussion rather than actually addressing the topic in an open and honest manner.




I am addressing it in an open and honest manner.  You, on the other hand, are addressing it from a one-sided point of view.  I have provided facts.  You don't like them?  Sorry.

Kind of hard for my "argument" to be false when I haven't really taken a stance on the issue, isn't it?  That would be one failed point.

Your point also fails because you are presenting your opinion as absolute fact.


----------



## finebead (Jan 6, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> I'm not sure where my argument differs much from what you say you were told.  They are basic facts that have been widely known for years.
> 
> I understand the reasons we did not go into Baghdad in 91, and I am aware they were as relevant in 2003 as they were in 91.  You haven't seen me argue that it is my position that invading Iraq was the right decision, and you won't.  *I in fact did not agree with the decision.*
> 
> ...



I'm curious, why did you disagree?

Beyond that, your statement differed dramatically from what we were told.  Compare your statement to Colin Powell's presentation to the UN, where he showed pictures of the chemical weapons labs.  

But many on the inside knew that Iraq did not have WMD.  I have presented press clips with *Colin Powell stating in 2001 that Iraq did not have WMD* and could not even mount a conventional attack on their neighbors.  I presented an interview in Time magazine with *Scott Ritter, former head of UNSCOM weapons inspection in Iraq from 91-98, and in 2002 he said Iraq had no WMD*, and we had the technology to detect if he brought any into the country.  I presented a clip from *John Keisling, 20 year diplomat that resigned prior to the war and complained the intelligence was manipulated the worst since Vietnam. * I presented a White House press briefing transcript with Ari Flescher, Bush's press secretary, and in early 2003, *Helen Thomas from the White House press corp TOLD him, she didn't ask him, she TOLD him there was no imminent threat,* a point with which HE DISAGREED.  But Helen Thomas was right.  Now if a white house correspondent can get that information, the presidents people knew what really was going on.  

People on the inside knew there was no case for going to war, and some of them said so.  The president just wouldn't listen. 

All we had to do was put the inspectors back in to neutralize the WMD threat, and we could do that because we had done it in Nov. 2002.

What would that have cost, compared to the war and the occupation?  Little of nothing.

Strategically, for our half trillion dollars, 4,000 dead, 30,000 wounded, what have we gained that re-inserting the inspectors would not have accomplished?  That's the question.  What did we gain, and what has it cost so far, and what will it cost in the future?  All I see is the 30 year oil production agreement with Exxon, Shell, and BP to produce Iraqi oil, and contracts with the defense contractors to rebuild all the equipment we lost or just wore out idling in the sand.


----------



## Gunny (Jan 7, 2008)

finebead said:


> I'm curious, why did you disagree?
> 
> Beyond that, your statement differed dramatically from what we were told.  Compare your statement to Colin Powell's presentation to the UN, where he showed pictures of the chemical weapons labs.
> 
> ...



Besides Powell, I see nothing but media opinions in your references, and a UNSCOM weapons inspector who I wuoldn't trust to tell me I don't have any hair without looking in the mirror.

That in contrast to the fact that Saddam was known to manufacture, posess and use WMDs, and to date is accountable to the UN for bio and chemical weapons/components that are not accounted for.   

Hindsight is 20/20.  When the info at the time was varied and conflicting, my bet is going to be on the side of caution and KNOWN fact.



> All we had to do was put the inspectors back in to neutralize the WMD threat, and we could do that because we had done it in Nov. 2002.
> 
> What would that have cost, compared to the war and the occupation?  Little of nothing.



As I stated before, weapons inspectors had been getting the runaround for a dozen years.  Why would one assume any future attempt would be any different?  What did we have to show for their previous efforts?  That there were no WMDs/manufacturing capabilities where Saddam let them look.



> Strategically, for our half trillion dollars, 4,000 dead, 30,000 wounded, what have we gained that re-inserting the inspectors would not have accomplished?  That's the question.  What did we gain, and what has it cost so far, and what will it cost in the future?  All I see is the 30 year oil production agreement with Exxon, Shell, and BP to produce Iraqi oil, and contracts with the defense contractors to rebuild all the equipment we lost or just wore out idling in the sand.



This is a separate topic, IMO.  The WMDs would fall under justification for war.  Overall strategic gain/loss would be the big picture of which WMDs are a factor.

I don't know that we have gained anything more than what was predicted in 91 we would.  A civil war amongst historical tribal rivals and a struggle for control of the Middle East between Shia and Sunni extremists.

As previously stated, looking at the overall big picture, I would not have made the decsion to invade.  Saddam, if nothing else, stood between the rival factions and kept the balance of power off kilter.

At the same time, how long did we babysit?  He was already manipulating France's vote in the UN with promises of future oil contracts, and we've already seen France was not above turning around and purchasing votes itself.  He wasn't a problem that was just going to go away.


----------



## finebead (Jan 7, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Besides Powell, I see nothing but media opinions in your references, and a UNSCOM weapons inspector who I wuoldn't trust to tell me I don't have any hair without looking in the mirror.


Nothing but media opinions?  That's wrong.  Besides Powell, John Keisling was a state department diplomat who'd served 20 years, mostly in the middle east.  He was on the inside of the govt. and was not media.  Scott Ritter was the lead UNSCOM inspector, was a 12 year US marine with experience with unconventional weapons.  He was not media.  Helen Thomas was media, that's 1 out of 4.  The statement that "besides Powell, I see nothing but media opinions" is clearly false.



> That in contrast to the fact that Saddam was known to manufacture, posess and use WMDs, and to date is accountable to the UN for bio and chemical weapons/components that are not accounted for.


Iraq manufactured WMD in the late 80's and he certainly was not known to be manufacturing anything at the time of the invasion.  Same for use of WMD, that was a decade old info and not relevant to the invasion.  As far as unaccounted for materials, they were judged so small in 1998 when the UNSCOM team left, that they judged that Iraq had been "effectively disarmed of WMD".



> Hindsight is 20/20.  When the info at the time was varied and conflicting, my bet is going to be on the side of caution and KNOWN fact.


What were the known facts?  Iraq's manufacture and use of WMD over a decade before is irrelevant to a decision to invade, unless we knew he had rebuilt his manufacturing capability, which we did not know.  As far as material unaccounted for, there was not much of it, as reported by the UNSCOM team in 1998.  

What you have omitted is any analysis on the cost of executing the two plans, invade or insert inspectors which we had just done.




> As I stated before, weapons inspectors had been getting the runaround for a dozen years.  Why would one assume any future attempt would be any different?  What did we have to show for their previous efforts?  That there were no WMDs/manufacturing capabilities where Saddam let them look.


The UNSCOM team reported they had difficulty getting into the sites they wanted to inspect, but eventually they got in.  What we had to show for it was a disarmed Iraq, at a cost of 1,000 full time inspectors in Iraq, and no killing, none.  There was no WMD threat from Iraq.  That's what we got.  Was it frustrating?  Yes.  Was it relatively cheap and effective.  Yes.



> This is a separate topic, IMO.  The WMDs would fall under justification for war.  Overall strategic gain/loss would be the big picture of which WMDs are a factor.
> 
> *I don't know that we have gained anything more than what was predicted in 91 we would.* *A civil war amongst historical tribal rivals and a struggle for control of the Middle East between Shia and Sunni extremists.*
> 
> ...


Correct.  We did not gain anything strategically, except control of oil production by Exxon, BP and Shell for the next 30 years, and a lot of worn out equipment that will let the MIC CEO's grow their business for the next decade or two.  But the price of purchasing that option on Iraqi oil has turned out to be very high because the planners of the war were incompetent.  At the time of the invasion, there was no phase 4 plan for the occupation.

Invading was the wrong decision, and at least the two of us know it, in addition to the majority of Americans.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 7, 2008)

finebead said:


> Read my post, #265, just above.  Mr. Kiesling, 20 yr. diplomat, resigned in protest, stating the intel was "manipulated".  You did not repond to that.  When insiders say the intel was manipulated, he is telling us the ADMINISTRATION IS LYING TO US.


One man's statement means the administration was lying?
Can you show that this man was not wrong, or, perhaps, laying a false claim?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 7, 2008)

finebead said:


> Scott Ritter was right, John Kiesling was right, Colin Powell was right in 2001,


How do you know this?

And... what happened to the WMDs we knew were there in 1998?


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 7, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> And... what happened to the WMDs we knew were there in 1998?



What do you think happened to them?


----------



## MasterChief (Jan 7, 2008)

I read somewhere that he got rid of them but played cat and mouse with the international inspectors so that he appeared strong to Iran. Did anyone else hear that.


----------



## maineman (Jan 7, 2008)

MasterChief said:


> I read somewhere that he got rid of them but played cat and mouse with the international inspectors so that he appeared strong to Iran. Did anyone else hear that.



it would certainly make sense.  the concept of "street cred" would make it such that appearing tough to the US would be more important than actually possessing stockpiles of WMD's.... 

it was about being the tough guy in THAT neighborhood...not necessarily being tough enough to go after us.


----------



## finebead (Jan 8, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> How do you know this?
> 
> And... what happened to the WMDs we knew were there in 1998?


How do I know it, because what they said was true, was verified by the Kaye and Duelfer reports after the war.

What happened to the WMD's from 1998?  First, there was material that was not accounted for when the inspectors left, but there was not the documented existence of WMD's that we just left behind.  And some of those WMD left over from 1991 were found, about 500 old artillery shells.  But that is not what we said we were going to go to war over.


----------



## Gunny (Jan 8, 2008)

finebead said:


> How do I know it, because what they said was true, was verified by the Kaye and Duelfer reports after the war.
> 
> What happened to the WMD's from 1998?  First, there was material that was not accounted for when the inspectors left, but there was not the documented existence of WMD's that we just left behind.  And some of those WMD left over from 1991 were found, about 500 old artillery shells.  But that is not what we said we were going to go to war over.



Which does not answer the question of where the WMDs/WMD components Saddam was factually known to possess went.  THAT is what we went to war over.

They were KNOWN to exist and be in his possession.  Your argument that because they could not be found they do not exist is not logical.

I suppose one can assume by your post that "verified after the war" is your preferrable option to them being verified by being dropped on some unsuspecting people's heads resulting in another Halabja?

There's a thread in the military forum discussing the fact that the US government has pinpointed Gulf War Syndrome to the blowing of an unmarked chemical weapons depot.  Where does THAT fit in to "no WMD's"?

All of this could have been avoided had Saddam simply complied with UN inspectors and allowed them to look where they wanted, and accounted for the weapons/components that were missing.  He did not.

People are judged guilty every day in this nation on far less circumstantial evidence.  Monday morning quarterbacking does not negate the facts at the time, nor does it account for missing WMDs/WMD components.

As far as your references above that you made comment on that my statement was clearly false ... the fact is, you presented opinions as facts; whether or not those opinions were presented as media sourced.

Of the ones presented, the only one I consider credible is Powell's.  I most certainly do not and will not accept the opinions of anyone representing the UN.  Neither does  a state department diplomat (spelled: bureaucrat) impress me much.

That against the overwhelming presumption of guilt held by most of the world at that time.  

Y'know, if you don't have a gun but reach inside your pocket when told to freeze, a cop WILL shoot you.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 8, 2008)

finebead said:


> How do I know it, because what they said was true, was verified by the Kaye and Duelfer reports after the war.


How do you know what they said was true?
Neither of those reports prove what was said was true, nor that the administration knew they were giving false information.



> What happened to the WMD's from 1998?  First, there was material that was not accounted for when the inspectors left, but there was not the documented existence of WMD's that we just left behind


So.. what happened to the WMDs that were there?



> And some of those WMD left over from 1991 were found, about 500 old artillery shells.


And so... what happened to the rest of them?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 8, 2008)

Dr Grump said:


> What do you think happened to them?


You tell me.
They were known to have been there.  
Thery were not there after we invaded.
SOMETHING must have happened to them.


----------



## Warner (Jan 8, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> You tell me.
> They were known to have been there.
> Thery were not there after we invaded.
> SOMETHING must have happened to them.



The nature of Iraq's chemical weapons was such that, in the span of about 7 years (or less) there would be molecular breakdown in the agents and the contaiment (usually artillery shells) would begin to fail as the constituents tend to be rather caustic.

I suspect that Saddam did not bother with the details and simply told someone to deal with it.  They then went out and dug a hole in the sand and buried it.  Records as to where this was buried were probably not even kept - I'd suspect it was in Shiite or Kurd held lands.

There really is little to support that the Administration honestly believed Saddam posed a serious WMD threat.

The invasion of Iraq was to stop a bigger threat - Euro's for oil.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 8, 2008)

Warner said:


> The nature of Iraq's chemical weapons was such that, in the span of about 7 years (or less) there would be molecular breakdown in the agents and the contaiment (usually artillery shells) would begin to fail as the constituents tend to be rather caustic.


However true that might be, the weapons, degraded or otherwise, must have gone somewhere.  The question is still:  Where?



> I suspect that Saddam did not bother with the details and simply told someone to deal with it.  They then went out and dug a hole in the sand and buried it.  Records as to where this was buried were probably not even kept -


Aside from this being a rather convenient supposition:
-The Iraqis kept record of everything
-The Iraqis were required to keep specific track of their WMDs

So...  what happened to the WMDs that we knew were there?



> There really is little to support that the Administration honestly believed Saddam posed a serious WMD threat.


 
Except, of course, the vast multitude of statements to that effect.

The claim is that the administration lied.
For this claim to stick, it must be shown that they knew what they were saying was false.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 8, 2008)

Warner said:


> The nature of Iraq's chemical weapons was such that, in the span of about 7 years (or less) there would be molecular breakdown in the agents and the contaiment (usually artillery shells) would begin to fail as the constituents tend to be rather caustic.
> 
> I suspect that Saddam did not bother with the details and simply told someone to deal with it.  They then went out and dug a hole in the sand and buried it.  Records as to where this was buried were probably not even kept - I'd suspect it was in Shiite or Kurd held lands.
> 
> ...



Third paragraph is an outright lie or just plain ignorance, I will let you explain which.


----------



## maineman (Jan 8, 2008)

there was nothing to support the administration's assertions that there was NO DOUBT about the existence of Saddam's WMD arsenal.

Suggesting that there was certainty about the arsenals was misleading when the intelligence communities offered no such assurances of certainty.

and now, class, what do we call it when someone makes a statement that is intended to mislead??


----------



## Gunny (Jan 8, 2008)

Warner said:


> The nature of Iraq's chemical weapons was such that, in the span of about 7 years (or less) there would be molecular breakdown in the agents and the contaiment (usually artillery shells) would begin to fail as the constituents tend to be rather caustic.
> 
> I suspect that Saddam did not bother with the details and simply told someone to deal with it.  They then went out and dug a hole in the sand and buried it.  Records as to where this was buried were probably not even kept - I'd suspect it was in Shiite or Kurd held lands.
> 
> ...



Not a bad assumption.  Seems fairly logical.  Where I disagree is your comment that there is little to support the Admin honestly believed Saddam posed a serious WMD threat.

I'll even amend THAT to say the PREVIOUS administration since I retired before Bush took office.  In 98, the SecDef approved them sticking us with anthrax shots.  I can't say for a fact that policy was continued past 2000, but I'm quite sure that sticking all deploying Marine and Navy personnel, and the cost involved was not cheap, and not without reason.

I also don't believe the invasion was to stop France's under the table deals with Saddam for oil.


----------



## CSM (Jan 8, 2008)

maineman said:


> there was nothing to support the administration's assertions that there was NO DOUBT about the existence of Saddam's WMD arsenal.
> 
> Suggesting that there was certainty about the arsenals was misleading when the intelligence communities offered no such assurances of certainty.
> 
> and now, class, what do we call it when someone makes a statement that is intended to mislead??



Politics as usual.....


----------



## maineman (Jan 8, 2008)

CSM said:


> Politics as usual.....


don't you think that all those Americans who went along with George Bush's war because they were afraid of the stockpiles of WMD's that our administration told us, without doubt, that Sadddam had have a right to feel misled?


----------



## Gunny (Jan 8, 2008)

maineman said:


> don't you think that all those Americans who went along with George Bush's war because they were afraid of the stockpiles of WMD's that our administration told us, without doubt, that Sadddam had have a right to feel misled?



No.  Because as keeps getting ignored, we all KNOW he had them and used them.  The ignoring, twisting and dancing around the facts doesn't change that.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 8, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> No.  Because as keeps getting ignored, we all KNOW he had them and used them.  The ignoring, twisting and dancing around the facts doesn't change that.



Nor does the FACT that Sadman posed no threat, let alone an imminent one, to the United States...


----------



## Gunny (Jan 9, 2008)

Dr Grump said:


> Nor does the FACT that Sadman posed no threat, let alone an imminent one, to the United States...



Why?  Proximity?  Then neither does al Qaeda, right?

Some New Yorkers may neg to disagree with you.

He did pose a threat to US interests which amounts to the same thing.


----------



## maineman (Jan 9, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> No.  Because as keeps getting ignored, we all KNOW he had them and used them.  The ignoring, twisting and dancing around the facts doesn't change that.



HAD them....not HAS them.... He HAD chemical weapons, a decade previously, HE HAD used them against Kurds and Iranians, a decade earlier.  and in the meantime, sanctions had WORKED...and he had been reduced to a paper tiger...our own Secretary of State told us that seven months BEFORE 9/11.


----------



## Gunny (Jan 9, 2008)

maineman said:


> HAD them....not HAS them.... He HAD chemical weapons, a decade previously, HE HAD used them against Kurds and Iranians, a decade earlier.  and in the meantime, sanctions had WORKED...and he had been reduced to a paper tiger...our own Secretary of State told us that seven months BEFORE 9/11.



Since he is dead, "has" doesn't apply.  Had them _and would not/did not account for them_ DOES.  The argument is way old.  He had them, he used them, and acted like he was hiding them.  Had he so much as complied with sanctions and allowed UNSCOM inspectors free and unfettererd access you'd have an argument.  As it stands, you don't.    

Sanctions had worked?  Worked at WHAT?  Screwing the Iraqi people while he diverted Oil for Food funds into his own personal accounts?  Made deals with France that if they voted against sanctions and were able to get sanctions lifted he'd sell them some cut-rate oil?

He was no "paper tiger."  He was contained.  He showed absolutely NO inclination that he was going to do anything other than continue to be a ruthless murdering bastard and would use whateve means he could get his hands on to accomplish it.


----------



## Warner (Jan 9, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> However true that might be, the weapons, degraded or otherwise, must have gone somewhere.  The question is still:  Where?
> 
> 
> Aside from this being a rather convenient supposition:
> ...



The Iraqi record keeping system was such a mess, so full of double blind security measures, that I seriously doubt that even if they'd have wanted to they could have accounted for all of the weapons.

Again, I suspect somewhere in Iraq there is an environmental disaster brewing a few feet under the desert.



M14 Shooter said:


> Except, of course, the vast multitude of statements to that effect.
> 
> The claim is that the administration lied.
> For this claim to stick, it must be shown that they knew what they were saying was false.



Vast multitude of statements = proof?

It has been proven that they knew some of the statements made regarding Iraqi WMD's were knowing lies.  The African Uranium ore connection is one such example.  The Aluminum tubes was another.

It is very convenient when you require a standard of absolute proof which the Administration simply blocks with claims of "national security", "executive privilege", and through the use of pardons/commutations.

I am confident that the full scope of the deception will eventually be revealed, but probably not for a decade or so.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 9, 2008)

Warner said:


> The Iraqi record keeping system was such a mess, so full of double blind security measures, that I seriously doubt that even if they'd have wanted to they could have accounted for all of the weapons.


Yes -- a very convenient position for you to take, as it 'explains' the disappearance of the WMDs and doesn't require a shred of evidence to support it.


----------



## Warner (Jan 9, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Not a bad assumption.  Seems fairly logical.  Where I disagree is your comment that there is little to support the Admin honestly believed Saddam posed a serious WMD threat.
> 
> I'll even amend THAT to say the PREVIOUS administration since I retired before Bush took office.  In 98, the SecDef approved them sticking us with anthrax shots.  I can't say for a fact that policy was continued past 2000, but I'm quite sure that sticking all deploying Marine and Navy personnel, and the cost involved was not cheap, and not without reason.
> 
> I also don't believe the invasion was to stop France's under the table deals with Saddam for oil.



I suppose it depends a lot on what you consider a WMD.  Your example of Anthrax for instance is out of context.  While it could conceivably be considered a WMD, it is not something which Iraq or terrorists could really use as such against the USA.  Like many agents, it is only a WMD when it can be delivered in rather massive quantities, which Iraq and/or Islamic terrorists lack the capacity to achieve.  It could certainly be used as a weapon of terror, but the level of effect would be rather limited, probably only a few hundred casualties, quite probably less.  I do not think your example of immunizing the military against Anthrax is valid because this was intended to protect them against Anthrax used by Saddam to defend his regime, not in an attack on ours.

So lets look at the Iraqi "WMD" agents:

Sarin: The first on the list is probably Sarin gas.  This is a very nasty nerve agent which we foolishly helped Saddam develop in the 80's.  Fortunately for us, the Iraqi's were unable to achieve the required purity for the precursors, so what they produced had a very short shelf life.  Sarin has a short shelf life to start with and the Iraqi sarin gas project was only able to achieve shelf lives of a few months and in many cases only a few weeks.  Even the precursors were subject to short shelf lives.  So for Iraq to use this weapon it had to manufacture it when they were ready to deploy it, and there is clearly no evidence to indicate this was happening any time in the relevant time period.  The massive expense of the Iraqi sarin project in the late 80's, resulting in the need to dispose of perhaps as much as 40 tons of the stuff at the end of that decade, and the exposure of production facilities to easy destruction by our military, discouraged Saddam from pursuing sarin as a viable weapon for use against the USA.  And for terrorists it was simply impossible, except perhaps in minute quantities.

Tabun:  This agent, like Antrhax, is a legitimately considered a WMD only when coupled with a large scale delivery mechanism, such as bomber aircraft or Artillery.  Since Iraq did not have the capability to deliver it in significance to the USA, this is not a WMD in the context of being a threat to us.  And like sarin the shelf life of this agent was a real problem for Iraqi technology.

VX:  This is a legitimate WMD in any context.  However, there is absolutely no evidence that Iraq had the capability to produce VX.  It is believed Saddam may have used a small amount of this weapon against the Iranians and/or the Kurds but even this is unproven, and if he did it would have originated from a Western Country (i.e., the USA or Britain).  VX is fortunately beyond the technology of most of our enemies.

Nuclear Weapons:  Well, I don't think I have to go much into this one.  Clearly an atom bomb is a WMD by any definition.  Just as clearly, Saddam was no where near having one despite the Administration's claims to the contrary during the run up to the war.  Even had all the evidence presented been true Iraq would still have been at least a decade away from producing its first testable weapon.

So to clarify the issue Gunny, in the context of this discussion we do mean WMD's which could actually be used against the USA proper to effect massive casualties right?  Clearly the Administration was not claiming that the reason we needed to take out Saddam was because he had WMD's which he might use against our troops should we invade Iraq.


----------



## Warner (Jan 9, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> Yes -- a very convenient position for you to take, as it 'explains' the disappearance of the WMDs and doesn't require a shred of evidence to support it.



Well you see there is the rub.  We don't really know how much of these "WMD's" existed in the first place.  All we have are estimates.  So now you want proof positive of what happened to WMD's which may not even have existed.  Saddam was very much about deception, and it is quite likely these weapons never really did exist.  In his twisted mind it may have suited him to make the West think they existed when in fact they didn't.  We just don't really know.

I believe the claims of Iraqi WMD's were quite exagerated and when I say they likely are buried in the desert somewhere I'm mostly talking about weapons from the 80's.  For the most part, these weapons were never a real threat to the USA anyway, except against our troops should we attack Iraq.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 9, 2008)

Warner said:


> Well you see there is the rub.  We don't really know how much of these "WMD's" existed in the first place.  All we have are estimates.


That's not true.
Both in 1998 and 2003 the UN inspectors had lists of weapons that were known to have existed and not shown to be destroyed.



> So now you want proof positive of what happened to WMD's....


...were known to have existed and not shown to be destroyed?
Yes.  Don't you?



> In his twisted mind it may have suited him to make the West think they existed when in fact they didn't.  We just don't really know.


And yet, somehow,  Bush lied!!!


----------



## maineman (Jan 9, 2008)

the only "lie" Bush told was when he expressed no doubt as to the existence of WMD stockpiles.  The intelligence community always couched its intelligence estimates with caveats and qualifiers making the administration's expression of absolute certainty a misleading false impression.


----------



## MasterChief (Jan 9, 2008)

maineman said:


> the only "lie" Bush told was when he expressed no doubt as to the existence of WMD stockpiles.


Hmmmm,
I am not sure that that is a "lie"--an over statement, extreme confidence in the light of inconclusive evidence, maybe. A lie implies a direct intention to deceive, and I don't think President Bush directly intended to deceive. He was just overly emphatic, when he should have been more reserved.


----------



## maineman (Jan 9, 2008)

MasterChief said:


> Hmmmm,
> I am not sure that that is a "lie"--an over statement, extreme confidence in the light of inconclusive evidence, maybe. A lie implies a direct intention to deceive, and I don't think President Bush directly intended to deceive. He was just overly emphatic, when he should have been more reserved.



_*lie*     [lahy] noun, verb, lied, ly·ing. 
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.  
2. something intended or *serving to convey a false impression*; imposture _


The Bush administration intended on conveying the impression that there was *absolute certainty *about Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's... 

that a fact.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 9, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> You tell me.
> They were known to have been there.
> Thery were not there after we invaded.
> SOMETHING must have happened to them.



So, don't you think that should have been decided before the invasion? Shouldn't have the inspectors been able to carry on with their job to discover where they were. And if they couldn't be found prior to the invasion, where was the imminent threat?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 9, 2008)

Dr Grump said:


> So, don't you think that should have been decided before the invasion....


You're avoiding the issue, not in the least because you know you cannot answer the question.

We knew they were there.
They did not prove they destroyed them.
There were not there when we invaded.
Where did they go?

Aren't you the LEAST bit cusious?


----------



## Alpha1 (Jan 9, 2008)

maineman said:


> the only "lie" Bush told was when he expressed no doubt as to the existence of WMD stockpiles.  The intelligence community always couched its intelligence estimates with caveats and qualifiers making the administration's expression of absolute certainty a misleading false impression.



  I guess if that qualifies as a lie, we might just take note of some more liars...


Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continue There is no doubt that & Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. s to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies. Letter to President Bush, Signed by:  Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them.  Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.  Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

Iraqs search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.  Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.  
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons&  Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

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

There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years & We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.  Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002


----------



## maineman (Jan 9, 2008)

Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continue There is no doubt that & Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. s to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies. Letter to President Bush, Signed by:  Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
*reinvigorating weapons PROGRAMS is not synonymous with having stockpiles of WMD's.... * 

We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and *is building* weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them.  Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
*"is building" is not synonymous with having stockpiles of WMD's.... * 

We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.  Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
*not true*

Iraqs search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.  Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

*searching for weapons of mass destruction is not synonymous with having stockpiles of WMD's.... * 

We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.  
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
*seeking and developing is not synonymous with having stockpiles of WMD's.... * 

The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons&  Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
*being confident and having NO DOUBT are two different things.... embarking on a course to build WMD's is not synonymous with having stockpiles of WMD's.... * 

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
*saying that a deadly arsenal of WMD's in Saddam's hands is a theat is not synonymous with saying that there is not doubt that he has stockpiles of WMD's.... * 

There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years & We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.  Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
*working to develop WMD's is not synonymous with having stockpiles of WMD's.... * 

what else ya got?  loser.

but shit, write.... you have posted that same list of quotes for three years now and I have torn it apart each and every time.

Not only are you a loser, but you are a thick, dull loser.


----------



## Alpha1 (Jan 9, 2008)

maineman said:


> Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continue There is no doubt that & Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. s to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies. Letter to President Bush, Signed by:  Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
> *reinvigorating weapons PROGRAMS is not synonymous with having stockpiles of WMD's.... *
> 
> We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and *is building* weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them.  Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
> ...



I realize how much you love your silly childish word games even if I don't really like to play...
con·fi·dent      /&#712;k&#594;nf&#618;d&#601;nt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kon-fi-duhnt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
adjective
1.	having strong belief or* full assurance; sure*: confident of fulfillment.
2.	sure of oneself;* having no uncertainty* about one's own abilities, correctness

know
1      /no&#650;/ Pronunciation Key verb (used with object)
1.	to perceive or understand *as fact or truth*; to apprehend clearly and *with certainty:*

*No doubt* Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs..NO DOUBT

*is building* weapons of mass destruction...not was or will be....IS

*We know* that he has stored secret supplies...KNOW? not think or suspect....we know...

*We have known* for many years that Saddam Hussein is developing weapons of mass destruction...not we suspect or we think...WE HAVE KNOWN

*We are confident* that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons...it means 'sure', 'having NO uncertainty'..to use another phrase....having NO DOUBT

* unmistakable evidence* that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons...unmistakable evidence?

Its been fun .. thanks for playing....hope this wasn't over your grade level....


----------



## maineman (Jan 10, 2008)

Alpha1 said:


> I realize how much you love your silly childish word games even if I don't really like to play...
> con·fi·dent      /&#712;k&#594;nf&#618;d&#601;nt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kon-fi-duhnt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
> adjective
> 1.	having strong belief or* full assurance; sure*: confident of fulfillment.
> ...



"reinvigorating programs" is not absolutely certain stockpiles of WMD's.
neither is "developing" or "working to develop".

try again.  democrats did not state there was absolute certainty that Saddam possessed stockpiles of WMD's.  Team Bush did.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 10, 2008)

Alpha1 said:


> Its been fun .. thanks for playing....hope this wasn't over your grade level....


He's a partisan bigot -- what do you expect?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 10, 2008)

Alpha1 said:


> I realize how much you love your silly childish word games even if I don't really like to play...
> con·fi·dent      /&#712;k&#594;nf&#618;d&#601;nt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kon-fi-duhnt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
> adjective
> 1.	having strong belief or* full assurance; sure*: confident of fulfillment.
> ...



Yup, the left likes to claim because Bush said similar things e LIE, but when shown the SAME words from Dems, it is, "ohh that doesn't mean what you think it means"


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 10, 2008)

maineman said:


> "reinvigorating programs" is not absolutely certain stockpiles of WMD's.
> neither is "developing" or "working to develop".
> 
> try again.  democrats did not state there was absolute certainty that Saddam possessed stockpiles of WMD's.  Team Bush did.



Your inability to READ and comprehend the written word is hilarious. Those quotes are not ambigious, each and every one DOES say we know for a FACT, no uncertainty. And there are a lot more from all kind of Democrats.

You get to pick now, were the dems lying to us or just to stupid to be trusted to run our country?


----------



## maineman (Jan 10, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Your inability to READ and comprehend the written word is hilarious. Those quotes are not ambigious, each and every one DOES say we know for a FACT, no uncertainty. And there are a lot more from all kind of Democrats.
> 
> You get to pick now, were the dems lying to us or just to stupid to be trusted to run our country?



none of them expresses absolute certainty about the existence of STOCKPILES of WMD's.


Team Bush told us that there was NO DOUBT that Saddam possessed stockpiles of WMD's.  Rumsfeld even went so far as to say that he knew where they were.  And other members of Team Bush tied Saddam to AQ  with respect to 9/11.

try again.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 10, 2008)

Are you able to read?



> We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.  Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002



Prey tell what does Al mean when he say " WE KNOW"


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 10, 2008)

Then we have this gem..



> We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.
> Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002



notice Teddy does not say "we think", but do continue to claim otherwise.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 10, 2008)

Everyone of those quotes is not " we think" they are all " we know" comments. Talk about blind partisan hackery.


----------



## maineman (Jan 10, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Then we have this gem..
> 
> 
> 
> notice Teddy does not say "we think", but do continue to claim otherwise.



tell me that you do not see the difference between "seeking and developing"
and "possessing".

You can't be that dumb.


----------



## maineman (Jan 10, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Are you able to read?
> 
> 
> 
> Prey tell what does Al mean when he say " WE KNOW"



did you note my response to that Al GOre quote above?

obviously not.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 10, 2008)

maineman said:


> tell me that you do not see the difference between "seeking and developing"
> and "possessing".
> 
> You can't be that dumb.



The idiot is the one that claims these dems did not believe Saddam was a threat and did not believe he had weapons. Once again if Bush lied these people all lied too.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 10, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Everyone of those quotes is not " we think" they are all " we know" comments. Talk about blind partisan hackery.



You;re clearly far too stupid to understand that when Bush says "we know" its a statement of certitude, but when a Dem says it, its not.

In the mind of a partisan bigot, anyway.


----------



## maineman (Jan 10, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> The idiot is the one that claims these dems did not believe Saddam was a threat and did not believe he had weapons. Once again if Bush lied these people all lied too.



Once again.... the lie was the statement of absolute certainty as to his POSSESSION of STOCKPILES.  I understand that you really don't want to acknowledge that....I wouldn't if I were you either.

If you claim absolute certainty as to the POSSESSION of WMD's...at this very moment .... stockpiles.... right now.... and you SUGGEST a connection between Iraq and AQ with respect to 9/11, you ramp up the IMMEDIACY of the need to invade RIGHT NOW.... rather than, for example, wait for Hans Blix's team to do a thorough investigation and make their final report.


----------



## maineman (Jan 10, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> The idiot is the one that claims these dems did not believe Saddam was a threat and did not believe he had weapons. Once again if Bush lied these people all lied too.




and you are saying, therefore, that seeking and developing are synonymous with possessing?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 10, 2008)

maineman said:


> and you are saying, therefore, that seeking and developing are synonymous with possessing?



YES. what do you think "seeking" means? Further that is ONLY one of the quotes. I like how you just ignore all the rest.


----------



## maineman (Jan 10, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> YES. what do you think "seeking" means? Further that is ONLY one of the quotes. I like how you just ignore all the rest.



What do I think SEEKING means?  I think it means LOOKING FOR something.  I don't need to LOOK for something I ALREADY HAVE.

POSSESSING IS NOT SYNONYMOUS WITH SEEKING.

ALL but one of the other quotes has the same level of ambiguity regarding Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's.  I am not at all surprised that you act selectively ignorant about the english language.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 10, 2008)

maineman said:


> What do I think SEEKING means?  I think it means LOOKING FOR something.  I don't need to LOOK for something I ALREADY HAVE.
> 
> POSSESSING IS NOT SYNONYMOUS WITH SEEKING.
> 
> ALL but one of the other quotes has the same level of ambiguity regarding Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's.  I am not at all surprised that you act selectively ignorant about the english language.



The selective ignorance is your drivel, but then I bet you just loved the line " It depends on what the word is means"


----------



## maineman (Jan 10, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> The selective ignorance is your drivel, but then I bet you just loved the line " It depends on what the word is means"



It is the difference for you between seeking some intelligence and having stockpiles of it.  You can continue to approach the words of politicians and statesmen with the educational tools provided a kindergartner, but don't expect to not be ridiculed for your ignorance.  Seeking is not having.  developing programs is not the same as having stockpiles. 

Bush needed to convince us of the immediacy of the threat.  There was no doubt that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's....his people had met with 9/11 hijackers BEFORE 9/11.... AQ could strike again at any moment and attack us with the some of the stockpiles of WMD's that we were absolutely certain Saddam had at his disposal and was willing and ready to give them to the demons that had attacked us.  That was his pitch and it worked... But you refuse to acknowledge all that.

Koolaid soaked pathetic lying ignorant prick.


----------



## Alpha1 (Jan 10, 2008)

We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country. Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
  WE KNOW...thats pretty plain, not we think or we suspect...Gore says WE KNOW..in other words, HE IS CERTAIN....and being certain he has NO FUCKIN' DOUBT....about Saddams "stored, secret, supplies" of WMD

We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons.  Sen. Robert Byrd (D) Oct. 3, 2002
  Now Sen. Byrd is "confident"....The dictionary says :confident-full assurance; sure: 2. sure of oneself; having no uncertainty , correctness..
again, pretty plain, having NO UNCERTAINTY, in otherwords, having NO FUCKIN' DOUBT Saddam has stockpiles od WMD......

 He (Saddam) has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do.  Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
Now lets apply some common sense here....Waxman says Saddam has refused to destroy is chem and bio weapons....What possible reason would Waxman have for making that statement if he didn't believe Saddam possessed those weapons in the first place? The answer is Of course, none....Waxman obviously believes Saddam has those weapons and needs to destroy them......and all the spin won't change that FACT of logical reasoning....

He(Saddam)has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members & It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare.  Hillary Clinton (D) Oct. 10, 2002
Is Hillary Clinton actually claiming,
that Saddam gave AID to al Qaeda?
that Saddam gave COMFORT to al Qaeda?
that Saddam gave SANCTUARY to al Qaeda?
You bet your ass she is.....
and Hillary says Saddam will CONTINUE TO INCREASE HIS CAPACITY TO WAGE BIO AND CHEM WARFARE?
Well simple logic says, IF he will continue to increase his capacity, then his MUST have some capacity to increase in the first place.....

*Why you would continue to make a fool of yourself is puzzling,  your lack of simple reading comprehension is pitiful....*


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 10, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> You're avoiding the issue, not in the least because you know you cannot answer the question.
> 
> We knew they were there.
> They did not prove they destroyed them.
> ...



No, I am not. Iraq is not my problem. It is a ME problem. It is not a US problem, but you made it so. I only become interested in those things when the western world takes an interest in ALL regimes that subjugate its subjects under the yoke of dictatorship. I'm not interested in cherrypicking.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 10, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> He's a partisan bigot -- what do you expect?



And what are you? The bastion of fairness and unbiased opinion?


----------



## maineman (Jan 10, 2008)

Alpha1 said:


> We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country. Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
> WE KNOW...thats pretty plain, not we think or we suspect...Gore says WE KNOW..in other words, HE IS CERTAIN....and being certain he has NO FUCKIN' DOUBT....about Saddams "stored, secret, supplies" of WMD
> 
> We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons.  Sen. Robert Byrd (D) Oct. 3, 2002
> ...




"in other words"?  In OTHER words?????  LOL

You can take the third and fourth definitions of words to try to make the statements of democrats appear to state absolute certainty - in other words - if you need to....

I don't need to take "other words" to make the case that Team Bush LIED by expressing absolute certainty when such certainty did NOT exist.

As I stand on the tee of the long downhill par three sixth hole at my home course looking over the water hazard and on to the green surrounded by sandtraps, I am always confident that I can put my tee shot onto the green.  I am NEVER absolutely certain.  I never have NO doubt.  Confident - yes.  Absolutely certain - never.

And beyond that, Bush WAS the CinC...and he DID use the public opinion that his lies created to INVADE, CONQUER and OCCUPY Iraq.  That is a distinction clearly his alone.


----------



## Warner (Jan 11, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> That's not true.
> Both in 1998 and 2003 the UN inspectors had lists of weapons that were known to have existed and not shown to be destroyed.



"Known"???  If you look into it, in most cases this is really "believed".  The only way you know such a thing is to actually inspect and see it, and this didn't happen.

Where Bush (including Chaney and other Administration representatives) lied was  about things like the African Uranium, the supposed AQ connection, etc...  And these clearly were lies.  Falsehoods knowingly reported as truths = lies.


----------



## indago (Jan 11, 2008)

*praying for a miracle does not constitute an exit strategy*


----------



## Gunny (Jan 11, 2008)

Warner said:


> "Known"???  If you look into it, in most cases this is really "believed".  The only way you know such a thing is to actually inspect and see it, and this didn't happen.
> 
> Where Bush (including Chaney and other Administration representatives) lied was  about things like the African Uranium, the supposed AQ connection, etc...  And these clearly were lies.  Falsehoods knowingly reported as truths = lies.



Lies?  Incorrect assumptions would be more like it.  In both cases, evidence DOES exist.  Whether or not you agree with conclusions based on assumptions is one thing ... branding them a lie via Monday morning quarterbacking quite another.

You can deny whatever you please, and that is your right, but the fact remains Saddam Hussein was a megalomaniac sitting on exactly what it takes to purchase whatever he pleased (oil).  

Saddam did in fact have ties to AQ.  Does that mean he was supporting AQ, or providing them a safe haven?  IMO, no to the first, and he turned the blind eye in the second.

Of course, when the US turned a blind eye toward Saddam, let the wailing and gnashing of teeth begin.  We KNEW, period.  When Saddam does it to AQ members it's "where's your evidence?"  CLEARLY a double standard.

To think Saddam would not continue to pursue his goal of nuclear power IMO is being an ostrich.  I'm just surprised he didn't con France out of that along with their UN vote via lucrative oil contracts.


----------



## Gunny (Jan 11, 2008)

Dr Grump said:


> And what are you? The bastion of fairness and unbiased opinion?




No ... that would be me.


----------



## Annie (Jan 11, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> No ... that would be me.



Sorry, we KNOW he thinks that is me.


----------



## finebead (Jan 11, 2008)

> Report: Pentagon Manipulated Iraq Intel
> *Military.com * |  February 09, 2007
> 
> WASHINGTON - Pentagon officials undercut the intelligence community in the run-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq by insisting in briefings to the White House that there was a clear relationship between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, the Defense Department's inspector general said Friday.
> ...


http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,124721,00.html

Feith was basically a political operative, not involved in intelligence gathering, and Bush "listened" to Feiths reporting and acted on it, instead of the intelligence community reports.  He was paying this man to take "inappropriate actions" and then listen to them.  This is not my opinion, this is the finding of the inspector general of the defense department.  Do you think military.com is a communist site?


----------



## finebead (Jan 11, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> That's not true.
> Both in 1998 and 2003 the UN inspectors had lists of weapons that were known to have existed and not shown to be destroyed.



"Know to have existed and not shown to be destroyed"  Can you show this?  

That does not prove he had any of them left.  They could have been used in battle with Iran or on the Kurds and not documented as having been used.  

I post links to substantiate what I have asserted, so *where are your links to substantiate what you assert here?
*
What was the extent of the problem, and was it worth going to war over?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 11, 2008)

finebead said:


> "Know to have existed and not shown to be destroyed"  Can you show this?


Yes.  Both UN inspection agencies (from 1998 and from 2003) had lists of delcared weapons that were not shen to have been destoryed by Iraq.



> That does not prove he had any of them left.  They could have been used in battle with Iran...


In 1998 or later?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 11, 2008)

Warner said:


> "Known"???  If you look into it, in most cases this is really "believed".  The only way you know such a thing is to actually inspect and see it, and this didn't happen.


Or if the other guys says he had it.


----------



## Warner (Jan 11, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Lies?  Incorrect assumptions would be more like it.  In both cases, evidence DOES exist.  Whether or not you agree with conclusions based on assumptions is one thing ... branding them a lie via Monday morning quarterbacking quite another.



There was no "incorrect assumption" concerning the African Uranium lie.  The Administration knew this was a lie before they ever presented it.  They had received conclusive reports to this effect and pretended they had not.  This was what was behind the whole Valerie Plains debacle and subsequent Scooter Libby case.

If what you are saying is that someone can cherry pick from available information and use what they like no matter how weak and unsupported it might be and without regard to the quality of the source, while at the same time ignoring contrary information no matter how strong and well supported it might be or how good the source is, and then present the desired information as fact and not be lying, then we just have a different definition of the word "lie".  (wow that's a long sentence!  )


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 11, 2008)

Warner said:


> There was no "incorrect assumption" concerning the African Uranium lie


Yuu mean the yellowcake thing?
Can you quote the specific claim to that effect?


----------



## finebead (Jan 11, 2008)

> 6. Did the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy *prepare and present briefing charts concerning the relationship between lraq and a1 Qaeda that went beyond available intelligence* by asserting that an alleged meeting between lead 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta and lraqi intelligence officer al-Ani in Prague in April 2001 was a 'known' contact?'
> 
> Yes. The OUSD(P) produced a briefing, "Assessing the Relationship between lraq and al-Qaida," in which one slide discussed the alleged meeting in Prague between Mohammed Atta and lraqi Intelligence officer al-Ani as a "known contact."
> 
> ...


http://www.dodig.mil/IGInformation/archives/OUSDP-OSP&#37;20Brief.pdf

This is the transcript from congressional report by the inspector general DOD, reporting on the activity of Douglas Feith, Office of Under Secretary of Defense (Policy).  This is where the intelligence was manipulated by Feith.

And Bush admin used this manipulated non-intelligence that was not even being shown to the real intelligence community to tell the American public there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda, such as by VP Cheney on Meet the Press, which I posted the link to his actual words.  And that is why I say the Bush admin lied to the american public leading up to the war, in the marketing and selling of the war.


----------



## finebead (Jan 11, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> Yes.  Both UN inspection agencies (from 1998 and from 2003) had lists of delcared weapons that were not shen to have been destoryed by Iraq.


There is a difference between a list of weapons that were not shown to have been destroyed, and having weapons.  Agree?  

What did we know that justified the war?  Links?  I'm posting my links and information.  Where is yours?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 11, 2008)

finebead said:


> There is a difference between a list of weapons that were not shown to have been destroyed, and having weapons.  Agree?
> 
> What did we know that justified the war?  Links?  I'm posting my links and information.  Where is yours?



We had a long list of reasons agreed to by many democrats as well. WMDs were just ne of many reasons, they were heavily sold on the mistaken belief that we could get the UN to help. A mistake fostered by a lying deceitful France, they sent Generals and staff to help plan the invasion with their support, all the while knowing they had no intention of approving any such action, they wanted to delay us until the heat set in so no war would occur before that fall.

Why? Because they were paid off, along with Russia , China and Belgium. Those Countries intended to work to LIFT sanctions that summer.

In the end we only needed one reason.... Saddam FAILED to abide by the ceasefire agreement for 12 DAMN YEARS.


----------



## finebead (Jan 11, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> In the end we only needed one reason.... Saddam FAILED to abide by the ceasefire agreement for 12 DAMN YEARS.


You don't go to war, spend half a trillion dollars, 4,000 dead, 30,000 injured because somebody technically cheated on an agreement, when you could ensure compliance by re-inserting inspectors, which we had just successfully done in Nov. 2002.  That's just stupid, and most folks in the country can see it, so they voted the repubs out of both houses of congress.  

If you see a potential threat, the answer is not necessarily to go to war.  That's the most expensive way to deal with it.  What are our other options?  Re-inserting inspectors which we had just done would eliminate the threat at much lower cost.  That's easy to see.  What was the real reason we went to war?  It' clear Bush wanted to go to war, and then he trumped up a case for it.  What's the real reason he wanted Iraq?

Don't worry.  Shell, Exxon, and BP have their 30 year contracts to produce Iraq crude, civil unrest will keep enough troops there for the next 30 years, the CEO's will get rich, and when the fields are depleted, we'll give up on Iraq and leave.  The rich get richer, the poor die.  Follow the money.  I've posted links that both Greenspan and Abizaid have said it's about oil.

Then the defense contractors will get to build some humvees and new tanks, and they'll be happy.


----------



## Psychoblues (Jan 11, 2008)

It is immoral and a simple disrespect for human life and American values, finebead.  Don't expect these bonehead armchair warriors to understand it.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 12, 2008)

finebead said:


> You don't go to war, spend half a trillion dollars, 4,000 dead, 30,000 injured because somebody technically cheated on an agreement, when you could ensure compliance by re-inserting inspectors, which we had just successfully done in Nov. 2002.  That's just stupid, and most folks in the country can see it, so they voted the repubs out of both houses of congress.
> 
> If you see a potential threat, the answer is not necessarily to go to war.  That's the most expensive way to deal with it.  What are our other options?  Re-inserting inspectors which we had just done would eliminate the threat at much lower cost.  That's easy to see.  What was the real reason we went to war?  It' clear Bush wanted to go to war, and then he trumped up a case for it.  What's the real reason he wanted Iraq?
> 
> ...



So how much you think it would have cost to keep 150,000 troops in Kuwait to ensure Saddam pretended to once again cooperate with inspections? And the sanctions would have disappeared that summer thanks to France, China and Russia. We have absolute proof that Saddam maintained the technology, the scientists and the equipment to rebuild his WMD programs after sanctions were lifted.


----------



## finebead (Jan 12, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> So how much you think it would have cost to keep 150,000 troops in Kuwait to ensure Saddam pretended to once again cooperate with inspections? And the sanctions would have disappeared that summer thanks to France, China and Russia. We have absolute proof that Saddam maintained the technology, the scientists and the equipment to rebuild his WMD programs after sanctions were lifted.


Why do you say it would have cost 150K troops in Kuwait to keep the inspectors in?  If it has taken 170K in Iraq to secure it, it would not take that many to constitute an incentive to cooperate.  And you don't have those other costs, the 4,000 dead, 30,000 wounded, bomb, guns, bullets, destroyed vehicles, worn out equipment, and the ill will of most of the rest of the world who views our invasion of Iraq as illegally taking control of their oil reserves.

If you don't believe international dislike costs us anything, think again.  It is one factor, but not the major factor, in the decline of the dollar, which is a major factor in $90 per barrel oil.  Iran has required Japan to pay for its oil in Yen, and China to pay in Euros.  This reduces the demand for the dollar, so to create demand we have to put it on sale, or lower its price.  The huge budget deficit created by the war in Iraq and the trade deficit is the major cause of the fall of the dollar.

We are paying all sorts of costs for the war in Iraq.  Monetarily we could have  paid with taxes, but we did charge it, print the money out of thin air by selling bonds, have our currency weaken, and then pay in inflated prices for imported goods.  So, every American is paying for the war at the pump with an indirect tax called inflation, which is regressive and hits the poor much harder than the rich.  Exactly the way the blue blood little lord fauntleroy republicans want it!  Certainly not all of the run up in oil price is due to dollar depreciation, and some of it is due to new demand from China and India's emerging economy and huge populations, but I'd say about half of the increase in oil is due to the dollar losing half its value against the Euro under Bush II.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 12, 2008)

You are, of course aware that the ONLY reason Saddam allowed inspectors back in was because we mased troops on his border in Kuwait? That as soon as we withdrew those troops he would have probably kicked out the inspectors? That he was NOT allowing the inspectors unfettered and free access as was required? That he was not providing the information required? Reread Blix's reports, HE is clear that Saddam Hussein, even at the last minute was NOT meeting the requirements, though he does try to claim that it was acceptable.

France , Russia and China are the reason Saddam refused to come clean, he just knew they would prevent the US from attacking him as they promised and that sanctions would be lifted.


----------



## Gunny (Jan 12, 2008)

Warner said:


> There was no "incorrect assumption" concerning the African Uranium lie.  The Administration knew this was a lie before they ever presented it.  They had received conclusive reports to this effect and pretended they had not.  This was what was behind the whole Valerie Plains debacle and subsequent Scooter Libby case.
> 
> If what you are saying is that someone can cherry pick from available information and use what they like no matter how weak and unsupported it might be and without regard to the quality of the source, while at the same time ignoring contrary information no matter how strong and well supported it might be or how good the source is, and then present the desired information as fact and not be lying, then we just have a different definition of the word "lie".  (wow that's a long sentence!  )



What I'm saying is one can presume guilt based on circumstantial evidence, and probably outcome based on past action.  

Joe Wilson was and is a self-agrandizing piece of crap with no real qualifications to carry out the mission he was sent on.  Would I take his word alone as a counter to multi-sources of info?  Not.  

IMO, Saddam Hussein would attempt to obtain/obtain nuclear material from whoever and wherever he thought he could.  I put no faith in Mr White Boy American walking into an African Nation and asking questions and getting truthful answers.  What would YOU say put in the position of the African nation?  

I don't disagree with most of what you say except when stating it was a lie.  Where do you draw the line?  Which politician -- which President -- has not and does not present strongly the facts that support his position and downplay the ones that don't?  

And how many times have YOU been presented conflicting information and chosen to accept the one that conformed to what you wanted?


----------



## Gunny (Jan 12, 2008)

finebead said:


> There is a difference between a list of weapons that were not shown to have been destroyed, and having weapons.  Agree?
> 
> What did we know that justified the war?  Links?  I'm posting my links and information.  Where is yours?



Disagree.  When one is accountable for weapons/percursors, then one must account for them.  If one cannot or will not account for them, assuming they're lost, misplaced, stolen and/or destroyed is how you get dead real quick. 

As far as links go, what's the point to posting links to widely-known information?  

Legally, resumption of hostility could happen at anytime that Saddam violated the terms of the ceasefire agreement HE signed in 1991.  Would it make you feel better if I look up and paste each and every time Saddam violated those terms and posted each and every one of the UN's "this is your very, very, very, VERY last chance" warnings?

Links are nice, when required, but not mandatory when arguing a point on merit when the facts used are common knowledge.


----------



## Gunny (Jan 12, 2008)

finebead said:


> You don't go to war, spend half a trillion dollars, 4,000 dead, 30,000 injured because somebody technically cheated on an agreement, when you could ensure compliance by re-inserting inspectors, which we had just successfully done in Nov. 2002.  That's just stupid, and most folks in the country can see it, so they voted the repubs out of both houses of congress.



And we did not go to war because someone technically cheated on an agreement.  

As far as voting Republicans out, that's bogus.  Republicans didn't support returning politicians to Congress that had not lived up to their promises.  Winning by default is HARLDY a mandate.




> If you see a potential threat, the answer is not necessarily to go to war.  That's the most expensive way to deal with it.  What are our other options?  Re-inserting inspectors which we had just done would eliminate the threat at much lower cost.  That's easy to see.  What was the real reason we went to war?  It' clear Bush wanted to go to war, and then he trumped up a case for it.  What's the real reason he wanted Iraq?



You keep going back to reinserting inspectors when it's already been pointed out more than once that doing so was a waste of time.  How long do you continue to use reinserting inspectors to get the same runaround as last time?  Saddam had 12 years to comply.  Sooner or later you need a new plan.

I do agree with you that going to war is not necessarily the answer.



> Don't worry.  Shell, Exxon, and BP have their 30 year contracts to produce Iraq crude, civil unrest will keep enough troops there for the next 30 years, the CEO's will get rich, and when the fields are depleted, we'll give up on Iraq and leave.  The rich get richer, the poor die.  Follow the money.  I've posted links that both Greenspan and Abizaid have said it's about oil.
> 
> Then the defense contractors will get to build some humvees and new tanks, and they'll be happy.



US interest in the Middle East, and the international community's interest in the Middle East is about oil.  That's no secret.  There's no conspiracy.  I mean. let's be real ... who give's a rat's ass about a sandbox full of backwards-assed people if they don't have something the international community wants?

I'll use the goings on in Africa to support THAT statement.  They practice genocide on a daily basis there and the international community, to include the US, basically does as little as possible to stop it.


----------



## finebead (Jan 12, 2008)

> June 2000
> 
> What is often overlooked in the debate over how to proceed with Iraq's disarmament is the fact that from 1994 to 1998 Iraq was subjected to a strenuous program of ongoing monitoring of industrial and research facilities that could be used to reconstitute proscribed activities. This monitoring provided weapons inspectors with detailed insight into the capabilities, both present and future, of Iraq's industrial infrastructure. *It allowed UNSCOM to ascertain, with a high level of confidence, that Iraq was not rebuilding its prohibited weapons programs and that it lacked the means to do so without an infusion of advanced technology and a significant investment of time and money.*
> 
> ...


http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2000_06/iraqjun.asp

Iraq had been qualitatively disarmed by 1998, and Scott Ritter has stated and I posted a link that the US had technical monitoring capability to determine if prohibited materials were reintroduced to Iraq.  Colin Powell stated in 2001 that Iraq had no WMD, I posted the link earlier in this thread.  We put inspectors back in in Nov. 2002, they found nothing.  If Powell could go to the UN and show pictures of the WMD facilities in Jan. 2003, don't you think we could have told Blix where to find them in Nov. 2002?  Didn't happen.

Was Iraq potentially dangerous?  Sure.  Did they have WMD?  No, and knowledgeable people like Colin Powell and Scott Ritter said so.  Was the intel manipulated?  Sure, and John Keisling said so and resigned over it after 20 years in the State Dept.  Congress heard from the inspector general of DOD that Douglas Feith, who was not a career intel officer but was a career lawyer appointed by Bush II, was producing reports and was misusing intelligence that the administration was using instead of the reports from the real intel community.

Iraq was not as big a threat as the administration painted them to be, and we did not have to go to war to deal with them.  We could have dealt with them if far less expensive ways.  But then, we wouldn't control the oil fields...

That's the bottom line.


----------



## finebead (Jan 12, 2008)

> Before President Bush appointed him in July 2001, Mr. Feith was for fifteen years the managing attorney of the Washington, D.C. law firm Feith & Zell, P.C.


http://www.dougfeith.com/about.html

Just so you know when I say that Feith was a political operative and he was Bush's boy, here it is.  He had so much experience in intelligence matters he was a practicing attorney for the 15 years immediately prior to supplying the reports the Bush admin wanted.   See post 361 above.


----------



## Warner (Jan 12, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> Yuu mean the yellowcake thing?
> Can you quote the specific claim to that effect?



You can look it up easily enough.  I'm a busy person and do not have time to look up every fact.  I have very limited time to spend on this board.  If you are willing to wait next time I have time to do so I'll look it up.

In one of his public addresses Bush indicated that they had proof that Iraq was trying to acquire uranium ore from Africa.  It has since become clear this was a lie and furthermore that they knew this was not true when the speech was made.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 12, 2008)

Warner said:


> You can look it up easily enough.  I'm a busy person and do not have time to look up every fact.  I have very limited time to spend on this board.  If you are willing to wait next time I have time to do so I'll look it up.
> 
> In one of his public addresses Bush indicated that they had proof that Iraq was trying to acquire uranium ore from Africa.  It has since become clear this was a lie and furthermore that they knew this was not true when the speech was made.



Wrong, the lie is that Wilson proved anything. All he did is go hang out at Hotels and talk to diplomats he knew.

And Yellow Cake was most assuradly found in Iraq.

You want to make a claim, YOU prove it, you have claimed the yellow cake report was a lie, provide evidence. You will discover there is none, it was an opinion not a fact that Wilson discovered anything. No one has proven yellow cake false.


----------



## eots (Jan 12, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Wrong, the lie is that Wilson proved anything. All he did is go hang out at Hotels and talk to diplomats he knew.
> 
> And Yellow Cake was most assuradly found in Iraq.
> 
> You want to make a claim, YOU prove it, you have claimed the yellow cake report was a lie, provide evidence. You will discover there is none, it was an opinion not a fact that Wilson discovered anything. No one has proven yellow cake false.



why don't you ever try to substantiate YOUR claims ? YOU take a position a fact is false all the time then take no responsibility to support YOUR position




White House 'warned over Iraq claim'


Soldiers are yet to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq  
The CIA warned the US Government that claims about Iraq's nuclear ambitions were not true months before President Bush used them to make his case for war, the BBC has learned. 
Doubts about a claim that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from the African state of Niger were aired 10 months before Mr Bush included the allegation in his key State of the Union address this year, a CIA official has told the BBC. 

On Tuesday, the White House for the first time officially acknowledged that the Niger claim was wrong and suggested it should not have been used in the president's State of the Union speech in January. 



 Given the fact that the report on the yellow cake did not turn out to be accurate, that is reflective of the president's broader statement 

White House spokesman
Ari Fleischer 


Uranium row in quotes  
But the CIA official has said that a former US diplomat had already established the claim was false in March 2002 - and that the information had been passed on to government departments, including the White House, well before Mr Bush mentioned it in the speech. 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3056626.stm


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 14, 2008)

finebead said:


> There is a difference between a list of weapons that were not shown to have been destroyed, and having weapons.  Agree?


No.
If you declare that you have X, and then do not show that you destroyed or othersise expended X, then you still have X.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 14, 2008)

Warner said:


> You can look it up easily enough.  I'm a busy person and do not have time to look up every fact.  I have very limited time to spend on this board.  If you are willing to wait next time I have time to do so I'll look it up.... It has since become clear this was a lie and furthermore that they knew this was not true when the speech was made


You're talking about the statement that that UK intel showed there was a purchase of yellowcake from Nigeria.

How was that a lie, especially given that the UK still stands by the assertion?


----------



## midcan5 (Jan 14, 2008)

Yellow cake was propaganda from the Cheney white house.

http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_16_words_on_iraq_uranium.html

As with most propaganda there is a little truth but much distortion.


----------



## Doug (Jan 14, 2008)

Let's run the clock back to 2002, and ask this question: suppose it were definitely confirmed that Saddam Hussein was actively developing nuclear weapons, as so many believed at that time.

Would we all agree then that an invasion was justified?


----------



## jillian (Jan 14, 2008)

Doug said:


> Let's run the clock back to 2002, and ask this question: suppose it were definitely confirmed that Saddam Hussein was actively developing nuclear weapons, as so many believed at that time.
> 
> Would we all agree then that an invasion was justified?



No. There are far too many other variables which would have had to be considered. Tactical strike? If the development progressed to a certain point? Perhaps. But certainly not a full scale invasion, particularly when our state department already knew what would happen if our troops went to Baghdad.


----------



## maineman (Jan 14, 2008)

Doug said:


> Let's run the clock back to 2002, and ask this question: suppose it were definitely confirmed that Saddam Hussein was actively developing nuclear weapons, as so many believed at that time.
> 
> Would we all agree then that an invasion was justified?



no.

and if you ask that question about Iraq, why don't you ask it about North Korea?


----------



## Doug (Jan 14, 2008)

So, an attack then -- perhaps a massive bombing campaign -- but not actually troops on the ground, except maybe for swift in-and-out raids to kill key personnel?


----------



## Doug (Jan 14, 2008)

North Korea is indeed a problem, but one for which I think the least worst strategy is containment, for the moment. North Korea is not embedded in the same sort of religious/national matrix as Iraq was/is. Tipping over Kim Jong Il, even if it could be done without tremendous slaughter, which I believe it couldn't,  doesn't pay the same sort of dividends that establishing a functioning democracy in Iraq would give us. (Whether or not the latter is possible is still an open question.)


----------



## maineman (Jan 14, 2008)

Did we consider attacking India when IT developed nuclear weapons?  Pakistan?  

Like it or not, Colin Powell candidly stated that Saddam was no longer a threat to us or even his neighbors months BEFORE 9/11.  

I know that the neocons love to say that 9/11 changed everything, but it should not have changed our ability to prioritize.  We had islamic extremists sworn to attack us and we decided to invade conquer and occupy Iraq because they were in violation of UN sanctions and that they maybe had stockpiles of 20 year old chemical weapons?  

an analogy:  my kitchen is on fire, my son has sliced off his finger on the circular saw in the garage, my daughter is being raped by a motorcycle gang on the front lawn and I have termites.  Bush-like response:  first thing we do...we call the Orkin man!


----------



## maineman (Jan 14, 2008)

I do not think that it is or ought to be the mission of the United States and its military to cram democracy down some other people's throats at the point of a gun, regardless of how nice we think the results might be for us in the long run.


----------



## Doug (Jan 14, 2008)

The spread of nuclear weapons should not be a matter of indifference to us. I beieve we missed a chance when the Soviet Union collapsed to propose univesal nuclear disarmament. At a minimum, even we couldn't find universal agreement, we would have scored a propaganda victory.

The problem is not nuclear weapons as such, it is the danger of their use, and in particular their use against us. The scenario to worry about is the clandestine supply of one or more of these devices to anti-American terrorists, either via Third World slipshodiness and corruption, or deliberately.

Pakistan's nuclear weapons are, at the moment, the ones to worry about. I don't have any proposals here, since I do not know enough about the internal politics of Pakistan.

In any case, Iraq was not invaded because of any immediate threat of nuclear weapons being developed by it. No serious person believed this story, which was just a pretext. The real motivation for invading Iraq was the "drain the swamp" theory. I happen to agree with this theory, although at the time i thought that the cold-blooded invasion of Iraq was a mistake. (However, I knew little about Iraq at the time, particularly its sectarian divide, and thought that there would be massive nationalist resistance.) That's all moot, since we are there.

The question is: what sort of world will we be living in ten, twenty, thirty years from now, if we do not see the advance of democratic freedoms in the Muslim world? It may be that there is little we can do to help this advance -- in which case we had better dig out Herman Kahn's book of the same name and start thinking the unthinkable.


----------



## eots (Jan 14, 2008)

Doug said:


> The spread of nuclear weapons should not be a matter of indifference to us. I beieve we missed a chance when the Soviet Union collapsed to propose univesal nuclear disarmament. At a minimum, even we couldn't find universal agreement, we would have scored a propaganda victory.
> 
> The problem is not nuclear weapons as such, it is the danger of their use, and in particular their use against us. The scenario to worry about is the clandestine supply of one or more of these devices to anti-American terrorists, either via Third World slipshodiness and corruption, or deliberately.
> 
> ...



maybe the don't want you version of democratic freedoms, maybe they are not lesser beings than you that need your salvation, maybe you should be more concerned with the erosion of your democratic freedoms instead of trying to force your version of reality on the Muslim nations, you are then the terrorist wanting to overthrow there nation and enforce your beliefs on them and bring to there children the great American freedoms of hustler magazine, gangster rap,the murder of the unborn...maybe they say no thank you we will work through our issues as a people  and a nation our way


----------



## maineman (Jan 14, 2008)

Doug said:


> The spread of nuclear weapons should not be a matter of indifference to us. I beieve we missed a chance when the Soviet Union collapsed to propose univesal nuclear disarmament. At a minimum, even we couldn't find universal agreement, we would have scored a propaganda victory.
> 
> The problem is not nuclear weapons as such, it is the danger of their use, and in particular their use against us. The scenario to worry about is the clandestine supply of one or more of these devices to anti-American terrorists, either via Third World slipshodiness and corruption, or deliberately.
> 
> ...



I am fairly certain of a few things:

1.  If the message we want to send to the muslim world is to stop trying to kill Americans, and the method we chose to send that message is to kill Muslims, we had better be prepared to kill ALL of them, at home and abroad.

2.  As desirable as the prospect of multicultural Jeffersonian democracies spring up like crocuses throughout the Muslim world might be to us, trying to start that blossoming trend  by invading, conquering and occupying a Muslim country and attempting to cram that democracy down their throats at the point of a gun is probably NOT the best way to convince other Muslim nations to move toward multicultural democracy unless the implied threat is that we intend to invade, conquer, occupy and force feed our brand of democracy to ALL of them at the point of a gun, and even so, my experience with Muslim men is, you threaten them, and they merely stiffen their resistance to your ideas.

3.  Spending trillions of dollars and spilling gallons and gallons of American blood in an effort to force the people of Iraq to get along is insane.  Iraq is nothing but some territory created on a big map in Europe at the conclusion of WWI as the victors decided how to divvy up the spoils of war and the remnants of the Ottoman Empire.  The Caucasian Christian aristocrats who drew the borders of that "nation" had NO idea of the differences and millennium long enmities between Sunni and Shi'ite and Kurd.... they were all just brown skinned, rag headed monkeys to them, and it has taken strong armed autocratic dictatorial governments to keep a lid on that place ever since then.

4.  I know that, regardless of the pap that Bush tries to feed us, radical Islam does NOT hate us because of our freedoms.  Rather, they hate us for our support of corrupt muslim monarchies and dictatorships and they hate us for our unilateral, uncritical support of Israel, and they hate us for our intrusions on THEIR part of the world.  And radical Islam does indeed find fertile ground for recruiting amongst the socioeconomically disadvantaged and disaffected muslim youth who grow up in dictatorships, many strongly supported by America because of our addiction to their oil.

5.  There is no legitimate question for which a preemptive, unprovoked war is the right answer.


----------



## Alpha1 (Jan 15, 2008)

So you propose we do nothing to stop them from killing us? Or are you implying we do what they want us to do and hope they stop killing us?

Neither us acceptable....if they insist and persist in killing Americans, we must and will act in kind...and if it takes killing all of them, so be it....no society in the world should be allowed to use terror on people at will because they have political, social or religious gripes with others....or use terror on US citizens because they don't agree with their or other regional governments that have invited the US into their country.....

You claim "they hate us for our support of corrupt muslim monarchies and dictatorships"....
Then you claim, "it has taken strong armed autocratic dictatorial governments to keep them inline"
And then you claim, "we not invade and remove those same 'corrupt, autocratic dictatorial governments to give those ragheaded monkeys (your words, not mine) the opportunity to govern themselves in their own fashion....

Well, which is it?  They hate us if we support their corrupt muslim monarchies and dictatorships, and they hate us when we remove those corrupt muslim monarchies and dictatorships....someday you might realize, plain and simple,  they hate us because we are infidels....my guess is no matter what...you will blame the US first....

No,  their is  nothing  legitimate about a preemptive, unprovoked war....but by the same token...
if you provoke war, threaten other countries, 
and attempt to kill citizens of other nations by world wide terror,
 or aid and abet terrorists,
 it is you that has already struck preemptively, and declared war.....

In this age of WMD we cannot and will not ignore the nations of the world...
WMD truly is a threat to human existence..this is Pandora's box and the keys to that box must be few and guarded....


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 15, 2008)

Alpha1 said:


> No,  their is  nothing  legitimate about a preemptive, unprovoked war....


Pre-emptive wars are not necessarily unprovoked, and as such it is perfectly possible for a pre-emptive war to be legitimate.


----------



## maineman (Jan 15, 2008)

So you propose we do nothing to stop them from killing us? Or are you implying we do what they want us to do and hope they stop killing us?

*why do you always frame questions as either/or?  In answer to your two overly simplistic questions:  NO  and  NO.*

Neither us acceptable....if they insist and persist in killing Americans, we must and will act in kind...and if it takes killing all of them, so be it....no society in the world should be allowed to use terror on people at will because they have political, social or religious gripes with others....or use terror on US citizens because they don't agree with their or other regional governments that have invited the US into their country.....

*suggesting that a small Islamic extremist group is representative of Islamic society in general is frighteningly bigoted and absurd.*

You claim "they hate us for our support of corrupt muslim monarchies and dictatorships"....
Then you claim, "it has taken strong armed autocratic dictatorial governments to keep them inline"
And then you claim, "we not invade and remove those same 'corrupt, autocratic dictatorial governments to give those ragheaded monkeys (your words, not mine) the opportunity to govern themselves in their own fashion...

Well, which is it?  They hate us if we support their corrupt muslim monarchies and dictatorships, and they hate us when we remove those corrupt muslim monarchies and dictatorships....someday you might realize, plain and simple,  they hate us because we are infidels....my guess is no matter what...you will blame the US first....

*again.... more idiotic either/or.  Either we support corrupt muslim dictatorships or we invade conquer and occupy them.  Idiotic.*

No,  their is  nothing  legitimate about a preemptive, unprovoked war....but by the same token...
if you provoke war, threaten other countries, 
and attempt to kill citizens of other nations by world wide terror,
 or aid and abet terrorists,
 it is you that has already struck preemptively, and declared war.

*Iraq did not attack us.  Al Qaeda did.*

In this age of WMD we cannot and will not ignore the nations of the world...
WMD truly is a threat to human existence..this is Pandora's box and the keys to that box must be few and guarded.

*so why hasn't dubya decided to invade conquer and occupy North Korea?*


----------



## mattskramer (Jan 15, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> Pre-emptive wars are not necessarily unprovoked, and as such it is perfectly possible for a pre-emptive war to be legitimate.



I think that my neighbor is planning to beat me up.  He looked at me with that evil eye.  I dont have any absolute proof that he is planning to hurt be but just to be safe, I better break into his house and mess things up for him.


----------



## eots (Jan 15, 2008)

mattskramer said:


> I think that my neighbor is planning to beat me up.  He looked at me with that evil eye.  I dont have any absolute proof that he is planning to hurt be but just to be safe, I better break into his house and mess things up for him.




thats just short term thinking. if I where you I would get some family members with guns to move into his place and keep a real good eye on him


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 15, 2008)

mattskramer said:


> I think that my neighbor is planning to beat me up.  He looked at me with that &#8220;evil eye&#8221;.  I don&#8217;t have any absolute proof that he is planning to hurt be but just to be safe, I better break into his house and mess things up for him.


I'm sorry...  does this have a point, one relevant to what I said?


----------



## mattskramer (Jan 15, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> I'm sorry...  does this have a point, one relevant to what I said?



At what point is a preemptive attack/war justified  if someone looks at you funny, if you merely have suspicions, if you have no absolute irrefutable proof of no-goodness?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 15, 2008)

mattskramer said:


> At what point is a preemptive attack/war justified &#8211; if someone looks at you funny, if you merely have suspicions, if you have no absolute irrefutable proof of no-goodness?


You tell me -- what is good enough for you?

Is the apearance of the Japanese fleet off Hawaii sufficent for you to take action, or do you wait until the Kates drop the first torpedo?


----------



## Warner (Jan 15, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Wrong, the lie is that Wilson proved anything. All he did is go hang out at Hotels and talk to diplomats he knew.
> 
> And Yellow Cake was most assuradly found in Iraq.
> 
> You want to make a claim, YOU prove it, you have claimed the yellow cake report was a lie, provide evidence. You will discover there is none, it was an opinion not a fact that Wilson discovered anything. No one has proven yellow cake false.



Exactly.  The lie was presenting this information to the public as if it were fact.

Logic 101 says you cannot prove a negative.  It is impossible to "prove" there was no yellow cake in iraq.  All that can be proven is that no yellow cake has been found.


----------



## Warner (Jan 15, 2008)

Doug said:


> Let's run the clock back to 2002, and ask this question: suppose it were definitely confirmed that Saddam Hussein was actively developing nuclear weapons, as so many believed at that time.
> 
> Would we all agree then that an invasion was justified?



No.  Look at Iran, where we know a significant nuclear program has been underway.  Even so they are years from having a testable weapon, and years beyond that of having a usable weapon.

Iraq was, at an unrealistic minimum, 10 years away from having a viable nuke even if all the supposed evidence were true, and 15 years is more realistic.  The only way they would short cut this would be to obtain weapons grade material.  Even with such material, they lacked the technical capability to work the stuff, and would have been at least 5 years away from a usable weapon.

So no, even if the information were true it did not justify the invasion of Iraq in 2002.


----------



## Warner (Jan 15, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> You tell me -- what is good enough for you?
> 
> Is the apearance of the Japanese fleet off Hawaii sufficent for you to take action, or do you wait until the Kates drop the first torpedo?



Ummm.. lets make your example more realistic.  Was the fact the Japanese had a navy sufficient for you?  Even if it were in the Sea of Japan?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 15, 2008)

Warner said:


> Ummm.. lets make your example more realistic.  Was the fact the Japanese had a navy sufficient for you?  Even if it were in the Sea of Japan?


More realistic than...  what actually happened?   

Do you wait until the first torpedoes hit the water, or not?


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 15, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> More realistic than...  what actually happened?
> 
> Do you wait until the first torpedoes hit the water, or not?



You're dodging. Answer the question. Are you saying the Japs had a torpedo that could be fired from the Sea of Japan and then hit the Arizona in Hawaii?? Man, that must be some freaking torpedo!!

Look, I'll spell it out for you in simple terms, because even though you get the point that is being made, you are playing dumb because it suits you and then you would have to actually ANSWER a question you don't want to.

There was nothing about Iraq that posed an IMMINENT threat to the US. Nothing. If there was, and you used the so-called criteria that Bush The Liar used, then you'd be in Tehran, Pyongyang and Beijing right about now...hell, even Islamabad...


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 15, 2008)

mattskramer said:


> I think that my neighbor is planning to beat me up.  He looked at me with that evil eye.  I dont have any absolute proof that he is planning to hurt be but just to be safe, I better break into his house and mess things up for him.



Has in the past beat up his neighbors? Murdered any? Burned their houses down? Tried to kill members of your family? Paid other people to beat you up? Piped gas into other peoples houses? 

Have the police ordered him to cease and desist but he has not complied? Have they ordered him to turn over all his weapons but he still brags he has an arsenal in his house that he is going to use on you and his other neighbors?

Just a few questions that would put your hypothetical more in line with what happened.


----------



## eots (Jan 15, 2008)

[





> QUOTE=RetiredGySgt;639773]Has in the past beat up his neighbors? Murdered any? Burned their houses down? Tried to kill members of your family? Paid other people to beat you up? Piped gas into other peoples houses?



somewhat of a inchorent sentence but if what your struggling to say is has this neighbour committed these acts to you in the past ? the answer would have to be  basicaly no ..the terrorist lived at your freinds house not his

Have the police ordered him to cease and desist but he has not complied? Have they ordered him to turn over all his weapons but he still brags he has an arsenal in his house that he is going to use on you and his other neighbors?

the police ! your not the police your the bully neighbour that makes impossble to accept demands ,like to cease somthing your not doing


Just a few questions that would put your hypothetical more in line with what happened.[/QUOTE]


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 15, 2008)

eots said:


> [
> 
> somewhat of a inchorent sentence but if what your struggling to say is has this neighbour committed these acts to you in the past ? the answer would have to be  basicaly no ..the terrorist lived at your freinds house not his
> 
> ...


[/QUOTE]

Perhaps if your going to call something incoherent you should make sure your grasp of the quote function is up to par?


----------



## Alpha1 (Jan 15, 2008)

maineman said:


> So you propose we do nothing to stop them from killing us? Or are you implying we do what they want us to do and hope they stop killing us?
> 
> *why do you always frame questions as either/or?  In answer to your two overly simplistic questions:  NO  and  NO.*
> 
> ...



Maineman says.... 
1. If the message we want to send to the muslim world is to stop trying to kill Americans, and the method we chose to send that message is to kill Muslims, we had better be prepared to kill ALL of them, at home and abroad.

Alpha1 says...
So you propose we do nothing to stop them from killing us? Or are you implying we do what they want us to do and hope they stop killing us?
Neither us acceptable....if they insist and persist in killing Americans, we must and will act in kind...and if it takes killing all of them, so be it....no society in the world should be allowed to use terror on people at will because they have political, social or religious gripes with others....or use terror on US citizens because they don't agree with their or other regional governments that have invited the US into their country.....

*We can take one question at a time....So you've answered no and no....and I've asked WHAT do you propose we do.... so what do you propose?
I've already stated that IF they insist and persist on killing Americans, we will react in kind....and if it takes killing all of them, so be it...I've no problem with that .....what do YOU PROPOSE WE DO....???*


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Jan 16, 2008)

mattskramer said:


> - or do all pro-Bush and Pro-Iraq people think that all of Bushs decisions throughout the war in Iraq to this point were reasonable and well-planned-out.



Please, name one war, any war in history, where ALL decisions were well planned out and reasonable. You are a joke


----------



## maineman (Jan 16, 2008)

Alpha1 said:


> Maineman says....
> 1. If the message we want to send to the muslim world is to stop trying to kill Americans, and the method we chose to send that message is to kill Muslims, we had better be prepared to kill ALL of them, at home and abroad.
> 
> Alpha1 says...
> ...



To suggest that "THEY" persist on killing Americans and somehow equating "THEY" with Muslims in general and not a relatively minuscule percentage of the world Islamic population really places you in a position where rational propositions would have no meaning to you.

We are dealing with a handful of Muslims out of the more than one billion Muslims on the planet.  They are not aligned with any particular nation state - in fact, no current muslim nation state's government has any legitimate interest in assisting them since the overarching goal of these extremists is the elimination of all those nation states.

Large scale military operations against nation states is not the way to proceed.  When we do so, we end up creating more enmity than we eliminate.

I believe that there are many ways to ultimately defeat Islamic extremism and that we should try to do as many of them as rapidly as possible....targeted small scale military operations, significantly beefing up HUMINT capabilities and using the results of those intelligence assets to help us pinpoint their locations and their funding sources and  eliminating them, putting real pressure on the Islamic regimes that allow the madrassas that crank out American hatred to operate, quickly begin a concerted effort to wean ourselves off of petroleum, become more measured in our efforts between Israel and the Palestinians, reduce our lavish support for autocratic regimes, effectively control our borders and our ports of entry.  Those are a few ideas off the top of my head.  I haven't had my cup of green tea yet this morning so I perhaps would be able to think of more later.... but you get the gist.

I do not think that invading, conquering, and occupying Iraq and attempting to create a multicultural democracy THERE at the point of a gun and then expecting that to spread to other arab and muslim countries makes any sense at all.

And, as I said in the beginning.... for you to even have the mindset that all "Muslims" are the enemy is the kind of thinking that dooms us to failure.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 16, 2008)

Dr Grump said:


> You're dodging.


Did you read the post I responded to?
If so, I'm not a all sure how you can can claim that -I- am dodging.


----------



## Angel Heart (Jan 16, 2008)

LuvRPgrl said:


> Please, name one war, any war in history, where ALL decisions were well planned out and reasonable. You are a joke




Isn't that the truth. We all are human beings and making mistakes just like every other human being. Even in the highest of offices.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 16, 2008)

I Like how Maineman makes the claim only a miniscule number of Muslims are involved in terror. What a joke.


----------



## maineman (Jan 16, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> I Like how Maineman makes the claim only a miniscule number of Muslims are involved in terror. What a joke.



what percentage would you consider small enough to warrant the use of the word "minuscule"?


----------



## mattskramer (Jan 16, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> I Like how Maineman makes the claim only a miniscule number of Muslims are involved in terror. What a joke.



http://enalnitram.blogspot.com/2007/04/islam-and-islamism.html


----------



## maineman (Jan 16, 2008)

excellent link, Matt.  I am sure that RGS will be forthcoming with his polite retraction!


----------



## eots (Jan 16, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> I Like how Maineman makes the claim only a miniscule number of Muslims are involved in terror. What a joke.



thats for sure the shadowy enemy is everywhere in fact they may be hovering over your house right now ! in a black helicopter  they come in all shapes size's and colors ! it might even be your neighbor or a family member

 The New Al-Qaeda: Blonde Haired, Blue Eyed Westerners 
Fox News hysteria labels Caucasians with no criminal record as new breed of terrorists 

Prison Planet | January 16, 2008 
Paul Joseph Watson 
Echoing the much derided 2003 FBI warning that a good way to spot potential terrorists is to check if they are carrying an almanac, Fox News went beyond the pale this morning in suggesting that Al-Qaeda's most likely acolytes are blonde haired, blue eyed Caucasian westerners with no criminal record. 

Fox and Friends' ever ready Neo-Con slug Brian Kilmeade, who in November called on Americans to support terrorist car bombings in Iran , as well as funding for terrorist groups to "create havoc in Iran", interviewed ex-CIA spook Mike Baker, whose company Diligence LLC has close ties to the Bush administration and just happens to butter its bread with the aid of a steady supply of global unrest and terror hype. 



The story, which is based on a comment by a single MI5 source (must be true then) that was subsequently picked up in a Scotsman article , claims that Al-Qaeda have recruited 1,500 white Britons to carry out attacks in the UK. 

For those of us who recoiled in absolute horror at the proficiency of dumb and dumber's summer exploits in setting a car on fire at Glasgow airport , it's obvious that "Al-Qaeda's" recruiting efforts need to improve if they are to live up to the status lavishly bestowed upon them by the establishment media. 

So, as Baker and Kilmeade somehow manage to relate while keeping straight faces, the new breed of jihadists have been identified as white Caucasian westerners with blonde hair, blue eyes, and no criminal record. 

See it to believe it. 
http://infowars.com/articles/terror/new_al_qaeda_blonde_haired_blue_eyed_westerners.htm


Baker told Kilmeade that al Qaeda looks for operatives who can fit in, just as the CIA does, saying, "If they can recruit a Scandinavian, that's the holy grail for them." He added, "They need people who can move around freely and do their bidding," apparently implying that blue-eyed blondes are the people who blend most seamlessly into Western society, reports Raw Story . 

However, Baker dismissed Kilmeade's suggestion that al Qaeda would be particularly interested in recruiting in US prisons. "To go into a prison and try to recruit individuals -- that person's already tainted. What they really need, they need people who haven't run afoul of law enforcement in the past. ... Their problems are extreme in trying to recruit someone who can go out there and carry out their business." 

So there you have it, even if you believe we are fighting a war against radical Muslims that want to wipe us off the planet, your intelligence agencies are working on the premise that the next likely suicide bombers are going to look like Ken and Barbie. Does that make you feel safe? 


In December 2003, the FBI sent out a nationwide alert to police which stated that people traveling with almanacs and maps should be viewed as potential terrorists and searched at checkpoints. In comparison, this new bout of hysteria makes such folly appear positively rational. 

You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out what the agenda is here. Just as we were told that there were reds under the bed during the cold war era, without the specter of potential terrorists running around our backyards, the war on terror itself and all the fearmongering attached to it is rendered impotent. 

So the new potential terrorists are our friends, our neighbors and even us - mandating that the whole police state apparatus that has been constructed since 9/11 be swung around to target the American and British people. 

Oh yeah, and if there are real terrorists planning devastating attacks, they won't be stopped because the CIA and MI5 foot soldiers have been trained to look for members of the 1970's Swedish pop group Abba


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 16, 2008)

mattskramer said:


> http://enalnitram.blogspot.com/2007/04/islam-and-islamism.html
> According to a website which blames all of Islam for Islamofascism, there have been 7,906 &#8220;deadly acts of terror&#8221; since the 9/11 attacks, as of today. Assuming this to be true, this works out to be about one act of terror for every 202,378 Muslims.



This is obviously silly.   It assumes that a single person is responsible for each act, when its quite likely that several people were involved.

Lets assume each &#8220;deadly acts of terror&#8221; involves, in some way, 10 people.  Thats 1 in 20,238 muslims, or 0.0049&#37;.  

Can you imagine blaming the 99.995% for the misdeeds of the 0.0049%?

Sure I can -- the anti-gun loons do it all the time.

You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out what the agenda is here. Just as we were told that there were reds under the bed during the cold war era, just as we were told that the Muslims were out to kill us and destroy our way of life, without the specter of children, armed with assault weapons loaded with cop killer bullets, running around our backyards, the war on the right to arms and all the fearmongering attached to it is rendered impotent.


----------



## maineman (Jan 16, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> This is obviously silly.   It assumes that a single person is responsible for each act, when its quite likely that several people were involved.
> 
> Lets assume each deadly acts of terror involves, in some way, 10 people.  Thats 1 in 20,238 muslims, or 0.0049%.




Hey RGS....would you consider 0.0049% to be "minuscule"?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 16, 2008)

maineman said:


> Hey RGS....would you consider 0.0049% to be "minuscule"?



Every act involves more then 10 people. Lets take Iran, a muslim Country, they openly recruit suicide bombers and martyrs to walk through land mines. They openly PAY and supply Hezbulla in Lebanon to kill for them. I would say there are THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of Iranians that would willingly conduct terror attacks. Then we have Afghanistan, Pakistan, Lebanon, Pal Authority, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia.... there is a whole lot more then 70 thousand islomo fascists out there AND there are MILLIONS more that support them by donating money, hiding them, turning a blind eye to what they do and openly praising them.

Or are you now going to claim differently?


----------



## Paulie (Jan 16, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> I Like how Maineman makes the claim only a miniscule number of Muslims are involved in terror. What a joke.



Out of a billion _total_, I'd say yeah, it's miniscule.

Can you even name, say, 50 known terrorists off the top of your head without searching?

The nameless, faceless potential terrorists throughout the world can't constitute any exact amount, since you really have no idea who actually IS a terrorist without some type of confirmation of it.

Do you have anything to show that indicates a specific amount of terrorists, out of the billion muslims?


----------



## Paulie (Jan 16, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> Lets assume each &#8220;deadly acts of terror&#8221; involves, in some way, 10 people.  Thats 1 in 20,238 muslims, or 0.0049&#37;.



What's the statistics for 1 murderer out of however many American citizens?

There are more Americans murdered each day in this country than people murdered by terrorism, and the grand total of the latter PALES in comparison to the grand total of the former.

Why don't we just bomb cities where we know murderers live?  We very possibly could take some of them out.  Shouldn't the casualties be worth the agenda of eventually stopping the murdering?

If no, then why are they in _other_ countries?  Because they're not Americans?  Are American civilians worth more than Iraqi civilians, as humans?

All we're doing is trading who's being murdered, and by who, and the end result is really only death.

Human death is human death.  There's no moral justification for it.

That's not Liberal or Conservative.  That's HUMAN.


----------



## mattskramer (Jan 16, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> Can you imagine blaming the 99.995% for the misdeeds of the 0.0049%?
> 
> Sure I can --



Wow.  Uh okay.    Do you feel the same way about the anti-abortion groups and those, among them, who would bomb clinics and kill doctors?


----------



## Doug (Jan 16, 2008)

Most surveys of the attitudes of Muslims around the world towards the idea of terrorist attacks against innocent civilians have shown that the great majority of Muslims think they are wrong.

Only about ten percent of Muslims approve of them.

Since there are about 1 billion Muslims, that's about 100 million people.

Of course, out of that one hundred million, only a fraction will actually go on to become suicide bombers. Say, only one out of a hundred.

Out of 100 million, that is one million people.

So, call the number of Muslims who would actively like to kill you, about a million. If that is too liberal, divide by ten again, and get 100,000. They've used up a few thousand in Iraq and Afghanistan and London and Spain and Indonesia and Israel and a few other places over the last few years.

So call it 75,000. 

Nothing to worry about.


----------



## Paulie (Jan 16, 2008)

Doug said:


> Most surveys of the attitudes of Muslims around the world towards the idea of terrorist attacks against innocent civilians have shown that the great majority of Muslims think they are wrong.
> 
> Only about ten percent of Muslims approve of them.
> 
> ...



We should wage WW3 over a microcosm?


----------



## Doug (Jan 16, 2008)

No, we should throw away all our nasty old guns and rely on everyone's sweet good nature to yield a happy outcome for all. 

We should all hold hands and dance, singing Kum-ba-yah.

We should chant, Islam is a Religion of Peace. We are Guilty, Guilty, Guilty. Oh, please forgive us for the Crusades and Slavery and Ronald Reagan.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 16, 2008)

Paulitics said:


> We should wage WW3 over a microcosm?



Hmmm...we shouldn't defend ourselves because there are a lot of people in the world who aren't attacking us?

That's just stupid. STUPID. As in moronic, idiotic, ignorant, and suicidal besides. 

If a person has the ability to defend themselves, and has the ability to do good, why would they NOT DO IT?

That sort of thinking is indicative of the schizophrenia of the left. They're so used to being coddled, they can't imagine themselves in danger. Ever.


----------



## Doug (Jan 16, 2008)

The _Economist_ had an interesting editorial a few months ago on the question of Muslim world opinion, which you can read in the original  here, along with a graph. I post the text here:

=======================================================



> It's just about possible to assess the attitudes of the world's Muslimsbut much harder to interpret the results
> 
> 
> BACK in November 2001, as American bombers were driving Afghanistan's Taliban rulers from power, a reporter asked Donald Rumsfeld, then defence secretary, if the campaign was perversely boosting support for the Islamists. His reply was typically tart: it was very difficult to go down and do a Gallup pollso he was not inclined to chase that rabbit.
> ...


----------



## Paulie (Jan 16, 2008)

AllieBaba said:
			
		

> Hmmm...we shouldn't defend ourselves because there are a lot of people in the world who aren't attacking us?
> 
> That's just stupid. STUPID. As in moronic, idiotic, ignorant, and suicidal besides.


Big difference between "defend ourselves" and wage perpetual WW3.




Doug said:


> No, we should throw away all our nasty old guns and rely on everyone's sweet good nature to yield a happy outcome for all.
> 
> We should all hold hands and dance, singing Kum-ba-yah.
> 
> We should chant, Islam is a Religion of Peace. We are Guilty, Guilty, Guilty. Oh, please forgive us for the Crusades and Slavery and Ronald Reagan.




To you both, and others..




Paulitics said:


> What's the statistics for 1 murderer out of however many American citizens?
> 
> There are more Americans murdered each day in this country than people murdered by terrorism, and the grand total of the latter PALES in comparison to the grand total of the former.
> 
> ...


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 16, 2008)

We aren't waging the war. The war has been brought to us. And standing by and allowing pigs to target our innocents will not make us better, or make our people safer.

Like I said, look at your soft, white hands, and your flabby arms...enjoy the internet and your computer, where you can whine all you want about big bad America, sleep safe in your cozy house and (if you work) enjoy your ride to work. Meanwhile, people are dying so you can keep those things. That's the truth. You can deny it all you want, but take away the protection of the US armed forces, bring them home to sit around, and you will immediately become less safe. It doesn't matter where you live.

Eliminate them entirely, and eventually you will lose all those things you take advantage of, while criticizing and undercutting the people who make them possible for you.


----------



## Paulie (Jan 16, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> We aren't waging the war. The war has been brought to us. And standing by and allowing pigs to target our innocents will not make us better, or make our people safer.
> 
> Like I said, look at your soft, white hands, and your flabby arms...enjoy the internet and your computer, where you can whine all you want about big bad America, sleep safe in your cozy house and (if you work) enjoy your ride to work. Meanwhile, people are dying so you can keep those things. That's the truth. You can deny it all you want, but take away the protection of the US armed forces, bring them home to sit around, and you will immediately become less safe. It doesn't matter where you live.
> 
> Eliminate them entirely, and eventually you will lose all those things you take advantage of, while criticizing and undercutting the people who make them possible for you.



Bullshit.

You're such a fucking hypocrite it's not even funny.  Everything you say you are against about people, you personify when you post.  My soft, white hands, and my flabby arms?  Who the fuck are YOU?

Our own government tells us that Al-Qaeda is stronger now than before 9/11, and you would have us believe that we are SAFER with our troops overseas fighting these wars??

'Fuck outta here, dude.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 16, 2008)

Lol. Don't be more of a nancy boy than you have to.

You're alive and safe because people die to make you so. You can whine, cuss, and piss your pants all you want about it, and do all you want to discredit,dishonor, and undermine the people who defend you.

It doesn't change the fact that there are people dying so you can spew your drivel without repercussions, you thankless piece of shit.


----------



## Paulie (Jan 16, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Lol. Don't be more of a nancy boy than you have to.
> 
> You're alive and safe because people die to make you so. You can whine, cuss, and piss your pants all you want about it, and do all you want to discredit,dishonor, and undermine the people who defend you.
> 
> It doesn't change the fact that there are people dying so you can spew your drivel without repercussions, you thankless piece of shit.



I served in the military, maintaining ICBM's, so don't fucking tell me about people who defend me, and who I'm undermining.

You're a fucking fraud, kid.  Everything you say is a contradiction of another thing you've said.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 16, 2008)

Sure you did.

And you keep carping about my hypocrisy but saying it doesn't make it so. If you can't actually cite references, kindly stop boring us with repetitive nonsense.


----------



## Paulie (Jan 16, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Sure you did.
> 
> And you keep carping about my hypocrisy but saying it doesn't make it so. If you can't actually cite references, kindly stop boring us with repetitive nonsense.



Dude.  I cited them in the other thread, you know, the one you already responded to?

Now even in these last few exchanges in THIS thread, you've personified it.  "nancy boy"?  "piece of shit"?  Why, I thought you were AGAINST that kind of behavior?  Because I used an awful wittle cawse wawd?

341st Missile Maintenence Squadron, Malmstrom AFB.  1999-2003.  

Minuteman Missile Maintenence Tech, 2MO32A.

You don't have to believe it, I really couldn't fucking care less at this point about anything you say.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 16, 2008)

Paulitics said:


> Dude.  I cited them in the other thread, you know, the one you already responded to?
> 
> Now even in these last few exchanges in THIS thread, you've personified it.  "nancy boy"?  "piece of shit"?  Why, I thought you were AGAINST that kind of behavior?  Because I used an awful wittle cawse wawd?
> 
> ...




Here, nancy boy. Let's compare obscenities. This is your post prior to my nancy boy post.

"Bullshit.

You're such a fucking hypocrite it's not even funny.... Who the fuck are YOU?

.....'Fuck outta here, dude."

So who's the hypocrite?

And no, you didn't list my hypocrisy, you simply whined there, like you are here, that I'm a hypocrite. Why, I don't know, because you don't actually refer to any hypocrisy. You just use the word a lot. You must like the word. It's a big word, much too big for a nancy boy like you.

And I've labeled you with the appropriate label given your posts here. If you don't like the label, look to the persona you're projecting. Because you come across as a protected, puling, hostile and likely incontinent twerp.


----------



## Paulie (Jan 16, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Here, nancy boy. Let's compare obscenities. This is your post prior to my nancy boy post.
> 
> "Bullshit.
> 
> ...



Come on man.  You really are _that stupid_, aren't you?

You made comments about people being "bigots", "elitists", and "rude" so far tonight, and so far you've already personified all 3 of them.  I gave you examples of each.  That you're head is obviously way too far up your own ass to actually GET THAT, is not my problem.

How am I the hypocrite in this case, when I haven't gone on ranting about how much I dislike bigots, elitists, and rude people, MULTIPLE TIMES?  As far as _I'm_ concerned, you can be all 3 of those if you choose, and I won't say a damn word about whether or not I like it.  But you better damn well believe I'm going to call you out on it if _you_ pretend not to like it, and then act the very same way you pretend not to be liking.  

See, _me_, I'm a big boy Allie, and I can handle bigotry, rudeness, and elitism.  I'm man enough to admit that I've been guilty of all 3 at some point in my life.  It appears you still have a little growing up to do.


----------



## maineman (Jan 16, 2008)

Doug said:


> Most surveys of the attitudes of Muslims around the world towards the idea of terrorist attacks against innocent civilians have shown that the great majority of Muslims think they are wrong.
> 
> Only about ten percent of Muslims approve of them.
> 
> ...




are 75K enemies reason to wage war against a billion people?


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 16, 2008)

Pauly:
I'm not a dude, dude. I'm no doubt old enough to be your mother. And if I were, I'd slap you upside the head, take your keys, and curtail your internet privileges until 1. You learned to use the English language effectively, without using "fuck" every other sentence, and 2. You got a serious dose of reality. In addition, I'd cut your allowance and require you to get a menial job, because I've no doubt you don't have a college education, while at the same time requiring you to pay me rent for the privilege of living in my home. Because I'm fairly certain, nobody but your mother would put up with you.

And I can tell you what YOU would do. You'd have a big tantrum. You'd throw things and maybe dent the refrigerator. YOu might storm out of the house for a day or so, until your buddies' moms and/or girlfriends kicked you out of their homes and you sneaked back home to get some chow.

Then you'd settle in and knuckle down, and possibly learn a few things about life. 

For example, the people who do the most for others are generally nicer people than anyone else out there. That means the people you resent the most...authority figures such as your parents, the United States, etc. Although they are annoying and frequently wrong, they certainly have the competition beat all to hell. Because the competition wants to put a big bad hurt on you. And the only thing between you and that hurt is, on the small scale, your mom, and, on the big scale, the US military.

So show a little respect.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 16, 2008)

Paulitics said:


> Come on man.  You really are _that stupid_, aren't you?
> 
> You made comments about people being "bigots", "elitists", and "rude" so far tonight, and so far you've already personified all 3 of them.  I gave you examples of each.  That you're head is obviously way too far up your own ass to actually GET THAT, is not my problem.
> 
> ...



You will learn, eventually, that Allie is a waste of space. She is living proof there should be some sort of test to enable you to vote. The fact she is allowed to is scary!


----------



## Paulie (Jan 16, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Pauly:
> I'm not a dude, dude. I'm no doubt old enough to be your mother.


No, what you are is a nameless, faceless person on an internet message board.  You could be ANYONE.



> And if I were, I'd slap you upside the head, take your keys, and curtail your internet privileges until 1. You learned to use the English language effectively, without using "fuck" every other sentence, and 2. You got a serious dose of reality. In addition, I'd cut your allowance and require you to get a menial job, because I've no doubt you don't have a college education, while at the same time requiring you to pay me rent for the privilege of living in my home. Because I'm fairly certain, nobody but your mother would put up with you.
> 
> And I can tell you what YOU would do. You'd have a big tantrum. You'd throw things and maybe dent the refrigerator. YOu might storm out of the house for a day or so, until your buddies' moms and/or girlfriends kicked you out of their homes and you sneaked back home to get some chow.
> 
> ...



So much typing, for such an inane purpose.


----------



## eots (Jan 16, 2008)

MasterChief said:


> You must be too young to remember the Carter Administration.



why how many woman and children did carter murder for oil ?
how many  American troops died on his watch ?
how many complete failures in intelligence that lead to the deaths of thousands of Americans under carter ?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 17, 2008)

mattskramer said:


> Wow.  Uh okay.


Says one of the anti-gun loons that blames the 99.9964% for the misuse of the 0.0036%...


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 17, 2008)

Paulitics said:


> No, what you are is a nameless, faceless person on an internet message board.  You could be ANYONE.


Likewise.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 17, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> Likewise.



That is different of course.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 17, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> That is different of course.



Psychotic self-importance is a common trait among Paulistinians.


----------



## mattskramer (Jan 17, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> Says one of the anti-gun loons that blames the 99.9964% for the misuse of the 0.0036%...



That was a blatant and erroneous change of subject. No.  I am not an anti-gun loon that blames the 99.9964% for the misuse of the 0.0036%.  I simply think that there should be reasonable precautions for gun ownership. That is hardly the equivalent of making me an anti-gun loon.  Also, that does not mean that I blame 99.9964% for the misuse of the 0.0036%.  Each person is responsible for his own actions.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 17, 2008)

mattskramer said:


> That was a blatant and erroneous change of subject.


The subject is 'blaming huge majority for the actions of the tiny minority'.
The point is that, apparently, it IS OK to do so, at least as far as guns are concerned.
Given that, there's no argument that the same cannot be applied towards Muslims.



> No.  I am not an anti-gun loon that blames the 99.9964&#37; for the misuse of the 0.0036%.


Uh-huh.


----------



## MasterChief (Jan 17, 2008)

eots said:


> why how many woman and children did carter murder for oil ? how many  American troops died on his watch ? how many complete failures in intelligence that lead to the deaths of thousands of Americans under carter ?


When reading the historical record and realizing Carter laid the foundation for radical Islam, the answer is he killed thousands for oil, you were most likely not born when "Desert One" happened or you'd not ask such a silly question, and his refusal to listen to the Intel reports about the rising Islamic problem means he killed thousands.  Listen--why don't you go to the used book store and pick up a copy of *Guest of the Ayatollah*, read it, learn a few things, come back and we can talk about it. Carter is, and was, no saint--regardless what the radical Democratic left says.


----------



## jillian (Jan 17, 2008)

MasterChief said:


> When reading the historical record and realizing Carter laid the foundation for radical Islam, the answer is he killed thousands for oil, you were most likely not born when "Desert One" happened or you'd not ask such a silly question, and his refusal to listen to the Intel reports about the rising Islamic problem means he killed thousands.  Listen--why don't you go to the used book store and pick up a copy of *Guest of the Ayatollah*, read it, learn a few things, come back and we can talk about it. Carter is, and was, no saint--regardless what the radical Democratic left says.



That's silliness.... 

More likely our support of the Shah who was oppressing his people contributed. We have always known that a percentage of the muslim populaton believed in jihad. But giving them a basis to recruit normal people probably didn't help.

It's Bush who didn't listen to the intel reports that his father knew about as far back as Gulf I. The anticipated results of destabilization of Iraq was the reason BushI didn't go to Baghdad. Of course, baby Bush didn't listen to "his father", he asked "THE FATHER" and decided to ignore everything we knew.


----------



## mattskramer (Jan 17, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> The subject is 'blaming huge majority for the actions of the tiny minority'.
> The point is that, apparently, it IS OK to do so, at least as far as guns are concerned.
> Given that, there's no argument that the same cannot be applied towards Muslims.
> 
> Uh-huh.



Speak for yourself and not for me.  You said that, with respect to Muslims, (See post 416) you can imagine blaming the 99.995% for the misdeeds of the 0.0049%. I can speak for myself with respect to my position on gun ownership.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 17, 2008)

mattskramer said:


> Speak for yourself and not for me.  You said that, with respect to Muslims, (See post 416) you can imagine blaming the 99.995&#37; for the misdeeds of the 0.0049%


Apparently, you didn't pick up in the part where I said I can imagine how this is possible, given that the anti-gun loons do it all the time.

So, if they can blame the vast vast majority for the tiny tiny minority re: guns, why can't others do the same thing re: Muslims?


----------



## mattskramer (Jan 17, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> Apparently, you didn't pick up in the part where I said I can imagine how this is possible, given that the anti-gun loons do it all the time.
> 
> So, if they can blame the vast vast majority for the tiny tiny minority re: guns, why can't others do the same thing re: Muslims?



A very small minority of gun owners cause problems with guns.  A very small minority of Muslims cause problems.  Without blaming gun owners who do not cause problems, I think that there should be precautions in place to reduce the likelihood of there being more negligent gun use (without outlawing gun ownership for honest law-abiding people).    Without blaming Muslims who do not cause problems, I think that peoples should be reasonably observant of Muslims (without becoming prejudicial and paranoid).


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 17, 2008)

mattskramer said:


> A very small minority of gun owners cause problems with guns.  A very small minority of Muslims cause problems.  Without blaming gun owners who do not cause problems, I think that there should be precautions in place to reduce the likelihood of there being more negligent gun use (without outlawing gun ownership for honest law-abiding people).    Without blaming Muslims who do not cause problems, I think that peoples should be reasonably observant of Muslims (without becoming prejudicial and paranoid).



You didnt answer my question.
If they can blame the vast, vast majority for the tiny, tiny minority re: guns, why can't others do the same thing re: Muslims?


----------



## Paulie (Jan 17, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> You didnt answer my question.



Hah.  The irony of that statement.


----------



## mattskramer (Jan 17, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> You didnt answer my question.
> If they can blame the vast, vast majority for the tiny, tiny minority re: guns, why can't others do the same thing re: Muslims?



Your question assumes or implies a premise to which there is no established agreement.  Assuming that they can blame the vast, vast majority for the tiny, tiny minority with respect to guns, then it does follow that they can others do the same thing with respect to Muslims? 

It still does not make either gross generalization justified.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 17, 2008)

mattskramer said:


> Your question assumes or implies a premise to which there is no established agreement. Assuming that they can blame the vast, vast majority for the tiny, tiny minority with respect to guns, then it does follow that they can others do the same thing with respect to Muslims?


Why does it not follow?



> It still does not make either gross generalization justified.


So, you agree that those that blame the majority of guns/owners for the misus(es) of the tiny minority are wrong.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 17, 2008)

Paulitics said:


> Hah.  The irony of that statement.


'Fuck outta here, dude.


----------



## maineman (Jan 17, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Every act involves more then 10 people. Lets take Iran, a muslim Country, they openly recruit suicide bombers and martyrs to walk through land mines. They openly PAY and supply Hezbulla in Lebanon to kill for them. I would say there are THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of Iranians that would willingly conduct terror attacks. Then we have Afghanistan, Pakistan, Lebanon, Pal Authority, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia.... there is a whole lot more then 70 thousand islomo fascists out there AND there are MILLIONS more that support them by donating money, hiding them, turning a blind eye to what they do and openly praising them.
> 
> Or are you now going to claim differently?




I am going to "claim" only that you are stating your opinion with ZIP to back it up.  I really could give a fuck what YOU "WOULD SAY". What can you show me,other than, your own unsubstantiated opinions that the percentage of muslims who are islamic extremist terrorists is anything other than minuscule?  NADA.


----------



## Paulie (Jan 17, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> 'Fuck outta here, dude.



Funny, that was the exact same thing I was thinking about you after this:



			
				Paulitics said:
			
		

> No, what you are is a nameless, faceless person on an internet message board. You could be ANYONE.





			
				M14 Shooter said:
			
		

> Likewise.





			
				M14 Shooter said:
			
		

> Psychotic self-importance is a common trait among Paulistinians.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 17, 2008)

maineman said:


> I am going to "claim" only that you are stating your opinion with ZIP to back it up.  I really could give a fuck what YOU "WOULD SAY". What can you show me,other than, your own unsubstantiated opinions that the percentage of muslims who are islamic extremist terrorists is anything other than minuscule?  NADA.



So you deny Iran does pay for, recruit , train and arm terrorists? That Syria does not either, You claim that what I said is wrong?

Several million people are not miniscule no matter the base they come from.


----------



## Shogun (Jan 17, 2008)

maineman said:


> I am going to "claim" only that you are stating your opinion with ZIP to back it up.  I really could give a fuck what YOU "WOULD SAY". What can you show me,other than, your own unsubstantiated opinions that the percentage of muslims who are islamic extremist terrorists is anything other than minuscule?  NADA.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 17, 2008)

Okay, once again...just because there aren't many people targeting you doesn't mean you shouldn't defend yourself against the ones who are.

And it isn't law abiding gun owners who are the issue, so it's idiotic to enact laws which will only affect them.


----------



## Shogun (Jan 17, 2008)

does that mean that "defending oneself against the ones who are" equates to rolling the whole damn population through the coals of scapegoating and demonization, degradation and indignation?


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 17, 2008)

Yeah, I hear you saying that.

I don't hear any of the Iraqis saying it. 

It's just disgruntled Americans and Europeans. The Iraqis aren't making the claim.

That should tell you something.

And yeah, we have the right to defend ourselves. Period.


----------



## maineman (Jan 17, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> So you deny Iran does pay for, recruit , train and arm terrorists? That Syria does not either, You claim that what I said is wrong?
> 
> Several million people are not miniscule no matter the base they come from.



you SAID *"there are THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of Iranians that would willingly conduct terror attacks."  *and I SAID you got nothing to substantiate that wildass claim.

And the fact that the government of Iran supports shiite nationalist groups in Lebanon does NOT mean that every swinging dick in Iran is, therefore a terrorist.

I dispute your "several million" number completely and note that it still smells like warmshit from when you just pulled it out of your well traveled ass.

And once again... you complete inability to distinquish between arab nationalist organizations and islamic extremist organizations is stunningly stupid.


----------



## Alpha1 (Jan 17, 2008)

maineman said:


> you SAID *"there are THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of Iranians that would willingly conduct terror attacks."  *and I SAID you got nothing to substantiate that wildass claim.
> 
> And the fact that the government of Iran supports shiite nationalist groups in Lebanon does NOT mean that every swinging dick in Iran is, therefore a terrorist.
> 
> ...



Your such an idiot, its a wonder you can walk and chew gum at the same time...

KHARTOUM, Sudan (AP) - *Thousands of Sudanese, many armed with clubs and swords and beating drums, burned pictures of a British teacher Friday and demanded her execution for insulting Islam by letting her students name a teddy bear Muhammad.*

Sudan's Islamic government, which has long whipped up anti-Western, Muslim hard-line sentiment at home, was balancing between fueling outrage over the case of Gillian Gibbons and containing it.

Many in the protesting crowd shouted "Kill her! Kill her by firing squad!" 
----------

All this over a damn stuffed bear, the rank and file, ordinary Muslims in a freekin uproar, protesting by the thousands......and being the fool you are, think its but a small handful of Muslims that are the fanatics.....

You saw them dance in the streets on 9/11 by the tens of thousands in Muslim cities throughout the ME and saw them march demanding the death of a school teacher because of a trumped up slight to their religion....so your silly claim of only a handful of them are nuts, only shows your stupidity on the subject.....Its moderate Muslims that are the minority and the vast majority of them only differ in the degree of their fanaticism.....


----------



## MasterChief (Jan 17, 2008)

jillian said:


> That's silliness....
> 
> More likely our support of the Shah who was oppressing his people contributed. We have always known that a percentage of the muslim populaton believed in jihad. But giving them a basis to recruit normal people probably didn't help.
> 
> It's Bush who didn't listen to the intel reports that his father knew about as far back as Gulf I. The anticipated results of destabilization of Iraq was the reason BushI didn't go to Baghdad. Of course, baby Bush didn't listen to "his father", he asked "THE FATHER" and decided to ignore everything we knew.


We were talking about Jimmy Carter. Stay on subject, please.  

The Shan was trying to bring his people into the 20th century and whatever abuse he did does not compare to what the Ayatollah did to hundreds of thousands.  The Shan never marched children into mine fields to clear them with their bodies, but the Ayatollah did. 

And your reason why Bush Sr. did not go to Baghdad is also wrong.  He did not go to Baghdad because that was not part of the UN mandate. Read the newspaper of the day and learn a little history.


----------



## Annie (Jan 17, 2008)

MasterChief said:


> When reading the historical record and realizing Carter laid the foundation for radical Islam, the answer is he killed thousands for oil, you were most likely not born when "Desert One" happened or you'd not ask such a silly question, and his refusal to listen to the Intel reports about the rising Islamic problem means he killed thousands.  Listen--why don't you go to the used book store and pick up a copy of *Guest of the Ayatollah*, read it, learn a few things, come back and we can talk about it. Carter is, and was, no saint--regardless what the radical Democratic left says.



   

http://www.iran-press-service.com/ips/articles-2006/march-2006/iran_us_30306.shtml



> The Last Helicopter
> 
> Hassan Abbasi, (the maverick and self-appointed Head of the Revolutionary Guards Doctrinal Centre for National Security) has a dream -- a helicopter doing an arabesque in cloudy skies to avoid being shot at from the ground. On board are the last of the "fleeing Americans," forced out of the Dar al-Islam (The Abode of Islam) by "the Army of Muhammad." Presented by his friends as "The Dr. Kissinger of Islam," Mr. Abbasi is "professor of strategy" at the Islamic Republic's Revolutionary Guard Corps University and, according to Tehran sources, the principal foreign policy voice in President Mahmoud Ahmadi Nezhad's new radical administration.
> 
> ...


----------



## mattskramer (Jan 17, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> Why does it not follow?



It does follow.




> So, you agree that those that blame the majority of guns/owners for the misus(es) of the tiny minority are wrong.



Yep


----------



## maineman (Jan 17, 2008)

Alpha1 said:


> Your such an idiot, its a wonder you can walk and chew gum at the same time...
> 
> KHARTOUM, Sudan (AP) - *Thousands of Sudanese, many armed with clubs and swords and beating drums, burned pictures of a British teacher Friday and demanded her execution for insulting Islam by letting her students name a teddy bear Muhammad.*
> 
> ...



the sudanese would have demanded the death penalty for an islamic school teacher who did the same thing.  That is not an example of any deep seated hatred for the west, it is an example of people with strong beliefs about disrespecting THEIR deity in THEIR country.  That would never happen in Lebanon or Jordan or Syria or Egypt, by the way.

and... if you could show me some evidence of thousands of sudanese training to fly planes into AMERICAN buildings or blow themselves up on AMERICAN street corners, that would we real nice.

and no... we did NOT see them dance in the streets by the tens of thousands on 9/11.  That is pure fantasy.

and I think it is really hilarious how someone like you who has never been NEAR the middle east can claim to have such an in-depth understanding of the varying beliefs of the muslims in the region.  You are, and have always been a fucking blowhard jerk since your days as "write" on politics.com.... hopping around like a little bantam rooster with one foot in your beak.


----------



## Alpha1 (Jan 17, 2008)

maineman said:


> the sudanese would have demanded the death penalty for an islamic school teacher who did the same thing.  That is not an example of any deep seated hatred for the west, it is an example of people with strong beliefs about disrespecting THEIR deity in THEIR country.  That would never happen in Lebanon or Jordan or Syria or Egypt, by the way.
> *Bullshit.....but even if they would, it still shows how freekin' radical they are.....*
> 
> and... if you could show me some evidence of thousands of sudanese training to fly planes into AMERICAN buildings or blow themselves up on AMERICAN street corners, that would we real nice.
> ...



Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebrations_of_the_September_11,_2001_attacks

*The September 11, 2001 attacks occasioned spontaneous outbreaks of public celebration in a number of Arab Muslim communities. Press and television coverage of these celebrations focused on the Middle East and were met with shock and outrage in the United States.*

As a later response, Muslim groups, mostly from the USA, vocally distanced themselves from such behavior and also condemned it,[2] while some media reported that in one of the incidents the participants were incited to celebrate.

Official reaction was almost universal in condemning the attacks, even among countries considered hostile to the U.S. such as Libya, North Korea and Syria. [3] In Iran for example thousands participated in candlelit vigils, while a minute's silence was held at Tehran's football stadium. [4]*The sole exception was Iraq, which said of the attacks that ""The American cowboys are reaping the fruit of their crimes against humanity."[5] Saddam Hussein would later offer sympathy to the Americans killed in the attacks.[6].*

*Reports and images of Palestinians from East Jerusalem and the West Bank taking to the streets in jubilation, chanting 'All&#257;hu Akbar' (God is (the) greatest), passing along sweets in praise of Bin Laden (The US primary suspect[7]), honking car horns, holding up the V sign for victory and holding up Palestinian flags were broadcast around the world, and most American networks aired the images. In addition, many newspapers, magazines, Web sites and wire services ran photographs of the festivities.[8][9][10](VIDEO)

On the day of the attacks, The Times (British) and Fox News (American) reported that 3,000 celebrants were pouring into the streets of Nablus and dozens of people were celebrating in the traditional gesture of handing out sweets. [11] FOX News adds that in Ein el-Hilweh (Lebanon), where about 75,000 Palestinians live, and also in Rashidiyeh camp south of Tyre, revelers fired weapons in the air.[12]

The Times also writes that Nawal Abdel Fatah, a Palestinian woman (age 48) wearing a long black dress, was quoted saying she was happy because "America is the head of the snake, America always stands by Israel in its war against us". Her daughter Maysoon (age 22), expressed hopes that the next attack would be against Tel Aviv.*

[ Palestinian Authority reaction

The Palestinian Authority, which had immediately condemned the September 11th attacks, moved to censor further reports of public celebrations, claiming that they were unrepresentative of the Palestinian people. The Palestinian information minister Yasser Abed Rabbo said the Palestinian Authority would not allow "a few kids" to "smear the real face of the Palestinians". Ahmed Abdel Rahman, Arafat's Cabinet secretary, said the Palestinian Authority could not "guarantee the life" of an Associated Press cameraman if footage he filmed of post-9/11 celebrations was broadcast. Rahman's statement prompted a formal protest from the AP bureau chief, Dan Perry.[14][15][10].

A few days after the September 11th attacks, Yasser Arafat symbolically donated blood for victims of the attacks.[16]

[edit] Palestinian Media Reaction

While the celebrations and ensuing controversy were widely covered in the United States and Europe, Arab condemnations of the attacks and the celebrations went widely unreported. The Palestinian media, however, quickly condemned the celebrations as an unrepresentative example of public opinion that was being exploited to vilify the Palestinian people. The lead editorial in Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, for example, wrote:

"Those ignorant few who did that [celebrate] do not represent our public opinion. In fact, such ignorant behavior might have happened in other parts of the world, but unfortunately the cameras did not reach them..." [17]

[edit] Authenticity


Palestinian children, celebrating the September 11 attacks.

There was an urban legend that the footage of some Palestinians celebrating the attacks was rebroadcast footage of Palestinian reactions to the invasion of Kuwait, a decade prior to 2001.[18] This rumor was proven false shortly afterwards,[19] and CNN issued a statement to that fact.[20]


----------



## Annie (Jan 17, 2008)

I've just realized I have a problem reading blue words. I already knew I had the problem with Red. Either is fine for stating a case against something else, if not too large. 

To answer a post in either, well.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 18, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Okay, once again...just because there aren't many people targeting you doesn't mean you shouldn't defend yourself against the ones who are.


But, there ARE "many" people targeting 'us'.  ~70,000 or so.
That's a small number compared to all Muslims, but its still a lot of people.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 18, 2008)

Shogun said:


> does that mean that "defending oneself against the ones who are" equates to rolling the whole damn population through the coals of scapegoating and demonization, degradation and indignation?



Happens to gun owners all the time.


----------



## maineman (Jan 18, 2008)

Alpha1 said:


> Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



please highlight, in a color that Kathianne can read, where the tens of thousands figure is listed in your wiki article or is that just more of "write's" sloppy poetic license?

I'll wait.


----------



## mattskramer (Jan 18, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> Happens to gun owners all the time.



Me thinks thou doth protest too much.  No one is rolling the whole damn population of gun owners through the coals.  Could you give some specifics to the contrary?


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 18, 2008)

maineman said:


> the sudanese would have demanded the death penalty for an islamic school teacher who did the same thing.  That is not an example of any deep seated hatred for the west, it is an example of people with strong beliefs about disrespecting THEIR deity in THEIR country.  That would never happen in Lebanon or Jordan or Syria or Egypt, by the way.
> 
> and... if you could show me some evidence of thousands of sudanese training to fly planes into AMERICAN buildings or blow themselves up on AMERICAN street corners, that would we real nice.
> 
> ...



An in-depth understanding, a deep compassion, and enduring empathy is not required to recognize an enemy. And in fact, people who immerse themselves in the culture of an enemy are really likely to get killed.


----------



## maineman (Jan 18, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> An in-depth understanding, a deep compassion, and enduring empathy is not required to recognize an enemy. And in fact, people who immerse themselves in the culture of an enemy are really likely to get killed.



so, I take it you join Alpha as a member of  "the only good raghead is a dead raghead" club?

YOu apparently think nothing of his trying to conflate RGS's bullshit assertion that there are "THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of Iranians that would willingly conduct terror attacks" with the article about the Sudan protest march?  You apparently have no problem with his out and out LIE about thousands of muslims celebrating 9/11?

I guess I hadn't put you in the camp until now.


----------



## maineman (Jan 18, 2008)

maineman said:


> please highlight, in a color that Kathianne can read, where the tens of thousands figure is listed in your wiki article or is that just more of "write's" sloppy poetic license?
> 
> I'll wait.



still waiting


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 18, 2008)

Actually, no. I think the "ragheads", as you so thoughtfully call them, by and large want us to wipe out the animals that are terrorizing their people and ours....


----------



## maineman (Jan 18, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Actually, no. I think the "ragheads", as you so thoughtfully call them, by and large want us to wipe out the animals that are terrorizing their people and ours....



that is not what your pals Alpha and RGS seem to think.  they think that tens of thousands of people danced in the streets throughout the islamic world when we were attacked.  They think that there are thousands upon thousands of Iranians trained by their government to carry out terrorist attacks against us.  Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.

and you clearly have never read Sun Tzu.

and how many Iraqis were amongst the 9/11 terrorists?  I would suggest that, from the average Iraqi's perspective, after our delightful "shock and awe" start to this war, we look a hell of a lot more like terrorist to them then they should look to us.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 18, 2008)

Well 7 tens of thousands could have danced in the streets, and every one could have been an enemy.

I remember them dancing.


----------



## maineman (Jan 18, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Well 7 tens of thousands could have danced in the streets, and every one could have been an enemy.
> 
> I remember them dancing.



quit wiggling.  do you remember any footage - or any news reports - of TENS OF THOUSANDS of them dancing in the street?

Or do you remember the report where a giant soccer stadium in IRAN held a moment of silence and the place was fucking SILENT!  One would think that if, as your buddies have stated, the majority of muslims are extremists who hate us and only a small minority are moderate and reasonable people, most of that stadium would have been cheering and not silent, wouldn't one?


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 18, 2008)

I haven't heard any righty say they think the majority of muslims hate us.

That's just rhetoric the left uses to keep people mad at each other, and to perpetuate the hate.


----------



## Doug (Jan 18, 2008)

About 90% of Muslims do not support terrorist attacks on innocent civilians. 

About 10% do. That's about 100 million dancers.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 18, 2008)

Doug said:


> About 90% of Muslims do not support terrorist attacks on innocent civilians. About 10% do. That's about 100 million dancers.


Even if is 0.1% - that's 1 million.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 18, 2008)

The funny thing is, from what I've heard, it's more like 25 percent who don't think it's wrong to kill non-Muslims.


----------



## maineman (Jan 18, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> I haven't heard any righty say they think the majority of muslims hate us.
> 
> That's just rhetoric the left uses to keep people mad at each other, and to perpetuate the hate.



I guess you missed you good buddy, Alpha's post #465

"Its moderate Muslims that are the minority and the vast majority of them only differ in the degree of their fanaticism....."

itching yet?


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 18, 2008)

What is with your compulsion to link people together? Alpha isn't, to my knowledge, my buddy, and I didn't read the post. 

Ya feed on the hate, I can see that...why should you be any different than any of YOUR hater lib buddies?


----------



## mattskramer (Jan 18, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> The funny thing is, from what I've heard, it's more like 25 percent who don't think it's wrong to kill non-Muslims.



Link?


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 18, 2008)

I don't have one...but it is something I heard that came from a poll just a couple of months ago. It hit the news pretty hard, it was a poll of American Muslims. I don't remember what the actual question was. It might have been would you support a Muslim take-over of the US. I'll see if I can find it.


----------



## Steerpike (Jan 18, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> I don't have one...but it is something I heard that came from a poll just a couple of months ago. It hit the news pretty hard, it was a poll of American Muslims. I don't remember what the actual question was. It might have been would you support a Muslim take-over of the US. I'll see if I can find it.



I think the question was whether there might be some situations in which killing to protect Islam was warranted.  Or something like that.  Not a blanket endorsement of killing non-Muslims.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 18, 2008)

Found it!
Reuters, May 07:

Poll finds some U.S. Muslim support for suicide attacks
Tue May 22, 2007 3:20pm EDT  
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - About one-quarter of young American Muslims believe to some extent that suicide bombings can be justified to defend Islam, while nearly 80 percent of all U.S. Muslims reject such attacks, a survey showed on Tuesday.


http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2244293620070522


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 18, 2008)

Twenty five percent support of suicide attacks (which include 911) in AMERICA is a pretty steep number.

Can only assume it's higher elsewhere.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 18, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Found it!
> Reuters, May 07:
> 
> Poll finds some U.S. Muslim support for suicide attacks
> ...



Even if is 0.1% - that's 1 million.


----------



## maineman (Jan 18, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> What is with your compulsion to link people together? Alpha isn't, to my knowledge, my buddy, and I didn't read the post.
> 
> Ya feed on the hate, I can see that...why should you be any different than any of YOUR hater lib buddies?



I feed on organic food.  And alpha is a rightie....


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 18, 2008)

Point is, whether he is or not, you don't know who my buddies are and most righties vary greatly from each other.

Unlike most lefties, who can be counted on to walk the same narrow line and cite the same inane drivel.


----------



## mattskramer (Jan 18, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Found it!
> Reuters, May 07:
> 
> Poll finds some U.S. Muslim support for suicide attacks
> ...



_About one-quarter of young American Muslims believe to some extent that suicide bombings can be justified to defend Islam

"It's not something they see themselves engaging in. It's more of them seeing what's happening abroad and ... feeling that in these situations, suicide bombings are justified for others,"_

This poll, though surprising, does not say that 25 percent of all Muslims don't think it's wrong to kill non-Muslims.


----------



## maineman (Jan 18, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Point is, whether he is or not, you don't know who my buddies are and most righties vary greatly from each other.
> 
> Unlike most lefties, who can be counted on to walk the same narrow line and cite the same inane drivel.




you defended his assertions...and you suggested that knowing one's enemy is not necessary.

and I NEVER cite drivel.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 18, 2008)

You do if you cite lib talking points....
Did I defend his assertions? I don't remember actually doing that. I remember saying I remember the riots, and pointed out that there were enough anti-American Muslims to make up 10s of thousands.


----------



## Doug (Jan 18, 2008)

The _Economist_ had a pretty sober assessment, avoiding either rightwing hysteria or liberal goody-two-shoes-talk, last year.




> * Testing Muslim views*
> 
> _If you want my opinion_
> Mar 8th 2007
> ...



Source


----------



## maineman (Jan 18, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> You do if you cite lib talking points....
> Did I defend his assertions? I don't remember actually doing that. I remember saying I remember the riots, and pointed out that there were enough anti-American Muslims to make up 10s of thousands.




your memory is selectively faulty.... but nonetheless...

we should consider the billion plus muslims on the planet our de facto enemies because a minuscule number of them hate us?


and all you need to do now is find one place where I have "cited" lib talking points.  I'll wait.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 18, 2008)

I didn't say you did. I said IF you did.

And since you didn't pull a quote of me supporting the premise you said I did, I'll rest my case, and share with you the sage advice I offered to Jillian.

Try actually reading what's written, instead of inserting your own bias about those who don't agree with you..and subsequently, bastardizing what is actually said.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 18, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> Even if is 0.1% - that's 1 million.



"Even" being the key point...


----------



## Doug (Jan 18, 2008)

*Maineman* questions the idea that  "we should consider the billion plus muslims on the planet our de facto enemies because a minuscule number of them hate us".

  According to the Gallup Polls, that "miniscule number" is about 80 million.

Maineman's comment reminds me of the scene in _The Godfather_, where Salluzo says to the Godlather ... "... if to you one million dollars is 'just finance' ... _te salud!_!"

But the point is: Of course we should not consider the one billion enemies. But what about the 80 million?


----------



## maineman (Jan 18, 2008)

Doug said:


> *Maineman* questions the idea that  "we should consider the billion plus muslims on the planet our de facto enemies because a minuscule number of them hate us".
> 
> According to the Gallup Polls, that "miniscule number" is about 80 million.
> 
> ...




stateless terrorists, to which the response should never be: invade, conquer and occupy an arab nation-state, especially one that has no substantive connection with the stateless terrorists that seek do do us harm.


----------



## DeadCanDance (Jan 18, 2008)

Doug said:


> *Maineman* questions the idea that  "we should consider the billion plus muslims on the planet our de facto enemies because a minuscule number of them hate us".
> 
> According to the Gallup Polls, that "miniscule number" is about 80 million.
> 
> ...




Let's take your statistic at face value. 

What does it mean that they "hate" us?

3.9 billion people on this planet hate your president.  It doesn't mean they want to assasinate him or kill him. 

I seriously doubt 80 million muslims are contemplating invading north america, or climbing into the cockpit of an aircraft to fly into the Sears tower.


----------



## maineman (Jan 18, 2008)

DeadCanDance said:


> Let's take your statistic at face value.
> 
> What does it mean that they "hate" us?
> 
> ...



bingo...and I CERTAINLY don't think that invading, conquering, and occupying a country that had ZIPPO to do with the attacks on us is an appropriate response to 9/11, especially considering the fact that the masterminds of the attacks against us remain at large!


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 18, 2008)

maineman said:


> bingo...and I CERTAINLY don't think that invading, conquering, and occupying a country that had ZIPPO to do with the attacks on us is an appropriate response to 9/11, especially considering the fact that the masterminds of the attacks against us remain at large!



Iraq under Saddam had zero to do with attacks on the US? What fanatasy world have you been living in?

Saddam tried to have a President assassinated , he routinely fired on US and British Aircraft and he was shopping around for an international terrorist organization to attack us.

He was a direct threat to his neighbors and would have been back to his usual business as soon as his buddies France, Russia and China got sanctions lifted. His neighbors provide most of the oil to our European and Japanese allies. In other words he was a direct threat to US interests.


----------



## DeadCanDance (Jan 18, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Iraq under Saddam had zero to do with attacks on the US? What fanatasy world have you been living in?
> 
> Saddam tried to have a President assassinated , he routinely fired on US and British Aircraft and he was shopping around for an international terrorist organization to attack us.
> 
> He was a direct threat to his neighbors and would have been back to his usual business as soon as his buddies France, Russia and China got sanctions lifted. His neighbors provide most of the oil to our European and Japanese allies. In other words he was a direct threat to US interests.



**CIA/Senate Bipartisan Report on Iraq Intelligence*, September 2006:

-Conclusion 5: Postwar information indicates that *Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi*

-Conclusion 1:  "Postwar findings indicate that *Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qa'ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qa'ida to provide material or operational support."*

-Conclusion 4: "Postwar findings support the April 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) assessment that there was *no credible reporting on al-Qa'ida training at Salman Pak or anywhere else in Iraq. There have been no credible reports since the war that Iraq trained al-Qa'ida operatives at Salman Pak to conduct or support transnational terrorist operations."*

-Conclusion 6: Prewar interactions between Saddam Hussein's government and al-Qaeda affiliate group Ansar al-Islam *were attempts by Saddam to spy on the group rather than to support or work with them.*. "Postwar information reveals that *Baghdad viewed Ansar al-Islam as a threat to the regime* and that the IIS attempted to collect intelligence on the group."


http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 18, 2008)

DeadCanDance said:


> **CIA/Senate Bipartisan Report on Iraq Intelligence*, September 2006:
> 
> -Conclusion 5: Postwar information indicates that *Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi*
> 
> ...


----------



## Taomon (Jan 18, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> There is nothing to indicate that we jumped into the war too quickly.



Aside from every reason given being proved wrong, inaccurate or a lie?


----------



## maineman (Jan 18, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Iraq under Saddam had zero to do with attacks on the US? What fanatasy world have you been living in?
> 
> Saddam tried to have a President assassinated , he routinely fired on US and British Aircraft and he was shopping around for an international terrorist organization to attack us.
> 
> He was a direct threat to his neighbors and would have been back to his usual business as soon as his buddies France, Russia and China got sanctions lifted. His neighbors provide most of the oil to our European and Japanese allies. In other words he was a direct threat to US interests.



are you suggesting that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11?

or are you, instead, suggesting that an unsuccessful attempt at having a FORMER president assassinated is just cause for shock and awe and the invasion, conquest, and occupation of a sovereign nation?

Our own secretary of state clearly and unambiguously stated months BEFORE 9/11 that Saddam was no longer a threat to even his neighbors, let alone US.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 19, 2008)

maineman said:


> are you suggesting that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11?
> 
> or are you, instead, suggesting that an unsuccessful attempt at having a FORMER president assassinated is just cause for shock and awe and the invasion, conquest, and occupation of a sovereign nation?
> 
> Our own secretary of state clearly and unambiguously stated months BEFORE 9/11 that Saddam was no longer a threat to even his neighbors, let alone US.



Same old tired bullshit from you. The Invasion had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein having anything to do with 9/11. Further my post does not even mention it. Just the usual leftiod attempt to divert and misdirect.

The Justification for war is listed and available to anyone that cares to read it. It has been posted here more than once. Now, on que demand I link to it once again, in the hopes I won't so you can pretend it is not so.


----------



## maineman (Jan 19, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Same old tired bullshit from you. The Invasion had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein having anything to do with 9/11. Further my post does not even mention it. Just the usual leftiod attempt to divert and misdirect.
> 
> The Justification for war is listed and available to anyone that cares to read it. It has been posted here more than once. Now, on que demand I link to it once again, in the hopes I won't so you can pretend it is not so.



you did say:

*Iraq under Saddam had zero to do with attacks on the US? What fanatasy world have you been living in?*  Or, are you talking about his ineffective attempts to shoot down our aircraft flying over his territory?  He never once came close to damaging any of our CAP...they routinely took out his radar and antiquated AA sites whenever he tried.  Hardly what I would call "an ATTACK ON the United States".

and I know full well what the "everything but the kitchen sink" use of force resolution listed as "justification".  I am suggesting that in MY humble opinion, that was legal bullshit... and that, IMHO, placing that grabbag of UN sanction violations and other non-critical issues ABOVE the war against Islamic extremism was, and continues to be the absolute worst foreign policy debacle in our nation's history.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 19, 2008)

maineman said:


> you did say:
> 
> *Iraq under Saddam had zero to do with attacks on the US? What fanatasy world have you been living in?*  Or, are you talking about his ineffective attempts to shoot down our aircraft flying over his territory?  He never once came close to damaging any of our CAP...they routinely took out his radar and antiquated AA sites whenever he tried.  Hardly what I would call "an ATTACK ON the United States".
> 
> and I know full well what the "everything but the kitchen sink" use of force resolution listed as "justification".  I am suggesting that in MY humble opinion, that was legal bullshit... and that, IMHO, placing that grabbag of UN sanction violations and other non-critical issues ABOVE the war against Islamic extremism was, and continues to be the absolute worst foreign policy debacle in our nation's history.



And I will reference you to your own words in my signature as to opinions. Isn't it amazing when someone you disagree with has an opinion they are liars and you demand proof of some kind.

There was never a link made between Iraq and 9/11. In fact all you will find is the repeated statement there was NO link. Yet you try to derail everything by pretending there was.


----------



## maineman (Jan 19, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> And I will reference you to your own words in my signature as to opinions. Isn't it amazing when someone you disagree with has an opinion they are liars and you demand proof of some kind.
> 
> There was never a link made between Iraq and 9/11. In fact all you will find is the repeated statement there was NO link. Yet you try to derail everything by pretending there was.




my quote, which you use out of context, was in regard to YOUR opinion about a question that had already been adjudicated by the Supreme Court.

Not only would YOUR opinion be worth nothing, so would the opinion of every appellate court justice....but keep using it out of context all you like.

So when Cheney said, "In reference to 9/11", and then went on to discuss the meeting between Atta and Iraqi security agents.... there was no connection made?  just how fucking thick ARE you?????


----------



## Alpha1 (Jan 19, 2008)

maineman said:


> my quote, which you use out of context, was in regard to YOUR opinion about a question that had already been adjudicated by the Supreme Court.
> 
> Not only would YOUR opinion be worth nothing, so would the opinion of every appellate court justice....but keep using it out of context all you like.
> 
> So when Cheney said, "In reference to 9/11", and then went on to discuss the meeting between Atta and Iraqi security agents.... there was no connection made?  just how fucking thick ARE you?????



    * September 14, 2003:

    Vice President Dick Cheney: With respect to 9/11, of course, we&#8217;ve had the story that&#8217;s been public out there. *The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we&#8217;ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don&#8217;t know.*

Yeah...just how fuckin' thick are you, MM....Your reading comp. really sux....

The CZECHS ALLEGE....understand that? THE CZECHS...

WE (the US) have never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it...

do you need that explained to you..? WE JUST DON"T KNOW....how about this? mostly four letter words..even YOU must be able to grasp the meaning ....WE JUST DON'T KNOW....

there was no connection made?  Correct....there was NEVER any connection made by the VP...NEVER!


----------



## maineman (Jan 19, 2008)

Alpha1 said:


> * September 14, 2003:
> 
> Vice President Dick Cheney: With respect to 9/11, of course, we&#8217;ve had the story that&#8217;s been public out there. *The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we&#8217;ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don&#8217;t know.*
> 
> ...



*MM:  I dunno.... with respect to fucking babies, I have read where a guy named Dixie alleged that Alpha1 has been fucking babies since he was in high school....but we really can't CONFIRM that.  Dixie claims he's got pretty solid evidence - photgraphs and blood stained clown suits and all... we can't confirm it...but it has been alleged that he did.*

How many times do I have to say that before people get the idea regarding your particular perverse sexual proclivities?  And are you really going to say that, in the paragraph I just wrote, I did not make a "connection" between you and fucking babies????? really????


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 19, 2008)

maineman said:


> *MM:  I dunno.... with respect to fucking babies, I have read where a guy named Dixie alleged that Alpha1 has been fucking babies since he was in high school....but we really can't CONFIRM that.  Dixie claims he's got pretty solid evidence - photgraphs and blood stained clown suits and all... we can't confirm it...but it has been alleged that he did.*
> 
> How many times do I have to say that before people get the idea regarding your particular perverse sexual proclivities?  And are you really going to say that, in the paragraph I just wrote, I did not make a "connection" between you and fucking babies????? really????



Usual cheap personal attacks by you when your so full of shit and shown to be ignorant on an issue. Usual Liberal tactic, try and divert the topic and lead away from the failed lies presented.


----------



## maineman (Jan 19, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Usual cheap personal attacks by you when your so full of shit and shown to be ignorant on an issue. Usual Liberal tactic, try and divert the topic and lead away from the failed lies presented.



just answer the question:  do you think that I connected him to baby fucking or not?


----------



## Alpha1 (Jan 19, 2008)

Outing you for the fool you are is getting to be so easy, its not half the fun it used to be....and your helping me the way you do doesn't even present me with a challenge anymore....but it is satisfying to expose you as an asshole to the rest of the board....


----------



## maineman (Jan 19, 2008)

Alpha1 said:


> Outing you for the fool you are is getting to be so easy, its not half the fun it used to be....and your helping me the way you do doesn't even present me with a challenge anymore....but it is satisfying to expose you as an asshole to the rest of the board....




just answer the question.  did I "connect" you to baby fucking or didn't I?


----------



## eots (Jan 19, 2008)

maineman said:


> just answer the question.  did I "connect" you to baby fucking or didn't I?



and if your not with us,....you with the baby fuckers


----------



## DeadCanDance (Jan 19, 2008)

Alpha1 said:


> * September 14, 2003:
> 
> Vice President Dick Cheney: With respect to 9/11, of course, we&#8217;ve had the story that&#8217;s been public out there. *The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we&#8217;ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don&#8217;t know.*
> 
> ...



wrong:

DICK CHENEY:   *"It's been pretty well confirmed that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service* in Czechoslovakia last April," Cheney said in an appearance on "Meet the Press" three months after the attacks on New York and the Pentagon.


http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/justify/2003/0918proof.htm


Now check this out. 

Three years later, Cheney (like Alpha) lies, and claims he never said it was "confirmed" that Atta met with Iraqi Intelligence.

january 2004:

-GLORIA BORGER: Well, let's get to Mohamed Atta for a minute because you mentioned him as well. You have said in the past that it was, quote, "pretty well confirmed."

-Vice Pres. CHENEY: No, I never said that.

-BORGER: OK.

-Vice Pres. CHENEY: I never said that.

-BORGER: I think that is...

-Vice Pres. CHENEY: Absolutely not.


----------



## Alucard (Jan 19, 2008)

eots said:


> and if your not with us,....you with the baby fuckers



It must be nice to have Eots in your corner!!!... Eh.. MM!

Gives your posistion some great credibility...

Maybe Taomon can chime in and help you out...

Dont worry....The party hasn't been lost to the looney left...


----------



## Alpha1 (Jan 20, 2008)

DeadCanDance said:


> wrong:
> 
> DICK CHENEY:   *"It's been pretty well confirmed that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service* in Czechoslovakia last April," Cheney said in an appearance on "Meet the Press" three months after the attacks on New York and the Pentagon.
> 
> ...



So there is no lie...only a misunderstanding of what Cheney meant in the first place.....he confirmed that the report was real....

and IMO...if no one knows what was said at any alleged meeting, then even the existence or non-existence of any meeting is moot....


----------



## Alpha1 (Jan 20, 2008)

Now...if you left-wing nuts can understand the Kerry never called our troops stupid, or that Durban didn't call the guards at Gitmo, Nazis, and that Clinton didn't lie under oath.....if you can understand all that,  

Cheney's statement about confirming the existance of the Czech report should present no problem at all....


----------



## finebead (Jan 20, 2008)

Alpha1 said:


> So there is no lie...only a misunderstanding of what Cheney meant in the first place.....he confirmed that the report was real....
> 
> and IMO...if no one knows what was said at any alleged meeting, then even the existence or non-existence of any meeting is moot....


This is as technical as Clinton's "it depends what the meaning of "is" is".  Trying to defend lying by slicing words.  You are no better than Clinton in that department.

Why was Cheney discussing this intel on Meet the Press?  He put it out there to convince the public the US was justified when we invaded Iraq, seeing we would probably not find any WMD.  You can put fine caveats around the statement, what's the public going to remember?  Iraq had something to do with 9/11.  A large percent of the population came away with that impression, that exists to this day, but is declining now.

The bottom line is the VP led the people in the wrong direction, as a practical matter.  Your technical wordsmithing does nothing to change it. 

And the report from the DOD that said there was a link came from Doug Feith, who was appointed by Bush in 2001, from his 15 year law firm practice, who the inspector general of the DOD stated in congressional testimony that Feith made "inappropriate use" of intel from the intelligence community, and that he wrote reports disparaging the intel community to the white house, without allowing the intel community to review them, which is inappropriate procedure.  That is the info Cheney was using, manipulated by Feith, inappropriately, and Feith was Bush's boy, his own personal appointee.  I documented this in this thread, between pages 15 and 25.

So Cheney spouted the lies Feith cooked up.  You think a 15 year lawyer looks at the same intel as the intel professonals, states something else is true other than what the intel community finds, knows the intel community disagrees, does not meet with the intel community to resolve the issue (as he should have), disparages the intel community, and the administration pronounces this on Meet the Press, and they aren't a pack of liars?  They are a pack of liars, and it starts with Doug Feith, appointed by Bush.  Feith was called on it by the Inspector General of DOD, before Congress.


----------



## Alpha1 (Jan 20, 2008)

finebead said:


> This is as technical as Clinton's "it depends what the meaning of "is" is".  Trying to defend lying by slicing words.  You are no better than Clinton in that department.
> 
> Why was Cheney discussing this intel on Meet the Press?  He put it out there to convince the public the US was justified when we invaded Iraq, seeing we would probably not find any WMD.  You can put fine caveats around the statement, what's the public going to remember?  Iraq had something to do with 9/11.  A large percent of the population came away with that impression, that exists to this day, but is declining now.
> 
> ...



I don't know what Feith said or didn't say.....the fact is, CHENEY and RUSSERT were plainly talking about an intell report from CZECH intell, and plainly mention if several times in the transcript.....so making up bullshit not mentioned in THIS Meet the Press interview is just that .... bullshit...


----------



## finebead (Jan 20, 2008)

Alpha1 said:


> I don't know what Feith said or didn't say.....the fact is, CHENEY and RUSSERT were plainly talking about an intell report from CZECH intell, and plainly mention if several times in the transcript.....so making up bullshit not mentioned in THIS Meet the Press interview is just that .... bullshit...


Testimony from the inspector general of the DOD before congress, that I have posted links to in this thead, is not bullshit.  It's the truth.  You're just too juvenile to admit you are wrong, or too lazy to go look it up.  Not good in either case.

Was Chech intel reporting directly to Cheney, or who reported the Chech intel report to Cheney?  Feith did produce a report on Iraq connection to 9/11, where he made inappropriate use of intel, that's what the inspector general said.  Chech intel does not deliver reports directly to Cheney, so he was not citing them directly.  The only report the white house had that we know of on Iraq linked to 9/11 was produced by Feith, and it made "inappropriate use in intel", per the inspector general of DOD.  The regular intelligence community did not say there was a link between Iraq and 9/11, but Cheney went with the report info from Feith, and Feith was just manufacturing a link that the regular intel community did not say existed.  That's just lying, for smart boys like Feith and Cheney.


----------



## Alpha1 (Jan 20, 2008)

finebead said:


> Testimony from the inspector general of the DOD before congress, that I have posted links to in this thead, is not bullshit.  It's the truth.  You're just too juvenile to admit you are wrong, or too lazy to go look it up.  Not good in either case.
> 
> Was Chech intel reporting directly to Cheney, or who reported the Chech intel report to Cheney?  Feith did produce a report on Iraq connection to 9/11, where he made inappropriate use of intel, that's what the inspector general said.  Chech intel does not deliver reports directly to Cheney, so he was not citing them directly.  The only report the white house had that we know of on Iraq linked to 9/11 was produced by Feith, and it made "inappropriate use in intel", per the inspector general of DOD.  The regular intelligence community did not say there was a link between Iraq and 9/11, but Cheney went with the report info from Feith, and Feith was just manufacturing a link that the regular intel community did not say existed.  That's just lying, for smart boys like Feith and Cheney.



Russert to Cheney....

RUSSERT: Let me turn to Iraq. When you were last on this program, September 16, five days after the attack on our country, I asked you whether there was any evidence that Iraq was involved in the attack and you said no.

IS that plain enough for you....???

No doubt there was speculation from many about who was responsible in the early hours of the investigation....but 5 days after, on 9/16 Cheney, in no uncertain terms said there was NO evidence that Iraq was involved....

The Czechs made a claim that Atta had a meeting with Iraqis in April....our intell could not prove it one way of the other, but our CIA said they didn't believe it....Intell from many countrys were coming into the US .... what the hell does it matter how Cheney or anyone else in our government found out about the Czech claim....


----------



## finebead (Jan 20, 2008)

Why did Bush hire Doug Feith in 2001, put him in the Pentagon, why was he producing reports as intelligence when he was not in the intelligence gathering business, why was he making inappropriate use of intelligence data, putting out reports the intelligence community did not agree with, and write disparaging reports about the intelligence community they were not given the opportunity to respond to?

On 9/16/2001, Cheney did not need Iraq to be involved in 9/11 because we were going to invade Afghanistan.  Later, and the posts that show Cheney trying to show a link between Iraq and 9/11, were in 2002 and 2003, in the runup to the war, and in the immediate aftermath, in an attempt to justify the war after no WMD were found.  

In Alpha1's post in 2001 Cheney says no link, but later he tries to build the case for a link.  He did a good job on Meet the Press, how else did the majority of Americans believe there was a link between 9/11 and Iraq in 2003?  It was useful to sell the war to the Americans.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 20, 2008)

finebead said:


> Why did Bush hire Doug Feith in 2001, put him in the Pentagon, why was he producing reports as intelligence when he was not in the intelligence gathering business, why was he making inappropriate use of intelligence data, putting out reports the intelligence community did not agree with, and write disparaging reports about the intelligence community they were not given the opportunity to respond to?
> 
> On 9/16/2001, Cheney did not need Iraq to be involved in 9/11 because we were going to invade Afghanistan.  Later, and the posts that show Cheney trying to show a link between Iraq and 9/11, were in 2002 and 2003, in the runup to the war, and in the immediate aftermath, in an attempt to justify the war after no WMD were found.
> 
> In Alpha1's post in 2001 Cheney says no link, but later he tries to build the case for a link.  He did a good job on Meet the Press, how else did the majority of Americans believe there was a link between 9/11 and Iraq in 2003?  It was useful to sell the war to the Americans.



Usual lies. You think if you repeat the same lies over and over they become truth. Bush and Cheney were clear , Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Spinning it all you want does not change the fact that neither ever claimed Iraq was involved in 9/11 and in fact specifically STATED for the record that Iraq was NOT linked to 9/11. They Stated in 2001, 2002, 2003 , 2004, and have repeatedly said there is no link between Iraq and 9/11.

In fact you can not find a single quote where either makes the claim.


----------



## maineman (Jan 20, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Usual lies. You think if you repeat the same lies over and over they become truth. Bush and Cheney were clear , Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Spinning it all you want does not change the fact that neither ever claimed Iraq was involved in 9/11 and in fact specifically STATED for the record that Iraq was NOT linked to 9/11. They Stated in 2001, 2002, 2003 , 2004, and have repeatedly said there is no link between Iraq and 9/11.
> 
> In fact you can not find a single quote where either makes the claim.



so Cheney's "confirmed" report from Czech intell somehow is meaningless to you?  

and you never even attempt to explain how a majority of americans came to believe there was a connection.

pathetic.


----------



## finebead (Jan 20, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Usual lies. You think if you repeat the same lies over and over they become truth. Bush and Cheney were clear , Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Spinning it all you want does not change the fact that neither ever claimed Iraq was involved in 9/11 and in fact specifically STATED for the record that Iraq was NOT linked to 9/11. They Stated in 2001, 2002, 2003 , 2004, and have repeatedly said there is no link between Iraq and 9/11.
> 
> In fact you can not find a single quote where either makes the claim.


Well, this is quoted on this page above, but again, this is from the White House transcripts December 9, 2001, 3 months after Cheney said there was no evidence of a link between 9/11 and Iraq:

December 9, 2001, Meet the Press with Tim Russert:


> RUSSERT: The plane on the ground in Iraq used to train non-Iraqi hijackers.
> 
> *Do you still believe there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?*
> 
> ...


http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/news-speeches/speeches/vp20011209.html

Now he's saying its "pretty well confirmed".  That is not true.  It was never confirmed.  Why is the VP passing information that has never been confirmed as "pretty well confirmed"?


----------



## DeadCanDance (Jan 20, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Usual lies. You think if you repeat the same lies over and over they become truth. Bush and Cheney were clear , Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Spinning it all you want does not change the fact that neither ever claimed Iraq was involved in 9/11 and in fact specifically STATED for the record that Iraq was NOT linked to 9/11. They Stated in 2001, 2002, 2003 , 2004, and have repeatedly said there is no link between Iraq and 9/11.
> 
> In fact you can not find a single quote where either makes the claim.



Not only did you and BushCo lie about the Saddam-Al Qaeda connection, not only did Cheney say there was a confirmed" report that Atta met with iraqi intelligence in Prauge, but BushCo continually tap danced and obfuscated about the alleged Iraq-9/11 connection for years, until people started laughing at them for making such statements

Meet the Press


> MR. RUSSERT: The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said *he was involved in the September 11 attacks*. Are you surprised by that?
> 
> VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I think it&#8217;s not surprising that people make that connection.
> 
> ...



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/

BTW: pretty much every claim cheney makes above has been debunked, and were likely lies. 




> CHENEY:  *it's been pretty well confirmed, that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service* in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 21, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Usual lies. You think if you repeat the same lies over and over they become truth. Bush and Cheney were clear , Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Spinning it all you want does not change the fact that neither ever claimed Iraq was involved in 9/11 and in fact specifically STATED for the record that Iraq was NOT linked to 9/11. They Stated in 2001, 2002, 2003 , 2004, and have repeatedly said there is no link between Iraq and 9/11.
> 
> In fact you can not find a single quote where either makes the claim.



Okay, so why did we invade Iraq and why was 9/11 referenced in every single speech regarding the war in Irar?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 21, 2008)

Taomon said:


> Okay, so why did we invade Iraq and why was 9/11 referenced in every single speech regarding the war in Irar?



Go read the war resolution dumbshit. Ohh and provide some of those quotes where Bush or Cheney "referenced" 9/11 and Iraq as being tied together.

The War resolution is public history. Even you can access it. I though need some of those "secret" subliminal" messages from Bush and Cheney quoted for me.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 21, 2008)

Here ya go dumbshit...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

Approved by Congress, including Democrats like Hillary Clinton, supported by Bill Clinton and Al Gore.

Spin away , I can see at least one line you can pretend means something it does not, lets see how long it takes for your retarded ass to find it and twist what it says.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 21, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Go read the war resolution dumbshit. Ohh and provide some of those quotes where Bush or Cheney "referenced" 9/11 and Iraq as being tied together.
> 
> The War resolution is public history. Even you can access it. I though need some of those "secret" subliminal" messages from Bush and Cheney quoted for me.



It is not my contention that Bush and Cheney stated that Iraq was tied to 9/11. It is implied when they discuss Iraq and pepper the speech with references to 9/11.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 21, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Go read the war resolution dumbshit. Ohh and provide some of those quotes where Bush or Cheney "referenced" 9/11 and Iraq as being tied together.
> 
> The War resolution is public history. Even you can access it. I though need some of those "secret" subliminal" messages from Bush and Cheney quoted for me.


No need for name calling. I know why we invaded Iraq and now occupy it hostilly. I wanted to know if you understood why.


----------



## maineman (Jan 21, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> provide some of those quotes where Bush or Cheney "referenced" 9/11 and Iraq as being tied together.



when Cheney talked about Atta and Iraqi intelligence agents in discussions about 9/11, that is an implication that they are tied together.  You aren't suggesting that in the middle of months and months of planning the attacks on us, that Cheney was implying that Atta simply dropped that planning effort and met with the Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague to get his recipe for couscous, are you?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 21, 2008)

Taomon said:


> Aside from every reason given being proved wrong, inaccurate or a lie?


Every reason?
Proven wrong, inaccurate or a lie?
Can you show this to be true?


----------



## Taomon (Jan 21, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> Every reason?
> Proven wrong, inaccurate or a lie?
> Can you show this to be true?



Oh, I am sorry...did they find weapons of mass destruction? I must have missed that news flash.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 21, 2008)

Taomon said:


> Oh, I am sorry...did they find weapons of mass destruction? I must have missed that news flash.


You said "every" reason.


----------



## maineman (Jan 21, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> You said "every" reason.



that WAS the main mission


----------



## Annie (Jan 21, 2008)

maineman said:


> that WAS the main mission



But that's not what he said.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 21, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> You said "every" reason.



You cannot name one reason given, _reason given_, that we are in Iraq that holds true.

I defy you to name one.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 21, 2008)

Taomon said:


> You cannot name one reason given, _reason given_, that we are in Iraq that holds true.
> I defy you to name one.


You said "every reason given [was] proved wrong".
Its up to you to support your claim.
Show that EVERY reason we gave was proven wrong.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 21, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> You said "every reason given [was] proved wrong".
> Its up to you to support your claim.
> Show that EVERY reason we gave was proven wrong.



He can't and he won't. Aided and abetted by people like Maineman he will scoff and ignore demands to prove HIS own claim. And as he already has done try to shift the burden of proving his claim onto us to disprove it.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 21, 2008)

This was proven wrong? Or was a lie?



> Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;



or this...



> Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);



how about this one?



> Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;



how about...



> Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;



Perhaps this one?



> Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;



http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 21, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> He can't and he won't. Aided and abetted by people like Maineman he will scoff and ignore demands to prove HIS own claim. And as he already has done try to shift the burden of proving his claim onto us to disprove it.


Obvuiously, he needs to do two things:

-List ALL the reasons we went to war
-Show that ALL of them were proven wrong, proven inaccurate or proven a lie

I dont expect that he will even try.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 21, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> You said "every reason given [was] proved wrong".
> Its up to you to support your claim.
> Show that EVERY reason we gave was proven wrong.



You really are a piece of work. If a neo-con posted anything at all, you would not question it. As soon a s a liberal does, you have to insist on proof. Total double standard.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

_"Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;"_

The weapons caches and programs were destroyed by weapons inspectors and our economic sanctions.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6190720/

_Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait; _

How does this fit when Saudi Arabia, our biggest Middle East Ally is far worse to their citizens than Iraq? Saudi Arabia even trafficks in human slavery: 
http://www.gvnet.com/humantrafficking/SaudiArabia.htm
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/saudi/

_Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people; _

When? When did this happen after Desert Storm? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

_Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council; _

If we attempt or succeed to assassinate foreign leaders throughout the world, and that is okay, we have no room to not allow retaliative actions. We must first stop our wayward foreign policies and intelligence agencies who cause more problems than they solve. We are constantly caught in blow back, 9/11 being the most intense.

_Whereas members of al Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq; _

There are al Qaeda operatives in America, should we attack ourselves? There are al Qaeda operatives in Israel, should we invade and occupy Israel?
There are al Qaeda operatives and financiers in Saudi Arabia, should we attack and occupy Saudi Arabia? Well, yes, we should do that.

_Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens; _

There is no proof that Saddam ever harbored any terrorist organization. That burden of proof is on you.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C03E3DE1F31F93AA35752C0A9629C8B63

_Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;_

Refusing to comply with UN directives does not authorize any one country, the US included, to attack that country in non-compliance. Preemptive strikes can now be justified by North Korea, China, Russia and any terrorist group. The logic behind a pre-empitive strike is hubris and hegemony at it's worst, and sets a dangerous precedent.

_Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime; _

Diplomatic and economic means should have been used and not aggression. Now we will be bogged down in a quagmire worse than Vietnam.

And here is a couple of nice links in case you want to get a better sense of what I am talking about.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0919-14.htm
http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2002/10/03_kucinich_vote-no.htm


----------



## maineman (Jan 21, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> But that's not what he said.



it's what I said....

and, oddly enough, it is what George Bush said before we invaded.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 21, 2008)

maineman said:


> it's what I said....
> 
> and, oddly enough, it is what George Bush said before we invaded.



Exactly, but any proof we give, any logical argument given will never be accepted by this lot. They only seek to raise the President and America into mythic realms of nationalist dreams.

Exalted we stand, the questioners must fall.


----------



## Annie (Jan 21, 2008)

maineman said:


> it's what I said....
> 
> and, oddly enough, it is what George Bush said before we invaded.



To ask TM to back up what he said was not wrong. He follows your post with his chirping with you that 'you' gave proof and no one believes it. He is less than the chattering masses on both sides, why do you keep rescuing his nonsense?


----------



## Taomon (Jan 21, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> To ask TM to back up what he said was not wrong. He follows your post with his chirping with you that 'you' gave proof and no one believes it. He is less than the chattering masses on both sides, why do you keep rescuing his nonsense?



I responed Kathianne, I would not call it nonsense.


----------



## maineman (Jan 21, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> To ask TM to back up what he said was not wrong. He follows your post with his chirping with you that 'you' gave proof and no one believes it. He is less than the chattering masses on both sides, why do you keep rescuing his nonsense?




did he use rhetorical hyperbole?

shame on him.  I bet that's the first time that's ever happened here!


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 21, 2008)

Taomon said:


> You really are a piece of work. If a neo-con posted anything at all, you would not question it. As soon a s a liberal does, you have to insist on proof.


Its your claim that the reaons were PROVEN false.
If you dont like having to support your claims then don't make them,



> The weapons caches and programs were destroyed by weapons inspectors and our economic sanctions.


Show this to be true.



> How does this fit when Saudi Arabia, our biggest Middle East Ally is far worse to their citizens than Iraq?


This is not proof that the attending claim was false.



> When? When did this happen after Desert Storm?


This is not proof that the attending claim was false.



> If we attempt or succeed to assassinate foreign leaders throughout the world, and that is okay, we have no room to not allow retaliative actions. We must first stop our wayward foreign policies and intelligence agencies who cause more problems than they solve. We are constantly caught in blow back, 9/11 being the most intense.


This is not proof that the attending claim was false.



> There are al Qaeda operatives in America, should we attack ourselves?


This is not proof that the attending claim was false.



> There is no proof that Saddam ever harbored any terrorist organization. That burden of proof is on you.


This is not proof that the attending claim was false.



> Refusing to comply with UN directives does not authorize any one country, the US included, to attack that country in non-compliance.


This is not proof that the attending claim was false.



> Diplomatic and economic means should have been used and not aggression.


This is not proof that the attending claim was false.

You said "every reason given [was] proved wrong".
Its up to you to support your claim.
To do that, you must show EVERY reason we gave, and that EVER reason was proven wrong.

So far, you havent proven anything.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 21, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> Its your claim that the reaons were PROVEN false.
> If you dont like having to support your claims then don't make them



The point is that if it is a neo-con or conservative view, you don't demand that they prove it because you agree (and that makes it infallibly correct in your mind).


----------



## Taomon (Jan 21, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> Its your claim that the reaons were PROVEN false. So far, you havent proven anything.


Know what? Fuck you M14 Shooter. All you did was paste "This is not proof that the attending claim was false." after each response I had to the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq. 

I provided links to support my contentions and your continued pasting of _This is not proof that the attending claim was false_ does not refute anything I have said.

You cannot prove me wrong on any of these points. And I know you won't because you'll hide behind your cowardly little "You have to prove it not me" mentality.

You don't want to know the truth. Are you in the military or were you? Are you a veteran? Is this why it is so important for me to be wrong, because it would prove your actions as acts of aggression?  

If not, then why is it so important that you protect Bush and his war machine? What have you got vested in this that makes you think that the truth matters less than quieting opposition?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 21, 2008)

Taomon said:


> The point is that if it is a neo-con or conservative view, you don't demand that they prove it because you agree (and that makes it infallibly correct in your mind).


No, the point is you made a claim - a statement of fact - and as such it is up to you to support it.

Thus far, you havent done so.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 21, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> No, the point is you made a claim - a statement of fact - and as such it is up to you to support it.
> 
> Thus far, you havent done so.



But why is it so important to you? Not because you seek truth, but because you want to quiet opposition. And that begs an answer to the question of why it is so important to you to protect Bush and his war machine.

Why?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 21, 2008)

Taomon said:


> Know what? Fuck you M14 Shooter.


What's the matter, boo-boo kitty - does your pussy hurt?



> after each response I had to the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq.


Nothng you posted constitutes -proof- of your claims.  Period.
Several of your responses were -questions- which prove nothing.



> You cannot prove me wrong on any of these points. And I know you won't because you'll hide behind your cowardly little "You have to prove it not me" mentality.


Debate 101, son.
They're your claims - its up to you back them up.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 21, 2008)

Taomon said:


> But why is it so important to you?


I'm sorry - you dont understand the importance of backing up your claims?

If you cannot prove your claims to be true, then why do you make them?

Its your claim that the reaons were PROVEN false. So far, you havent proven anything.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 21, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> I'm sorry - you dont understand the importance of backing up your claims?
> 
> If you cannot prove your claims to be true, then why do you make them?
> 
> Its your claim that the reaons were PROVEN false. So far, you havent proven anything.


I understand the importance of backing up claims. I also know that any evidence I give you will never be valid enough because you don't want to know the truth.

Again, why is it so important for you to protect Bush and his war machine?


----------



## Annie (Jan 21, 2008)

Taomon said:


> I understand the importance of backing up claims. I also know that any evidence I give you will never be valid enough because you don't want to know the truth.
> 
> Again, why is it so important for you to protect Bush and his war machine?



We don't know that to be true, as you fail to back anything up, other than with your opinion or more likely, a diversion.

As for 'not accepting or valid enough' when the reasons cited in the war resolution were posted, you go into divert and ignore. Then you wonder why there is some laughter at you? 

We all get into discussions that leave us in a dead end, but you do it time and again. You don't even attempt a real response.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 21, 2008)

Taomon said:


> I understand the importance of backing up claims.


Then get to it.
Prove that all of those claims have been proven false.
PROVEN false, son.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 21, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> We don't know that to be true, as you fail to back anything up, other than with your opinion or more likely, a diversion.
> 
> As for 'not accepting or valid enough' when the reasons cited in the war resolution were posted, you go into divert and ignore. Then you wonder why there is some laughter at you?
> 
> We all get into discussions that leave us in a dead end, but you do it time and again. You don't even attempt a real response.



Yes I do. But again, it is not my links or my contentions but the fact that a liberal said it. If Bush said it you would take it as gold and find a way to forgive. But if one of the questioners states anything opposite of the propagandist views, you begin the character assassinations and belittling any and all evidence.

One of the problems is that any damning evidence against the Bush Administration, our military and intelligence communities are deemed classified and unattainable. Outside sources like the BBC and the UN are demonized as inaccurate at best and anti-American at worst.

The media outlets like FoxNews, network news and even CNN and MSNBC only continue the messages spewed out by the Pentagon, the White House and countless pundits - all of whom are corrupt and in the pocket of several industry lobbies.

True debate and discourse is dead. You people cling to what the administration tells you as absolute truth and infallible and at the same time attack anyone who looks at other evidence or questions the validity of the status quo.

What is it that you are afraid of knowing?


----------



## Taomon (Jan 21, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> Then get to it.
> Prove that all of those claims have been proven false.
> PROVEN false, son.



I did.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 21, 2008)

Taomon said:


> I did.



No, son, you did not.

You made two unsupported claims, asked three questions, and presented three opinons.  
That doesn't PROVE anything, regardless of who you are.

Prove that all of those claims have been proven false.
PROVEN false.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 21, 2008)

Taomon said:


> I did.



No you haven't. All you have done is provide YOUR opinion on those charges. Several are simply unbable to ever be proven false because of the simple fact they OCCURRED and are historically accurate. Your attempt then to place some time limit on them is nothing more than you trying to divert the charge.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 21, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> No, son, you did not.
> 
> You made two unsupported claims, asked three questions, and presented three opinons.
> That doesn't PROVE anything, regardless of who you are.
> ...



First of all, the fact that we are still in Iraq and victory has not been defined is proof enough.

Secondly, did you even read any of the links that I provided or did you not bother and just attack my comments?


----------



## Taomon (Jan 21, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> No you haven't. All you have done is provide YOUR opinion on those charges. Several are simply unbable to ever be proven false because of the simple fact they OCCURRED and are historically accurate. Your attempt then to place some time limit on them is nothing more than you trying to divert the charge.



Now the shoe is on the other foot. You made a claim that "_Several are simply unbable to ever be proven false because of the simple fact they OCCURRED and are historically accurate._" 

Now prove it. Back your claim up. Prove that I am wrong and your grasp of history is accurate.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 21, 2008)

Taomon said:


> First of all, the fact that we are still in Iraq and victory has not been defined is proof enough.


It doesnt prove ANYTHING regarding your claim that all of the reasons we went into Otaq have been proven false.



> Secondly, did you even read any of the links that I provided or did you not bother and just attack my comments?


Again:
You made two unsupported claims, asked three questions, and presented three opinons. That doesn't PROVE anything, regardless of who you are.

Prove that all of those claims have been proven false.
PROVEN false.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 21, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> It doesnt prove ANYTHING regarding your claim that all of the reasons we went into Otaq have been proven false.
> 
> 
> Again:
> ...



I did. Unfortunately I cannot read them to you. I posted links to support my comments and that is called proof, evidence, etc. You are required to read the links if you are to debate the points with me.

This is a two way street. Just because your are intellectually lazy and cannot be bothered to read the proof that I posted along with my comments does not make my post wrong nor inaccurate.

Either read the links or shut the fuck up.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 21, 2008)

Taomon said:


> I did. Unfortunately I cannot read them to you. I posted links to support my comments and that is called proof, evidence, etc. You are required to read the links if you are to debate the points with me.
> 
> This is a two way street. Just because your are intellectually lazy and cannot be bothered to read the proof that I posted along with my comments does not make my post wrong nor inaccurate.
> 
> Either read the links or shut the fuck up.



Your links are not proof. I can link to lots of things too, doesn't mean it is proof of anything.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 21, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Your links are not proof. I can link to lots of things too, doesn't mean it is proof of anything.



Now you have to prove or discredit my evidence. Just stating that my links are not proof does not diminish my contention.

Are we holding a summit? Should I bring hard evidence to that summit?
Of course not, this is a message board and we work with Internet links here.

You guys refuse to even consider that Bush lied, that the war in Iraq may be wrong, and that we are aggressors. So any proof I bring to the table you have already biased your minds against.

This isn't a debate, this is some old military coots trying to defend their actions in wars that have already passed by using Iraq as a proxy to their own acts of aggression.

You know it, I know it and now the Internet community knows it.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 21, 2008)

Taomon said:


> Either read the links or shut the fuck up.


Says the little boy that can't support his claims with anything other than questions and opinions - and then thrown a tantrum when you don't accept those things as "proof"



What a waste of time.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 21, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> Says the little boy that can't support his claims with anything other than questions and opinions - and then thrown a tantrum when you don't accept those things as "proof"
> 
> 
> 
> What a waste of time.



You are a waste of time. You asked me to provide proof and I linked proof to my post. You are either real dumb or a complete asshole. I believe either one or both is quite possible.

You are not debating, your are just being argumentative. 

Discussion over. Let us know when you have something intelligent to add. We might be retired by then, but we will wait for you.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 21, 2008)

Taomon said:


> You really are a piece of work. If a neo-con posted anything at all, you would not question it. As soon a s a liberal does, you have to insist on proof. Total double standard.
> 
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
> 
> ...



And you completely ignored the last reason of the resolution. Linking to peace sites is not proof of anything.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 21, 2008)

Taomon said:


> You are a waste of time. You asked me to provide proof and I linked proof to my post. You are either real dumb or a complete asshole. I believe either one or both is quite possible.
> 
> You are not debating, your are just being argumentative.
> 
> Discussion over. Let us know when you have something intelligent to add. We might be retired by then, but we will wait for you.



Let us know when you can provide actual evidence your claims are true. Now you could do as maineman has in the past and fall back on " its my opinion, I don't need proof"


----------



## Annie (Jan 21, 2008)

Taomon said:


> Yes I do. But again, it is not my links or my contentions but the fact that a liberal said it. If Bush said it you would take it as gold and find a way to forgive. But if one of the questioners states anything opposite of the propagandist views, you begin the character assassinations and belittling any and all evidence.
> 
> One of the problems is that any damning evidence against the Bush Administration, our military and intelligence communities are deemed classified and unattainable. Outside sources like the BBC and the UN are demonized as inaccurate at best and anti-American at worst.
> 
> ...


I disagree, I've had lots of discussions with Maineman, Paulitics, Jillian, hardly rightwing.


----------



## maineman (Jan 21, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Let us know when you can provide actual evidence your claims are true. Now you could do as maineman has in the past and fall back on " its my opinion, I don't need proof"



kinda like YOU do when I ask you to provide PROOF that Ted Kennedy is a MURDERER or that Bill Clinton is guilty of perjury?


----------



## Annie (Jan 21, 2008)

maineman said:


> kinda like YOU do when I ask you to provide PROOF that Ted Kennedy is a MURDERER or that Bill Clinton is guilty of perjury?



and you insist on clarity of terms, sort of like I was asking about TM.


----------



## maineman (Jan 21, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> and you insist on clarity of terms, sort of like I was asking about TM.



I don't INSIST on anything.  This is a message board where people express their opinions.  

For example:  it is my opinion that Bush lied to us about WMD's...and he lied in that he purposely conveyed absolute certainty when none actually existed.

It is my opinion that Cheney tried hard to link Saddam to 9/11 by discussing a czech intelligence report that he claimed had been confirmed, that had Atta meeting with Iraqi intelligence in the months BEFORE 9/11.

How can I PROVE those assertions?  I can only show lots of intelligence estimates and opinions from analysts that state that they had doubts..that all of their information about Saddam was delivered with caveats and qualifiers.... what else is really needed to prove that Bush KNEW that there was doubt and decided to claim there was none?  What else do I need, beyond the transcript of Cheney talking about the "pretty much confirmed" intell report about Atta and Iraqi intelligence to PROVE that Cheney was trying to make the connection between Saddam and 9/11?

They are my opinions...much like RGS (that coward hiding behind your skirts) has HIS opinions that Ted Kennedy is a murderer.... although mine are a lot more plausible!


----------



## Annie (Jan 21, 2008)

maineman said:


> I don't INSIST on anything.  This is a message board where people express their opinions.
> 
> For example:  it is my opinion that Bush lied to us about WMD's...and he lied in that he purposely conveyed absolute certainty when none actually existed.
> 
> ...


I'm wearing jeans.


----------



## DeadCanDance (Jan 21, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Let us know when you can provide actual evidence your claims are true. Now you could do as maineman has in the past and fall back on " its my opinion, I don't need proof"



Do you ever get sick of defending your hero, Mr. 30% approval rating?

BushCo explicitly and repeatedly linked Saddam to Al Qaeda, made statements that it was "confirmed" that Atta met with Iraqi intelligence, repeated the words 9/11 and Iraq over and over and over in every speech, claimed Iraq was the "geographic base" of those have have been attacking us "particularly on 9/11", and repeatedly claimed Saddam was an "ally" of al qaeda.   All of these statements were either false at best, or outright lies at worst. 

And the rightwing media (and probably you too) carried bush's water in 2002/03, repeatedly linking al qaeda to saddam and 9/11.    


There was a concerted effort by BushCo, you, and the lying rightwing media to link iraq to 9/11 and to al qaeda.   It's clear to everyone who isn't drunk on bush worship.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 21, 2008)

maineman said:


> kinda like YOU do when I ask you to provide PROOF that Ted Kennedy is a MURDERER or that Bill Clinton is guilty of perjury?



LOL, you know as well as I do that Kennedy is directly responsible for the death of that girl and if he were not a kennedy he would have been tried and convicted of killing her. HE fled the scene and hid out for hours to sober up before even reporting it.

As for Clinton he ADMITTED he lied to a sitting Judge UNDER oath, I suggest you read the definition of Perjury.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 21, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> I'm wearing jeans.



Maineman has one set of standards for his party and those that agree with it and another for everyone else.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 21, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> LOL, you know as well as I do that Kennedy is directly responsible for the death of that girl and if he were not a kennedy he would have been tried and convicted of killing her. HE fled the scene and hid out for hours to sober up before even reporting it.
> As for Clinton he ADMITTED he lied to a sitting Judge UNDER oath, I suggest you read the definition of Perjury.



You know how these partisan bigots work:
If its a Dem, the accusation has to be proven in court; if its a Republican, the accusation alone is proof enough.


----------



## Paulie (Jan 21, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Maineman has one set of standards for his party and those that agree with it and another for everyone else.



You don't?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 21, 2008)

Paulitics said:


> You don't?



No I do not. I respond to stupidity no matter what "party" they belong to. You are of course aware that several of the supposed Conservatives on this site do not like me because I do not give them a free pass, like Maineman gives ANY ONE that supports his position.

Bush is not a great President, but he is not the worst AND given the choices we had in 2000 and 2004 he was the only one worth voting for.

I have even praised Clinton. I think he did the right thing in Bosnia and that whole area. I was surprised he had the balls to do it and did not subscribe to the theory he did it just to divert attention from his inabilty to keep his dick in his pants.


----------



## Shogun (Jan 21, 2008)




----------



## maineman (Jan 21, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> LOL, you know as well as I do that Kennedy is directly responsible for the death of that girl and if he were not a kennedy he would have been tried and convicted of killing her. HE fled the scene and hid out for hours to sober up before even reporting it.
> 
> As for Clinton he ADMITTED he lied to a sitting Judge UNDER oath, I suggest you read the definition of Perjury.


I suggest YOU read the definition of MURDER, CRIME, and GUILT.

Kennedy is not guilty of the crime of murder and Clinton is not guilty of the crime of perjury.

moron.


----------



## Paulie (Jan 21, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Bush is not a great President, but he is not the worst AND given the choices we had in 2000 and 2004 he was the only one worth voting for.



Everything else you said I can agree with.

But if you don't see anyone to vote for that you truely agree with and believe in, why vote?

"None of the above" can make just as much of a statement as "lesser of 2 evils".  And at least "none of the above" doesn't lead to one of those EVILS.

This whole country needs to be reformed in the election department.  People vote for a perceived "winner" over their heart.

I've seen it COUNTLESS times so far on the RP campaign trail.  Believe me, RP would have DOUBLE the votes he's gotten had the people who who wanted to vote for someone they thought would WIN instead, had voted for him.

So instead of getting what they would have ultimately WANTED, they're stuck with someone they'll probably be complaining about for the next 4-8 years. just so their vote would "count".

Where's the sense in that?  ANYONE can be president in this country.

Isn't that what we were taught as kids growing up?  How can you grow up with the mentality that you want to be president in this country, if apparently to be president, you have to sell your soul to pander to the establishment in order for it to even be possible?


----------



## maineman (Jan 21, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> You know how these partisan bigots work:
> If its a Dem, the accusation has to be proven in court; if its a Republican, the accusation alone is proof enough.



see...that is the difference between using terms that have meanings in our law and words that don't.  LYING is not a crime.  Lying under oath about a matter that a court of law deems to be material to the case in question IS a crime which is called perjury.  Bush clearly lied when he made statements concerning the absolute certainty of Saddam's WMD's which were designed to create a false impression.  Clinton is not guilty of perjury in that no court ever found him guilty of that crime.  "Causing someone's death" is not a crime... "murder" is.  Similarly, Kennedy is not "guilty" of the crime of murder.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 21, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> And you completely ignored the last reason of the resolution. Linking to peace sites is not proof of anything.



I didn't ignore it. I stated that we should have used diplomatic and economic resolutions and not aggression. Do you think aggression is the only way? Do you think the Iraqi people are better off now?


----------



## Taomon (Jan 21, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> You know how these partisan bigots work:
> If its a Dem, the accusation has to be proven in court; if its a Republican, the accusation alone is proof enough.



No, the Dems are just as corrupt and contemptible as the Republicans.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 21, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> No I do not. I respond to stupidity no matter what "party" they belong to. You are of course aware that several of the supposed Conservatives on this site do not like me because I do not give them a free pass, like Maineman gives ANY ONE that supports his position.
> 
> Bush is not a great President, but he is not the worst AND given the choices we had in 2000 and 2004 he was the only one worth voting for.
> 
> I have even praised Clinton. I think he did the right thing in Bosnia and that whole area. I was surprised he had the balls to do it and did not subscribe to the theory he did it just to divert attention from his inabilty to keep his dick in his pants.


I'll believe it when I see it. Since I have been here you have only touted one myopic line and that is suspiciously aligned with the GOP.


----------



## maineman (Jan 21, 2008)

Taomon said:


> I'll believe it when I see it. Since I have been here you have only touted one myopic line and that is suspiciously aligned with the GOP.



You got that right!

I give no one a free pass.  When it comes to people who claim to be "on my side", I apply the leadership principles of John Paul Jones:  "Commend in public, reprimand in private."

And methinks that the only reason conservatives may take issue with RGS would be because of what a bad name he gives them!


----------



## Taomon (Jan 21, 2008)

maineman said:


> You got that right!
> 
> I give no one a free pass.  When it comes to people who claim to be "on my side", I apply the leadership principles of John Paul Jones:  "Commend in public, reprimand in private."
> 
> And methinks that the only reason conservatives may take issue with RGS would be because of what a bad name he gives them!



Thanks


----------



## Alpha1 (Jan 21, 2008)

maineman said:


> I suggest YOU read the definition of MURDER, CRIME, and GUILT.
> 
> Kennedy is not guilty of the crime of murder and Clinton is not guilty of the crime of perjury.
> 
> moron.



Clinton is not guilty of the crime of perjury....right you are....there was no conviction, therefore he is not guilty of the crime.....
----------------------------------------------------------------
But .... did he do it.....absolutly!

During the Paula Jones deposition, President Clinton was asked if he had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. But before the questioning began, the Jones&#8217; lawyers produced the following legal definition of sexual relations:

      "For the purposes of this deposition, a person engages in sexual relations when the person knowingly engages in or causes:

      1. Contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; 

Clinton himself testified before the deposition on January 17, 1998. During this deposition, he denied having "sexual relations" with Monica Lewinsky, as the court defined the term.
---------------------------------------------------------
We know how the lawyers twisted and spun the definition...gotta admit...they are clever....thats why we have murders walking free and innocent people in prison.....because some lawyers are clever....some will lie, mislead and ignore justice to win


Its the same reason mm can claim Durbin didn't really call the Gitmo guards Nazies.....
Its why mm can claim Kerry didn't call our troops 'stupid'
Its why a drunk driver can drive off a bridge, causing the death of a passenger, not report the incident for several hours, and walk away from this 'crime' without a second thought....
Its because some of us are corrupt and condone and defend the corruption...

Because mm thinks hes clever too....when in reality, hes a lying, biased partisan spin master that will distort reality and fact to achieve a deceptive and false outcome.....


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 21, 2008)

Paulitics said:


> Everything else you said I can agree with.
> 
> But if you don't see anyone to vote for that you truely agree with and believe in, why vote?
> 
> ...



Let me make it clear to you. Gore and Kerry were not just the worse of two evils, they would have ruined this country. There is a reason Bush got elected.


----------



## finebead (Jan 21, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Let me make it clear to you. Gore and Kerry were not just the worse of two evils, they would have ruined this country. *There is a reason Bush got elected.*


Bush was elected before the public figured out how bad they had been lied to about the war in Iraq.  

When they figured out how bad they had been lied to about Iraq, how corrupt the republicans in congress had been (Tom DeLay, Duke Cunningham, Jack Abramoff), how fiscally irresponsible they were running up the largest deficits in this country's history and decimating the purchasing power of the dollar in the process (we just love $90 a barrel oil!), and how hypocritical they were against gays when their own were propositioning under age congressional pages, they tossed out enough republicans to give control of both houses of congress to the dems.  

The republicans have proven themselves to be stupid and liars, and the american public has called them on it, by 2006.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 21, 2008)

Alpha1 said:


> Clinton is not guilty of the crime of perjury....right you are....there was no conviction, therefore his is not guilty of the crime.....
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> But .... did he do it.....absolutly!
> 
> ...



Yes, isn't it amazing that Maineman can continue to claim Bush lied with absolutely no evidence to support his claim but tell us his definition for Kennedy and every other democrat that has broken the law and gotten away with it is the right one?

Lets play maineman's game.... It is MY opinion that Kennedy murdered that girl. It is MY opinion that Clinton was not prosecuted for Perjury for political reasons. Notice I did not say it was my opinion he committed perjury, he has admitted he did it. He just was never prosecuted for it.

Now lets have Maineman come explain how his opinion that Bush lied is right but mine about these matter is wrong. Or Jillian can come explain how one can not have an opinion on this matter at all.

I find it hilarious every time maineman defends Kennedy for murder. Even funnier when he claims Clinton did not commit perjury, when he ADMITS he did it. And then can with a straight face make idiotic claims against Bush.


----------



## DeadCanDance (Jan 21, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Yes, isn't it amazing that Maineman can continue to claim Bush lied with absolutely no evidence to support his claim but tell us his definition for Kennedy and every other democrat that has broken the law and gotten away with it is the right one?
> 
> Lets play maineman's game.... It is MY opinion that Kennedy murdered that girl. It is MY opinion that Clinton was not prosecuted for Perjury for political reasons. Notice I did not say it was my opinion he committed perjury, he has admitted he did it. He just was never prosecuted for it.
> 
> ...




You don't have to have a court opinion, to tell if someone is lying dummy.  If your kid lies to you, you don't take him to court to prove it. 

There's enough evidence that BushCo exaggerated and misled the nation, about the threat from Iraq.  And that's not just me saying that.  That's *former top officials in the Bush administration* saying that:




> - TYLER DRUMHELLER, Bushs top CIA officer in Europe: charges the White House with* ignoring intelligence that said there were no weapons of mass destruction or an active nuclear program in Iraq*. 
> 
> -PAUL R. PILLAR, Bushs national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia who coordinated U.S. intelligence on the Middle East: accused the Bush administration of *"cherry-picking" intelligence on Iraq to justify a decision it had already reached to go to war*, and of ignoring warnings that the country could easily fall into violence and chaos after an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein.
> 
> ...


----------



## Alpha1 (Jan 21, 2008)

DeadCanDance said:


> You don't have to have a court opinion, to tell if someone is lying dummy.  If your kid lies to you, you don't take him to court to prove it.
> 
> There's enough evidence that BushCo exaggerated and misled the nation, about the threat from Iraq.  And that's not just me saying that.  That's *former top officials in the Bush administration* saying that:



Whats really amazing is that if everyone knew Saddam was no danger and had no WMD,,,,
Why the fuck didn't they inform all these Democrats of that fact....???

And why the fuck are these Democrats NEVER accused of lying and mis leading the American people.... but when Bush says the EXACT SAME THINGS....he is the liar....

What perverse logic allows this to be repeated over and over....




The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons&  Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

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

There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years & We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.  Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do  Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members & It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.  Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.  Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

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


----------



## finebead (Jan 21, 2008)

Alpha1 said:


> Whats really amazing is that if everyone knew Saddam was no danger and had no WMD,,,,
> Why the fuck didn't they inform all these Democrats of that fact....???
> 
> And why the fuck are these Democrats NEVER accused of lying and mis leading the American people.... but when Bush says the EXACT SAME THINGS....he is the liar....
> ...




On the congressional resolution authorizing the use of force, the vote was not unanimous.  23 senators voted against it, EVERY ONE A DEMOCRAT, except Chaffe from Rhode Island.  133 representatives in the House voted against it, nearly every one a democrat.

Bottom line, the majority of democrats OPPOSED THE WAR RESOLUTION, and they voted against it.  This is NOT THE DEMOCRATS FAULT!!!

Now explain to me why you think the democrats are to blame for this.


----------



## maineman (Jan 21, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Yes, isn't it amazing that Maineman can continue to claim Bush lied with absolutely no evidence to support his claim but tell us his definition for Kennedy and every other democrat that has broken the law and gotten away with it is the right one?
> 
> Lets play maineman's game.... It is MY opinion that Kennedy murdered that girl. It is MY opinion that Clinton was not prosecuted for Perjury for political reasons. Notice I did not say it was my opinion he committed perjury, he has admitted he did it. He just was never prosecuted for it.
> 
> ...




There is no doubt that Kennedy did indeed cause the death of Mary Jo.  Similarly, I have NEVER claimed that Clinton did not lie under oath... he did.  But, like in baseball, there are good pitches and bad pitches but there ain't no balls or strikes 'til the umpire calls 'em.  In law, there is lying under oath, and there is causing someone's death, but a person ain't guilty of perjury or murder 'til a jury sez so.  fact. 

My opinion about Bush is also valid.

One of the definitions of the word "lie" is a statement intended or serving to convey a false impression.  The "impression" that there was absolute certainty about Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's was a false one.  Bush knew that there was not absolute certainty yet his entire team conveyed certainty over and over again. 

Ergo: a lie. IMHO.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 22, 2008)

maineman said:


> There is no doubt that Kennedy did indeed cause the death of Mary Jo.  Similarly, I have NEVER claimed that Clinton did not lie under oath... he did.  But, like in baseball, there are good pitches and bad pitches but there ain't no balls or strikes 'til the umpire calls 'em.  In law, there is lying under oath, and there is causing someone's death, but a person ain't guilty of perjury or murder 'til a jury sez so.  fact.
> 
> My opinion about Bush is also valid.
> 
> ...



ERGO semantics.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 22, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Let me make it clear to you. Gore and Kerry were not just the worse of two evils, they would have ruined this country. There is a reason Bush got elected.



So how is that working out for you now? How is your income, your nest egg, your security, your VA benefits, your children's education, the quality of air, water, food and life in general?


----------



## Taomon (Jan 22, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Yes, isn't it amazing that Maineman can continue to claim Bush lied with absolutely no evidence to support his claim but tell us his definition for Kennedy and every other democrat that has broken the law and gotten away with it is the right one?
> 
> Lets play maineman's game.... It is MY opinion that Kennedy murdered that girl. It is MY opinion that Clinton was not prosecuted for Perjury for political reasons. Notice I did not say it was my opinion he committed perjury, he has admitted he did it. He just was never prosecuted for it.
> 
> ...



Read them and weep: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/21/60minutes/main1527749.shtml

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/27/AR2005052701618_pf.html


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 22, 2008)

Taomon said:


> Read them and weep: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/21/60minutes/main1527749.shtml
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/27/AR2005052701618_pf.html



The story is full of opinion not fact. And that is the whole problem, you think if an OPINION you like is presented it turns into fact.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 22, 2008)

Taomon said:


> So how is that working out for you now? How is your income, your nest egg, your security, your VA benefits, your children's education, the quality of air, water, food and life in general?



All are just fine, how about yours? My VA benefits have gone up every year, something I can not say happened every year under Clinton. My wife's income is fine she has had a job the whole time. As for the rest we never had any problems with those things to begin with and still do not.


----------



## maineman (Jan 22, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> ERGO semantics.



ergo:  using the english language with precision as it was intended...

obviously a skill that troglodytes such as yourself never acquired.


----------



## maineman (Jan 22, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> The story is full of opinion not fact. And that is the whole problem, you think if an OPINION you like is presented it turns into fact.



but when you do it is OK?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 22, 2008)

maineman said:


> ergo:  using the english language with precision as it was intended...
> 
> obviously a skill that troglodytes such as yourself never acquired.



And when we notice you only use this "skill" when addressing Conservatives? Remind us of the last time you even responded to people like Toamon? Ohh wait you have, to defend him.

By the way? Where is that list of people Bush was bumped ahead of to join the Air National Guard? Or am I mistaken and you have never made that claim?


----------



## maineman (Jan 22, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> And when we notice you only use this "skill" when addressing Conservatives? Remind us of the last time you even responded to people like Toamon? Ohh wait you have, to defend him.
> 
> By the way? Where is that list of people Bush was bumped ahead of to join the Air National Guard? Or am I mistaken and you have never made that claim?




previously answered:  When addressing adversaries on a message board, I have no problem pointing out the errors in their argument.  When addressing fellow moderate/liberal democrats, I use the leadership rules taught me in school and passed down from John Paul Jones...  "commend in public, reprimand in private".  In words YOUR size:  I tell morons like you that you are wrong in public.  I tell guys like taoman that HE is wrong by PM.

Oh...and without looking too hard, I would imagine that the TANG never kept such a list...(given the fact they can't even find all of Bush's paperwork) which, of course, does not invalidate the testimony of those who said that such event actually occured.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 22, 2008)

maineman said:


> previously answered:  When addressing adversaries on a message board, I have no problem pointing out the errors in their argument.  When addressing fellow moderate/liberal democrats, I use the leadership rules taught me in school and passed down from John Paul Jones...  "commend in public, reprimand in private".  In words YOUR size:  I tell morons like you that you are wrong in public.  I tell guys like taoman that HE is wrong by PM.
> 
> Oh...and without looking too hard, I would imagine that the TANG never kept such a list...(given the fact they can't even find all of Bush's paperwork) which, of course, does not invalidate the testimony of those who said that such event actually occured.



Convenient isn't it? No evidence to back up your bullshit claim, yet it is still true according to you. Remind me again how courts work and how evidence and such applies?

Ohh ya provide us with a list of all these people that claimed such a list existed.

Kennedy never killed anyone but Bush lied. Gotta ya. Partisan hack indeed.


----------



## maineman (Jan 22, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Convenient isn't it? No evidence to back up your bullshit claim, yet it is still true according to you. Remind me again how courts work and how evidence and such applies?
> 
> Ohh ya provide us with a list of all these people that claimed such a list existed.
> 
> Kennedy never killed anyone but Bush lied. Gotta ya. Partisan hack indeed.



Let me remind you that this is not a court of law... it's an internet message board.  That does not give you the right to make provably false claims, i.e. Kennedy is a murderer.

Kennedy most certainly caused someone's death.  Bush clearly made statements creating a false impression.

This english language stuff is tough for you, ain't it?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 22, 2008)

maineman said:


> Let me remind you that this is not a court of law... it's an internet message board.  That does not give you the right to make provably false claims, i.e. Kennedy is a murderer.
> 
> Kennedy most certainly caused someone's death.  Bush clearly made statements creating a false impression.
> 
> This english language stuff is tough for you, ain't it?



Yet it is perfectly ok to claim Bush was bumped ahead of a list of people waiting to join the Guard? Nice double standard there. In fact all the claims against Bush are in fact unproven. Yet you and your buddies have no trouble backing them and defending each other when ever it is pointed out you have no evidence.

Last I checked if you kill someone and it was not self defense or defense of someone else, that is a form of murder. Go ahead correct me if I am wrong.

Last I checked Perjury is lying to a Judge under Oath as well. But maybe you have a different "English" definition?


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 22, 2008)

There's no list. If he got bumped, there'd be evidence of it. The Nat'l Guard and the Army in general aren't that good at covering their tracks.

And Mr. English....please capitalize the letter "e" when referring to the "English" language. This will keep me from laughing while cruising through your posts.


----------



## maineman (Jan 22, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Yet it is perfectly ok to claim Bush was bumped ahead of a list of people waiting to join the Guard? Nice double standard there. In fact all the claims against Bush are in fact unproven. Yet you and your buddies have no trouble backing them and defending each other when ever it is pointed out you have no evidence.
> 
> Last I checked if you kill someone and it was not self defense or defense of someone else, that is a form of murder. Go ahead correct me if I am wrong.
> 
> Last I checked Perjury is lying to a Judge under Oath as well. But maybe you have a different "English" definition?



All  I claim is that the former Speaker and Lt. Gov of Texas claimed that Bush was bumped ahead and that he helped make it happen.  I guess you are calling HIM a liar?  

And calling Bush a liar is not calling him a criminal.  Lying isn't a crime. 

But it IS pretty clear that he made a statement that served to convey a false impression.  That is a lie.  There was not absolute certainty about Saddam's WMD's yet he and his administration repeatedly told us there was.

And...When you driving along in your car, under the speed limit....and you hit a patch of black ice and go into a skid and hit another car and the driver of that car dies, did you murder him, or was it an accident?

Last I checked, we were innocent of crimes in American until proven GUILTY of those crimes.  Clinton was not found guilty of the crime of perjury.

But I realize that is all just "semantics" for a moron like you.


----------



## maineman (Jan 22, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> There's no list. If he got bumped, there'd be evidence of it. The Nat'l Guard and the Army in general aren't that good at covering their tracks.
> 
> And Mr. English....please capitalize the letter "e" when referring to the "English" language. This will keep me from laughing while cruising through your posts.



i'll bet the poetry of e.e. cummings makes you pee your granny underpants


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 22, 2008)

e.e. cummings did it on purpose, and not likely while criticizing someone else's English skills.


----------



## maineman (Jan 22, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> e.e. cummings did it on purpose, and not likely while criticizing someone else's English skills.



whatever you say, grandma 

now why not respond to the allegations of former Texas Lt Gov. Roy Barnes or STFU?


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 22, 2008)

"Clinton was not found guilty of the crime of perjury."

Yes, he was.


----------



## maineman (Jan 22, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> "Clinton was not found guilty of the crime of perjury."
> 
> Yes, he was.



no.  he was not.
he was never even broght to court for that crime.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 22, 2008)

And yet he was disbarred....interesting.

A person wonders...how can a person be acquited if there was never a crime?

The loser committed perjury. He got a pass because he was a president in his last term.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 22, 2008)

finebead said:


> Bush was elected before the public figured out how bad they had been lied to about the war in Iraq.


Gore and Kerry put forth the same lies...


----------



## DeadCanDance (Jan 22, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> Gore and Kerry put forth the same lies...




finally, one Honest con, who admits Bush lied. 

I agree that Kerry, Clinton, and some democrats enabled and exaggerted Bush's lies, and are partially culpable for the lies themselves. 

But, I appreciate your honesty, in admitting Bush lied us into war.


----------



## maineman (Jan 22, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> And yet he was disbarred....interesting.
> 
> A person wonders...how can a person be acquited if there was never a crime?
> 
> The loser committed perjury. He got a pass because he was a president in his last term.



he may have lied under oath, but, as I said, he was never found guilty of the CRIME of perjury... nor was he acquited.  He was never even brought to court on that charge where a finding of guilt or acquital could have been rendered.

His disbarrment was an administrative function of the bar association, not a legal function of our courts and criminal justice system.

Understand now, granny?


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 22, 2008)

Another idiotic argument fueled by nothing but lefty hatred.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 22, 2008)

DeadCanDance said:


> finally, one Honest con, who admits Bush lied.


Hardly.
The OBVIOUS point is that if Bush lied, then so too did most of the Democratic party, including their 2000 and 2004 candidates, as well as the likely 2008 mominee.



> I agree that Kerry, Clinton, and some democrats enabled and exaggerted Bush's lies, and are partially culpable for the lies themselves.


Not that this will ever stop you froim voting for them.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 22, 2008)

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_199902/ai_n8850126
Senate acquits President of obstructing justice
Human Events,  Feb 26, 1999  
On February 12, after voting to acquit President Clinton of perjury, the Senate then voted 50 to 50 to clear him of the Article II obstruction of justice allegations.....

and
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/News/ClintonDisbar-011001.htm

Clinton agreed to the Arkansas fine and suspension Jan. 19, the day before he left office, as part of an understanding with Independent Counsel Robert Ray to end the Monica Lewinsky investigation.

The agreement also satisfied the legal effort by the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct to disbar Clinton for giving misleading testimony in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case.

The Supreme Court followed its standard rules in the Clinton case, which include suspending Clinton from practice in the court and giving him 40 day to show why he should not be permanently disbarred.


----------



## maineman (Jan 22, 2008)

so...I am glad you agree that Clinton was never found guilty of the crime of perjury.  can we move on - in a non-metamucel sort of way - grandma?


----------



## Alpha1 (Jan 22, 2008)

maineman said:


> he may have lied under oath, but, as I said, he was never found guilty of the CRIME of perjury... nor was he acquited.  He was never even brought to court on that charge where a finding of guilt or acquital could have been rendered.
> 
> His disbarrment was an administrative function of the bar association, not a legal function of our courts and criminal justice system.
> 
> Understand now, granny?



Yeah, we can move on....after your lesson is finished sonny...
So lets review a little history....

Article I: *Perjury* before the grand jury

Article II: *Perjury* in the Jones case
Article alleges *perjury* in the Paula Jones civil case, charging that the president provided *perjurious, false and misleading testimony* as part of his answers in the affidavit and in his January 17 deposition

Article III: Obstruction of justice
Article alleges obstruction of justice, charging Clinton with encouraging Lewinsky to submit a *false affidavit and give false testimony in court*, plotting to hide his gifts to her and attempting to find Lewinsky a job to prevent her truthful testimony. It also claims Clinton made* false and misleading statements *to key White House staff and allowed his attorney, Bob Bennett to make* false statements about the Lewinsky affidavit.*

Article IV: Abuse of power
Article alleges abuse of power, charging the president with making* misleading statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States, his Cabinet and White House aides.* The last charge also contends Clinton frivolously asserted executive privilege and made* perjurious statements to Congress*

SO;

 never even brought to court on that charge(perjury)?   WRONG Sonny.....
You do recall a little issue called impeachment?

where a finding of guilt or acquital could have been rendered.?? 
WRONG AGAIN Sonny.....



President of the United States Bill Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives on December 19, 1998, and acquitted by the Senate on February 12, 1999. The charges, perjury and obstruction of justice
---------------------------------------------

His disbarrment was an administrative function of the bar association, not a legal function of our courts and criminal justice system.????

More bullshit from the spinner in Chief, mm....


In April 1999, about two months after being acquitted by the Senate, Clinton was cited by Federal District Judge Susan Webber Wright for civil contempt of court for his "willful failure" to obey her repeated orders to testify truthfully in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit. For this citation, Clinton was assessed a $90,000 fine, and the matter was referred to the Arkansas Supreme Court to see if disciplinary action would be appropriate.[6]

Regarding Clinton's January 17, 1998, deposition where he was placed under oath, the judge wrote:

    "Simply put, the president's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false . . . ." 


*Your dismissed, Sonny*


----------



## Shogun (Jan 22, 2008)

I look forward to being this unhinged about former presidents 8 years after bush leaves the white house too.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 22, 2008)

Naw, because you won't find any conservatives willing to go to the ridiculous lengths that Clintonites are willing to go to make things up in order to make their guy look good. Even years after.

We just aren't like that. We keep our eyes on the future. Dems spend a lot of time re-forming the past.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 22, 2008)

Shogun said:


> I look forward to being this unhinged about former presidents 8 years after bush leaves the white house too.



You don't have to wait, the retards have been more unhinged since before he even became President and have spent the last 8 years making false claims. At least when us "right wing extremists" complain about Clinton we have actual PROOF he did what we are complaining about.


----------



## Shogun (Jan 22, 2008)

yea.. nothing says proof like those phantom WMDs, RGS!  Oh the irony.

Like I said, Im glad we have the greelight to bring up the phenomenal clusterfuck that was the run up to invading iraq, say, in 2016!


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 22, 2008)

Find the proof that it wasn't reasonable to believe in their existence. Find proof of lying in order to invade.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 22, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Find the proof that it wasn't reasonable to believe in their existence. Find proof of lying in order to invade.



He can not. I love how Bush lied but all the Democrats that said the EXACT same thing were just "mistaken". How all the worlds Intel services were under the thumb of Karl Rove and did Bush's bidding.


----------



## Shogun (Jan 22, 2008)

I will just as soon ans you find proof that god is not really the flying speghetti monster.  PROVE that dick cheney is NOT the antichrist.  Prove that YOU are not a robot.


Kinda tough to prove a negative, eh?  Thank god that I have all those funny little cirlce and arrow chards that show your side claiming MOBILE WEAPONS LABS for further dead horse kicking in '16.


Thank god our legal system is not manipulated by the same idiotic logic.

Where did this imminent threat go to, Allie?!?






*THE PRESIDENT: We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them.*
http://www.whitehouse.gov/g8/interview5.html


*Iraqi mobile labs nothing to do with germ warfare, report finds*
An official British investigation into two trailers found in northern Iraq has concluded they are not mobile germ warfare labs, as was claimed by Tony Blair and President George Bush, but were for the production of hydrogen to fill artillery balloons, as the Iraqis have continued to insist.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,977916,00.html



2016, HERE WE COME!


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 22, 2008)

Shogun said:


> I will just as soon ans you find proof that god is not really the flying speghetti monster.  PROVE that dick cheney is NOT the antichrist.  Prove that YOU are not a robot.
> 
> 
> Kinda tough to prove a negative, eh?  Thank god that I have all those funny little cirlce and arrow chards that show your side claiming MOBILE WEAPONS LABS for further dead horse kicking in '16.
> ...



No negative to prove dumbshit. Every leading Democrat was of the same opinion as the President. Every world wide Intel agency believed what we believed. Go ahead explain how Bush lied but none of them lied as well retard.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 22, 2008)

Exactly. The criticism isn't that there were no weapons, but that Bush knew and lied to the people about it.


----------



## Shogun (Jan 22, 2008)

HAHA!

no, ma'am.. the criticism will be that he acted as a cheerleader when pushing the cause for war on what amounts to fabricated bullshit and fanatic ignorance.


Which, might I add, has cost this nation exponentially more than witch hunting a blowjob.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 22, 2008)

Changing the goal posts again, Shogun?

Look back in the thread to see what we were actually discussing.


----------



## maineman (Jan 22, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> No negative to prove dumbshit. Every leading Democrat was of the same opinion as the President. Every world wide Intel agency believed what we believed. Go ahead explain how Bush lied but none of them lied as well retard.




asked and answered.

Team Bush's continued proclamations of absolute certainty served to convey a false impression....ergo LIE.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 22, 2008)

Mistakes and lies are two different things.

A lie requires knowledge of the truth, or at least knowledge that what you're saying is untrue.


----------



## maineman (Jan 22, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Exactly. The criticism isn't that there were no weapons, but that Bush knew and lied to the people about it.



absolutely not.  no one is suggesting that Bush KNEW there were no weapons.  I AM suggesting that he KNEW that there was NOT absolute certainty regarding their existence.  THAT is the lie:  the protrayal of absolute certainty when none existed.


----------



## Shogun (Jan 22, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Changing the goal posts again, Shogun?
> 
> Look back in the thread to see what we were actually discussing.



Yes, discussing the presidential blowjob almost a decade AFTER THE FACT.  You know, exactly what I was alluding to.


Say, why do you avoid the golden rule when it doesn't fit your desire to demonize people?


----------



## maineman (Jan 22, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Mistakes and lies are two different things.
> 
> A lie requires knowledge of the truth, or at least knowledge that what you're saying is untrue.



He KNEW there was not absolute certainty...there is no mistake there.  Every analyst has said that ALL of the intell surrounding Iraqi WMD's came laden with caveats and qualifiers.... there was doubt...there was uncertainty.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 22, 2008)

In which case, he wasn't really lying. Just using current information to forward his agenda.

Wow. If that were a crime, everyone would be in jail.


----------



## Shogun (Jan 22, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Mistakes and lies are two different things.
> 
> A lie requires knowledge of the truth, or at least knowledge that what you're saying is untrue.



ANd, of course, YOU know for a fact that Busdh was mistaken instead of a bald faced liar!

Gosh, considering your other abilities in parsing motivation you sure are a beacon of light, lemme tellya.


----------



## maineman (Jan 22, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> In which case, he wasn't really lying. Just using current information to forward his agenda.
> 
> Wow. If that were a crime, everyone would be in jail.



bullshit.  he claimed certainty. none existed.  ergo:  lie.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 22, 2008)

Pretty hard to prove, though, isn't it?

If he was certain at the time, that's not a lie.


----------



## Shogun (Jan 22, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> In which case, he wasn't really lying. Just using current information to forward his agenda.
> 
> Wow. If that were a crime, everyone would be in jail.



HA!

watch the spin..

Hey, develop a thick skin, Allie...  if the Clinton blowjob is any indication we'll be bringing this shit up for another, say, 8 years!


----------



## Shogun (Jan 22, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Pretty hard to prove, though, isn't it?
> 
> If he was certain at the time, that's not a lie.



How many Quotes do you want that are words from his own mouth that states the CERTAINLY of WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION as an IMMINENT THREAT, allie?


For real.. You might as well insist that Strom Thurman was only working with available knowledge when fillibustering civil rights legislation.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 22, 2008)

You guys never get tired of bringing up lies that might make you all look better than the truth...


----------



## Shogun (Jan 22, 2008)

Gee.. we probably DONT say the same thing about your side when the eternal cycle of dick morris penis envy comes around and we find ourselves back on the clinton blowjob topic again.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 22, 2008)

And yet your side is the side that so enjoys bringing it up.


----------



## maineman (Jan 22, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Pretty hard to prove, though, isn't it?
> 
> If he was certain at the time, that's not a lie.



He KNEW there was no certainty, because all of the intelligence concerning Iraq's WMD's CAME with uncertainty attached.

geez...quit being so purposefully obtuse.


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Jan 22, 2008)

Shogun said:


> How many Quotes do you want that are words from his own mouth that states the CERTAINLY of WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION as an IMMINENT THREAT, allie?
> 
> 
> For real.. You might as well insist that Strom Thurman was only working with available knowledge when fillibustering civil rights legislation.



Just one would do, where he claimed absolute certainty. Which, by the way, we didnt need to justify our taking out Saddam.

I think you may have misconstrued some of the more famous quotes, like 
"Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price. " as to what that means, and also:

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." 

I suppose one could construe the statement above as saying "with absolute certainty" was implied, but no where does it say "with absolute certainty"


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 22, 2008)

Once again, claiming absolute certainty, and then being proven wrong is not perpetuating a lie. I can be absolutely certain it's going to be cold today. If it isn't, was I lying?


----------



## maineman (Jan 22, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Once again, claiming absolute certainty, and then being proven wrong is not perpetuating a lie. I can be absolutely certain it's going to be cold today. If it isn't, was I lying?



Of course you were.  It is impossible to predict weather with absolute certainty.  To claim absolute certainty about something that you are not absolutely certain of is a lie.... it conveys the false impression that you have absolute certainty which you do not.

Bush KNEW there was not absolute certainty, yet he and his team portrayed it as such...they conveyed the impression to the American people that there was absolutely no doubt as to the stockpiles of WMD's in Saddam's possession.  That was a lie.  When you combine that lie with the false implications told by Cheney and others that Saddam had been in cahoots with the very guy who led the 9/11 attacks months before 9/11, you create in the average American the presumption that Saddam could very well give those WMD's THAT WE WERE ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN HE HAD, to Al Qaeda, who our Vice President and others had connected to Iraq in a nefarious way going back to even before the 9/11 attacks.  That presumption fueled the public support for Bush's immediate invasion, conquest and occupation.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 22, 2008)

And you know he knew...how?

And it still isn't a lie to be incorrect about something. Unless you know you're incorrect and make the claim anyway.


----------



## maineman (Jan 22, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> And you know he knew...how?
> 
> And it still isn't a lie to be incorrect about something. Unless you know you're incorrect and make the claim anyway.



To suggest he did not know that there were caveats and qualifiers attached to intelligence summaries about Iraqi WMD's is to suggest that he did not know how to READ.

Is that your position?


----------



## maineman (Jan 22, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> And you know he knew...how?
> 
> And it still isn't a lie to be incorrect about something. Unless you know you're incorrect and make the claim anyway.




and again (and again and again and again!)  the LIE is not the claim that Saddam had WMD's...the LIE is the claim that there was NO DOUBT that he had WMD's.

You cannot be this thick...it has to be an act, so please stop it.


----------



## maineman (Jan 22, 2008)

LuvRPgrl said:


> Just one would do, where he claimed absolute certainty. Which, by the way, we didnt need to justify our taking out Saddam.
> 
> I think you may have misconstrued some of the more famous quotes, like
> "Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price. " as to what that means, and also:
> ...



a good read.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0804-11.htm


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 22, 2008)

And AGAIN...the concept that there was no doubt was a misconception.

Not a lie.

Are you this dense?


----------



## maineman (Jan 22, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> And AGAIN...the concept that there was no doubt was a misconception.
> 
> Not a lie.
> 
> Are you this dense?



whose misconception?  

the analysts gave Bush documents which contained doubts.  He turned around and claimed there were NO doubts.  LIE.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 22, 2008)

He had no doubt, despite what he had. Not a lie.


----------



## Shogun (Jan 22, 2008)

LuvRPgrl said:


> Just one would do, where he claimed absolute certainty. Which, by the way, we didnt need to justify our taking out *Saddam.
> 
> I think you may have misconstrued some of the more famous quotes, like
> "Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price. " as to what that means, and also:
> ...


*



 In 1991, the Iraqi regime agreed to destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, and to prove to the world it has done so by complying with rigorous inspections. Iraq has broken every aspect of this fundamental pledge.*

*From 1991 to 1995, the Iraqi regime said it had no biological weapons. After a senior official in its weapons program defected and exposed this lie, the regime admitted to producing tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents for use with Scud warheads, aerial bombs, and aircraft spray tanks.* U.N. inspectors believe Iraq has produced two to four times the amount of biological agents it declared, and has failed to account for more than three metric tons of material that could be used to produce biological weapons. *Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons. *


*Today, Iraq continues to withhold important information about its nuclear program -- weapons design, procurement logs, experiment data, an accounting of nuclear materials and documentation of foreign assistance. Iraq employs capable nuclear scientists and technicians. It retains physical infrastructure needed to build a nuclear weapon. Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year. And Iraq's state-controlled media has reported numerous meetings between Saddam Hussein and his nuclear scientists, leaving little doubt about his continued appetite for these weapons.*

*
We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in his country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left? The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take.*

*Delegates to the General Assembly, we have been more than patient. We've tried sanctions. We've tried the carrot of oil for food, and the stick of coalition military strikes. But Saddam Hussein has defied all these efforts and continues to develop weapons of mass destruction. The first time we may be completely certain he has a -- nuclear weapons is when, God forbids, he uses one. We owe it to all our citizens to do everything in our power to prevent that day from coming.*

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html


*
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.*

*The danger is clear*: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.

*Recognizing the threat to our country*, the United States Congress voted overwhelmingly last year to support the use of force against Iraq

*Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed. And it will not disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power.*
*
It is too late for Saddam Hussein to remain in power. It is not too late for the Iraqi military to act with honor and protect your country by permitting the peaceful entry of coalition forces to eliminate weapons of mass destruction*
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html

 Q Sir, in honor of your guest, I'll ask it in Australian, if that's all right. (Laughter.) Is there a possibility that you may never find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? And how would that square with your rationale for going to war?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes -- the question is about weapons of mass destruction. *Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. The United States -- United Nations Security Council voted 1441, which made the declaration it had weapons of mass destruction. It's well-known it had weapons of mass destruction. And we've also got to recognize that he spent 14 years hiding weapons of mass destruction. I mean, he spent an entire decade making sure that inspectors would never find them. Iraq's the size of the state of California. It's got tunnels, caves, all kinds of complexes. We'll find them. And it's just going to be a matter of time to do so. *

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030503-1.html


*
Second, we have arrived at an important moment in confronting the threat posed to our nation and to peace by Saddam Hussein and his weapons of terror. In New York tomorrow, the United Nations Security Council will receive an update from the chief weapons inspector. The world needs him to answer a single question: Has the Iraqi regime fully and unconditionally disarmed, as required by Resolution 1441, or has it not?*


* Iraqi operatives continue to hide biological and chemical agents to avoid detection by inspectors. In some cases, these materials have been moved to different locations every 12 to 24 hours, or placed in vehicles that are in residential neighborhoods.*

*Saddam Hussein's response is to produce a few weapons for show, while he hides the rest and builds even more.*

*Saddam Hussein has a long history of reckless aggression and terrible crimes. He possesses weapons of terror.*

*The attacks of September the 11th, 2001 showed what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with weapons of mass destruction.*

 Q Let me see if I can further -- if you could further define what you just called this important moment we're in, since you've made it clear just now that you don't think Saddam has disarmed, and we have a quarter million troops in the Persian Gulf, and now that you've called on the world to be ready to use force as a last resort. Are we just days away from the point of which you decide whether or not we go to war? And what harm would it do to give Saddam a final ultimatum? A two- or three-day deadline to disarm or face force?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, we're still in the final stages of diplomacy. *I'm spending a lot of time on the phone, talking to fellow leaders about the need for the United Nations Security Council to state the facts, which is Saddam Hussein hasn't disarmed.* Fourteen forty-one, the Security Council resolution passed unanimously last fall, said clearly that Saddam Hussein has one last chance to disarm. *He hasn't disarmed.* And so we're working with Security Council members to resolve this issue at the Security Council. 

Iraq is a part of the war on terror. Iraq is a country that has got terrorist ties. It's a country with wealth. It's a country that trains terrorists, a country that could arm terrorists. *And our fellow Americans must understand in this new war against terror, that we not only must chase down al Qaeda terrorists, we must deal with weapons of mass destruction, as well.*

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030306-8.html




Would you like quotes from the cabinet too?  Ole Don said some awfully stupid things, yes?  Would you like to explain how the above was not cheerleading to the iraq war ON THE CLAIM OF IRAQI WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 22, 2008)

And yet none of what he said was a lie, imagine that.


----------



## Shogun (Jan 22, 2008)

yea.. because claiming that Saddam had WMDs and was an actual threat WASNT A LIE!


fuckoff, dickwad, unless you have something to add.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 22, 2008)

Shogun said:


> yea.. because claiming that Saddam had WMDs and was an actual threat WASNT A LIE!
> 
> 
> fuckoff, dickwad, unless you have something to add.



Once again for the truly IGNORANT. In order for what Bush said before the Invasion in regards WMD's to have been a lie, then a HOST of powerful leading Democrats also are liars, all the Intelligence Agencies of the World are liars.

Further I suggest you pull your head out of your ass and read what was said. Iraq was a threat, not because Bush claimed tomorrow they would attack us, but because left in power he would eventually attack us. Bush did not claim Iraq was an imminent threat, he said he was not going to wait until it was.


----------



## Shogun (Jan 22, 2008)

And i'd throw every single fucking dem under the bus who voted for war so I guess your blame the dems strawman really isn't all that impressive after all, eh shit for brains?

I QUOTED the fucking mans very own words.  You can take your half assed interpretations of these uncomfortable hindsight quotes and have a nice glass of prove me the fuck wrong.  OR, you can sit there like a feeble waste of retirement benefits and chatter on until your falsies fall out of your fucking mouth. Read what i've posted again, dupshit.  You'll find "imminent threat", Weapons of MASS Destruction" and "Chemo and Bio weapons".  Don't blame me if your bifocals are crusted over with liquid stupidity.


----------



## maineman (Jan 22, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> And yet none of what he said was a lie, imagine that.



of course it was.

When Team Bush said there was no doubt that Saddam had WMD's, that was a lie.  There WAS doubt.... lots and lots of analysts had doubts and had delivered those doubts to the president in every single bit of intelligence he ever got on Iraqi WMD's.  They have repeatedly told us that.  Even the DCI has said that everything came laden with caveats and qualifiers.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 22, 2008)

You can't make an argument against people who change the meanings of words to suit themselves.


----------



## maineman (Jan 22, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> He had no doubt, despite what he had. Not a lie.



Ah...but the speeches were made, by team Bush did not say "_*I *_have no doubt"...they said "*THERE* is no doubt".  BIG difference, eh?  The doubt was there.  LIE


----------



## maineman (Jan 22, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> You can't make an argument against people who change the meanings of words to suit themselves.



Funny....I was thinking the exact same thing about YOUR dumb ass!


----------



## maineman (Jan 22, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> You can't make an argument against people who change the meanings of words to suit themselves.



Funny....I was thinking the exact same thing about YOUR dumb ass!  

but PLEASE..what word have I changed the meaning of?


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 22, 2008)

I don't think anybody, anywhere, has ever tried before to make the argument that the statement "there is no doubt" is in and of itself, a statement of fact, moron.

It's a statement of opinion.

If he had said, "We know where they are and we've seen them" when he DIDN'T know where they were, and knew that they HADN'T been seen, that would be a lie.

Get it yet?

The thing is, truth is so flexible to the left that they can't even describe it, let alone determine whether or not others are lying.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 22, 2008)

hhhhmmmmmm...."there is no doubt" seems a pretty definitive statement to me..


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 22, 2008)

Finish the sentence.
"There is no doubt in my mind."

Then prove there was a doubt in his mind, and he made the statement.
It can't be done; hence the argument that he was telling a lie is a huge waste of time.


----------



## Shogun (Jan 22, 2008)

HA!

yea, Mainman.. the *TRUTH IS SO FLEXIBLE* that no one has EVER lied!


What a crock of shit.


I've quoted the man's own words from a solid source.  If you ignorant bastards want to get litigious this side of absolutely NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION OR EVIDENCE THAT SADDAM WAS ANY KIND OF IMMEDIATE THREAT then go ahead and paint stupid on your own forehead.



No matter how much you flounder like a fish on a hook, THIS is your 00 and 04 legacy which, consequently, is why you lost in 06 and will lose in 08.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 22, 2008)

There ya go. Claim victory, despite the impressive (and obvious) inability of the left to prove what is, essentially, non-provable.


----------



## Shogun (Jan 22, 2008)

So far, Im the only one to post evidence of my accusation.  Id say that's a lot more EVIDENCE and PROOF than you nipping at my heals.


I say it again.. CLAIMING that I haven't proved my point, when Im the ONLY one to post evidence, wont make it so.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 22, 2008)

It's not just proving the record, it's looking at the man himself over a period of time. He had no doubt - therefore he must have had irrefutable proof. If so, where are they? If not, he lied. Simple.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 22, 2008)

Dr Grump said:


> It's not just proving the record, it's looking at the man himself over a period of time. He had no doubt - therefore he must have had irrefutable proof. If so, where are they? If not, he lied. Simple.



Simple alright, simply not true. Again, if Bush lied so did Clinton, Hillary and most of Clintons white house. All the Intel agencies in the world all were liars as well. Almost every Democratic leader in Congress at the time of the vote and before were all liars as well. Even the Un were liars.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 22, 2008)

Dr Grump said:


> It's not just proving the record, it's looking at the man himself over a period of time. He had no doubt - therefore he must have had irrefutable proof. If so, where are they? If not, he lied. Simple.



No, that doesn't wash. A person doesn't have to have irrefutable proof to be without doubt.

I have absolutely no doubt that God exists and looks over me. Am I liar because other people don't believe?

Hardly.


----------



## Shogun (Jan 22, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> No, that doesn't wash. A person doesn't have to have irrefutable proof to be without doubt.
> 
> I have absolutely no doubt that God exists and looks over me. Am I liar because other people don't believe?
> 
> Hardly.



HAHAHA!

I think you answered your own question.

 


When it comes time for WAR then, yes, a president probably needs more EVIDENCE than your standard christian faith.


Like I said.. IVE quoted the man.  You silly bastards can wallow in your Suspended Disbelief as much as you want to.  Trying to save political face won't land you the white house in 08.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 22, 2008)

Whether or not he said it, it doesn't matter. It's the meaning of the comment, and whether or not being without a doubt about something is the same as saying "I have irrefutable proof".

It's not.

We're back to certain people having difficulty with the English language.


----------



## Alpha1 (Jan 22, 2008)

maineman said:


> He KNEW there was not absolute certainty...there is no mistake there.  Every analyst has said that ALL of the intell surrounding Iraqi WMD's came laden with caveats and qualifiers.... there was doubt...there was uncertainty.



If HE said it was what he believed with certainty, who the fuck are you to tell him he believed something else....ALL the intell was laden with caveats and qualifiers....so what....and how the hell did you get to read ALL the intell...ours and intell coming from all over the world concerning this subject....intell covering years and years.....
You're just full of shit..Bush hate...and your own ugly opinions....


If you make this stupid claim week after week, year after year for maybe 7 or 8 years,  are you making a mistake, a liar or just extremely stupid....

 Originally Posted by maineman View Post
he may have lied under oath, but, as I said, he was never found guilty of the CRIME of perjury... *nor was he acquited. He was never even brought to court on that charge where a finding of guilt or acquital could have been rendered.*

He MAY have lied under oath?....HE MAY HAVE ?  HE FUCKIN ADMITTED HE LIED....

He was never brought to court on that charge?? READ the Articles of Impeachment, idiot.....

He was never acquitted of perjury?...THE FULL SENATE VOTED ON THE CHARGES.....

So i can't be a lie or a mistake, to repeat the nonsense for years, stupid is the only answer left.....


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 22, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> No, that doesn't wash. A person doesn't have to have irrefutable proof to be without doubt.
> 
> I have absolutely no doubt that God exists and looks over me. Am I liar because other people don't believe?
> 
> Hardly.



Your argument is fallable. Your example demands faith not proof. WMDs are tangible, solid objects that can be seen to be - a god can't. Try again...


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 22, 2008)

Shogun said:


> HAHAHA!
> 
> I think you answered your own question.
> 
> ...



And we have quoted all the democrats that said EXACTLY the same thing, making them all liars as well, RIGHT? Making all the intel agencies around the world liars also? Making the UN liars for running a program when they knew no weapons existed?


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 22, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Whether or not he said it, it doesn't matter. It's the meaning of the comment, and whether or not being without a doubt about something is the same as saying "I have irrefutable proof".
> 
> It's not.
> 
> We're back to certain people having difficulty with the English language.




It seems you are the one with the English language. Of course it's the same as irrefutable proof. If he doesn't have irrefutable proof, then he must have had some doubt. We have proven that he said he had NO doubt..go figure..


----------



## Alpha1 (Jan 22, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> No, that doesn't wash. A person doesn't have to have irrefutable proof to be without doubt.
> 
> I have absolutely no doubt that God exists and looks over me. Am I liar because other people don't believe?
> 
> Hardly.


  Simple....to the point...and explained plainly enough that even a moron like mm should be able to understand....


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 22, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Simple alright, simply not true. Again, if Bush lied so did Clinton, Hillary and most of Clintons white house. All the Intel agencies in the world all were liars as well. Almost every Democratic leader in Congress at the time of the vote and before were all liars as well. Even the Un were liars.




Didn't know the Clinton's invaded Iraq....

Um. and it wasn't ALL the intel agencies...they were all using the same evidence..all it took was the US to say yes to it and everybody believed it. There was no cross checking...in a day and age where satellites can read car number plates, I'm sure they would have been easy to spot. And will all that "intel" I'm sure the WMDs were easily found - whoops, oh, that's right, they weren't...


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 22, 2008)

Dr Grump said:


> Didn't know the Clinton's invaded Iraq....



They STATED as Bush did that Iraq had weapons, that Iraq was a threat, that they knew without a doubt Iraq was building more, try again dumb shit.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 22, 2008)

Alpha1 said:


> Simple....to the point...and explained plainly enough that even a moron like mm should be able to understand....



Trust you to like the answer - one of the worst examples trying to prove a point I've seen in a long time...


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 22, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> They STATED as Bush did that Iraq had weapons, that Iraq was a threat, that they knew without a doubt Iraq was building more, try again dumb shit.



Sure, and they were so sure they invaded fuckface....


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 22, 2008)

Dr Grump said:


> Trust you to like the answer - one of the worst examples trying to prove a point I've seen in a long time...



No the worst would be you claiming that because Bush , with the help and agreement of Congress starting a war is proof he lied and somehow excuses the exact same words from all the Democrats and people around the world, that would be the worst example.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 22, 2008)

Dr Grump said:


> Sure, and they were so sure they invaded fuckface....



Totally beside the point, but while we ARE on the subject, THEY were so sure they VOTED to authorize Bush to invade. Pelosi, Reid, Kerry, Clinton, the names go on. Bill Clinton spoke before the Invasion in support of the president, as did Gore, Albright and other members of the Clinton White House. They have been quoted numerous times on this board.


----------



## Alpha1 (Jan 22, 2008)

A person doesn't have to have irrefutable proof to be without doubt.


That is the plain truth of the entire matter.....This truth is irrefutable !


----------



## Shogun (Jan 22, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> And we have quoted all the democrats that said EXACTLY the same thing, making them all liars as well, RIGHT? Making all the intel agencies around the world liars also? Making the UN liars for running a program when they knew no weapons existed?



And, I've told you already you geriatric colostomy bag, I'd get rid of every democrat that voted for war.  Do I need to send over a nurse with a cup of pills and some geritol to make that any clearer?

INTEL?  oh, you mean the INTEL that worked INTO the wardrum march or the evidence that DIDNT fall into line, eh joe wilson?  

Read the transcript of the UN address.  It was the influence of bush's "you are with us or against us" semi-threat that prodded 1441.  Otherwise, pussies like you would never have had a reason to hate Frnace for damn near 4 years with your lame ass freedom fries schtick.

Hey, feel free to post evidence otherwise, you old fool.  I can return the shit talking with an extra scoop if thats all you want to achieve here.


----------



## Shogun (Jan 22, 2008)

Alpha1 said:


> Simple....to the point...and explained plainly enough that even a moron like mm should be able to understand....



or even a pinhead like alpha1 to believe!


I bet you don't split hairs when your  babysitter says they are going to, without a doubt, not dangle your child over the balcony.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 22, 2008)

Alpha1 said:


> A person doesn't have to have irrefutable proof to be without doubt.
> 
> 
> That is the plain truth of the entire matter.....This truth is irrefutable !



I disagree. I would never say I have no doubt about something unless I had irrefutable proof because I'd look like a real plonker if my "no doubt" attitude didn't turn out to be so...And guess what Bush looks like now (not that he didn't look like that in the past anyway!)


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 22, 2008)

Shogun said:


> And, I've told you already you geriatric colostomy bag, I'd get rid of every democrat that voted for war.  Do I need to send over a nurse with a cup of pills and some geritol to make that any clearer?
> 
> INTEL?  oh, you mean the INTEL that worked INTO the wardrum march or the evidence that DIDNT fall into line, eh joe wilson?
> 
> ...



The only senile moron here is you. Once again if Bush lied so did a hell of a lot of other people.

Ohh and I was not aware that the US controlled all those other Countries intel agencies. What secret crystal ball do you have that tells you that?


----------



## Shogun (Jan 22, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> And we have quoted all the democrats that said EXACTLY the same thing, making them all liars as well, RIGHT? Making all the intel agencies around the world liars also? Making the UN liars for running a program when they knew no weapons existed?




Liars? no.  Ignorant fools who were led to war like a sheep running from a shelty? yes.  

HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT ID GET RID OF EVERY DEMOCRAT THAT VOTED FOR WAR?


jesus fucking christ.  is this your mantra today?  Doyou really think that EVERYONE has the same lapdog dedication to political party that you do?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 22, 2008)

Shogun said:


> Liars? no.  Ignorant fools who were led to war like a sheep running from a shelty? yes.
> 
> HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT ID GET RID OF EVERY DEMOCRAT THAT VOTED FOR WAR?
> 
> ...



So Bush lied, but the others were just "mistaken"? And I assume then that if Hillary gets the nomination for President you won't be voting for her?


----------



## Shogun (Jan 22, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Totally beside the point, but while we ARE on the subject, THEY were so sure they VOTED to authorize Bush to invade. Pelosi, Reid, Kerry, Clinton, the names go on. Bill Clinton spoke before the Invasion in support of the president, as did Gore, Albright and other members of the Clinton White House. They have been quoted numerous times on this board.



BILL clinton said as much in the 90s when intel was relevant.  Quote him saying as much in the run up to the iraq war and then remind me what his relevant status is to voting for war.

and AGAIN, dipship, say it with me:

"I WOULD ALSO GET RID OF EVERY DEM THAT VOTED FOR WAR"


maybe the nurse can help you mouth out the syllables.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 22, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> So Bush lied, but the others were just "mistaken"? And I assume then that if Hillary gets the nomination for President you won't be voting for her?



Bush's intel was more current and he had access to it. The others followed what he said because they believed him. He actually SAW the intel, right? Did the others who voted for it see the ACTUAL briefings??


----------



## Shogun (Jan 22, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> The only senile moron here is you. Once again if Bush lied so did a hell of a lot of other people.
> 
> Ohh and I was not aware that the US controlled all those other Countries intel agencies. What secret crystal ball do you have that tells you that?



No, BUSH lied and the rest of congress were mislead by the patchwork intel that the administration provided.  It's just like his post-UN claim that 1441 claimed that iraq had WMDs... DESPITE HIS ENTIRE FUCKING UN SPEACH.


indeed, you braindead waste, it sure is smart to insinuate that the US didn't hve any influence over the nations who DID jump when he said hop, isnt it?  Would you like me to pick out his responses to those who refused to hop on board or is it almost nappy time?  I mean, i'd hate to make you miss Matlock just to read quotes from your presidential hero.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 22, 2008)

Dr Grump said:


> Bush's intel was more current and he had access to it. The others followed what he said because they believed him. He actually SAW the intel, right? Did the others who voted for it see the ACTUAL briefings??



Let me remind you that ALL US congress members in both houses have access to the same and if they want different intel reports the President has. The President can not control the information they receive in anyway shape or form.

So not only did they have access to the same reports, briefings and pictures, they could ask for more and different takes on it.


----------



## Shogun (Jan 22, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> So Bush lied, but the others were just "mistaken"? And I assume then that if Hillary gets the nomination for President you won't be voting for her?



No, IM voting for Barak or Ron Paul you dumb son of a bitch.  Is ther anything else you'd like to assume before Rick the orderly reminds you of sponge bath time?

And, since everyone else had LIMITED ACCESS TO THE EVIDENCE I guess you'll have to admit that, yes, the rest of them were MISLEAD by your asshole in chief.


Shit, did you get apple sauce on your shirt while reading that?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 22, 2008)

Shogun said:


> No, BUSH lied and the rest of congress were mislead by the patchwork intel that the administration provided.  It's just like his post-UN claim that 1441 claimed that iraq had WMDs... DESPITE HIS ENTIRE FUCKING UN SPEACH.
> 
> 
> indeed, you braindead waste, it sure is smart to insinuate that the US didn't hve any influence over the nations who DID jump when he said hop, isnt it?  Would you like me to pick out his responses to those who refused to hop on board or is it almost nappy time?  I mean, i'd hate to make you miss Matlock just to read quotes from your presidential hero.



Your a moron, you do not even know how our Government works. Congress is not limited to what the President tlls them, they can and do ask for independent briefs, independent analysis and reports from other sources.

Now if it is your claim that all the leaders of the Democratic party chose to NOT avail themselves of that information, then prey tell why would you be happy they now run our Congress?

Further your claim that the US could brow beat other countries into lying for us is retarded on its face, that worked real well at getting a UN resolution passed now didn't it retard.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 22, 2008)

Shogun said:


> No, IM voting for Barak or Ron Paul you dumb son of a bitch.  Is ther anything else you'd like to assume before Rick the orderly reminds you of sponge bath time?
> 
> And, since everyone else had LIMITED ACCESS TO THE EVIDENCE I guess you'll have to admit that, yes, the rest of them were MISLEAD by your asshole in chief.
> 
> ...



Hey dumb shit, Congress does not have "limited" access. Perhaps you should go take a few classes on how our Government actually works. You might have enough functioning brain cells left to retain some of the knowledge.


----------



## Shogun (Jan 22, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Hey dumb shit, Congress does not have "limited" access. Perhaps you should go take a few classes on how our Government actually works. You might have enough functioning brain cells left to retain some of the knowledge.



I tell you what.. you go have your sponge bath by rich the orderly and think about how stupid you are when senility clouds your memory of a mere few years ago.  I'll be over here laughing at your impending 08 failure based much on the hindsight of your asshole president.


----------



## DeadCanDance (Jan 22, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Hey dumb shit, Congress does not have "limited" access. Perhaps you should go take a few classes on how our Government actually works. You might have enough functioning brain cells left to retain some of the knowledge.




Wrong, as usual:




> *"Report: Bush Had More Prewar Intelligence Than Congress"*
> 
> By Dafna Linzer
> Washington Post Staff Writer
> ...


----------



## maineman (Jan 22, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Finish the sentence.
> "There is no doubt in my mind."
> 
> Then prove there was a doubt in his mind, and he made the statement.
> It can't be done; hence the argument that he was telling a lie is a huge waste of time.



he didn't say, in MY mind, however.  He said, there is no doubt that Saddam has WMD's. There WAS doubt.  It was in every intell report the administration ever got (except for the one from Feith, of course)


----------



## maineman (Jan 22, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> And we have quoted all the democrats that said EXACTLY the same thing, making them all liars as well, RIGHT? Making all the intel agencies around the world liars also? Making the UN liars for running a program when they knew no weapons existed?



no.  the deomcrats did not say exactly the same thing..and NONE of the democrats ordered our troops into battle on the basis of any of that.


----------



## maineman (Jan 22, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> So Bush lied, but the others were just "mistaken"? And I assume then that if Hillary gets the nomination for President you won't be voting for her?



The Bush administration's repeated expressions of absolute certainty are the essence of the lie.  why do you keep running away from that.  Out of all those democratic quotes you all keep dragging up, only one expresses any sort of absolute certainty about Saddam's WMD's.


----------



## maineman (Jan 22, 2008)

Alpha1 said:


> A person doesn't have to have irrefutable proof to be without doubt.
> 
> 
> That is the plain truth of the entire matter.....This truth is irrefutable !



And if they had said "I have no doubt", that would be one thing.

They said "There is no doubt"....and, in fact, there was.  LIE.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 22, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> The story is full of opinion not fact. And that is the whole problem, you think if an OPINION you like is presented it turns into fact.



Opinion when you disagree, fact when you agree RGS? I was confused by the fact that both were reputable news sources, but since it was critical of the administration and *PROVED YOU WRONG*, you cannot accept them...and so you try and dicredit them by calling them opinion.

Face it, *BUSH *Lied and people died.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 22, 2008)

It's a common phrase, and doesn't mean anything like you wish it did.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 22, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> So Bush lied, but the others were just "mistaken"? And I assume then that if Hillary gets the nomination for President you won't be voting for her?



Are you trying to blame Congress for being duped by Bush and his administration when it has been proven that they fixed the intelligence in order to make a case for war?

Bush lied to Congress, the UN and the American people, and that lie caused the death and destruction of countless lives here and abroad.

I do believe that is an impeachable offense.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 22, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> All are just fine, how about yours? My VA benefits have gone up every year, something I can not say happened every year under Clinton. My wife's income is fine she has had a job the whole time. As for the rest we never had any problems with those things to begin with and still do not.



Oh, so the cost of living is not too high? No recession or inflationary prices in your area? How is the housing market? Do you pay property taxes? Income taxes? Payroll taxes? You have absolutely no problems with society under Bush?

You are either lying or delusional.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 22, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Convenient isn't it? No evidence to back up your bullshit claim, yet it is still true according to you. Remind me again how courts work and how evidence and such applies?
> 
> Ohh ya provide us with a list of all these people that claimed such a list existed.
> 
> Kennedy never killed anyone but Bush lied. Gotta ya. Partisan hack indeed.



Pot calling the kettle black RGS.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 22, 2008)

Taomon said:


> Are you trying to blame Congress for being duped by Bush and his administration when it has been proven that they fixed the intelligence in order to make a case for war?
> 
> Bush lied to Congress, the UN and the American people, and that lie caused the death and destruction of countless lives here and abroad.
> 
> I do believe that is an impeachable offense.



Simply not true, you and the left can make that claim all you want, THAT is the only lie. The president does NOT control what Congress has access to.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 22, 2008)

Taomon said:


> Are you trying to blame Congress for being duped by Bush and his administration when it has been proven that they fixed the intelligence in order to make a case for war?
> 
> Bush lied to Congress, the UN and the American people, and that lie caused the death and destruction of countless lives here and abroad.
> 
> I do believe that is an impeachable offense.



Actually, except for lying to Congress, it's not impeachable or none of our presidents would have served out a single term.

So I'd say at this point that Bush probably hasn't lied to Congress. Or if he has, nobody has caught him.

Lying to the UN and the American People?
Don't make me laugh. Too late! Ha ha ha ha ha ha.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 22, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> There's no list. If he got bumped, there'd be evidence of it. The Nat'l Guard and the Army in general aren't that good at covering their tracks.
> 
> And Mr. English....please capitalize the letter "e" when referring to the "English" language. This will keep me from laughing while cruising through your posts.



Actually, he was pushed ahead of the waiting list...and the champagne corps as the Texas Air National Guard was called, had a long waiting list of rich boys who did not want to see combat.

The problem posed by proving these facts is that the one witness to Bush's inept time in the TANG - who is willing to speak out - is dead.

Dan Rather was demonized for reporting on the story - even though he is an anchor and the fact checkers and writers were more to blame. 

Since Bush took office we have witnessed an assault on truth, and assault on checks & balances, and assault on civil liberties and an assault on common sense. The Bush Administration, the Pentagon and the Intelligence Community has teamed up with marketing firms to not only present a slick package for every lie and deceitful maneuver, but to cover up what ever truth is available.

And you demand that we present facts and evidence in order for you to pooh-pooh them smugly...all the while you refuse to back up any claims that you make.

RGS, the majority of the country is in a recession. Since 9/11 I have had 12 jobs. Although I am working with a great company now, the same is not true for most Americans.

There is no job security. Unions have been weakened. Wages are stagnant or dropping while the cost of living is going up.

Healthcare costs are rising and employers no longer have to provide coverage or foot any of the bill at all. There is a very large portion of the population that work as temps and contractors. Not exactly steady or dependable work.

Our food is too expensive and laden with preservatives, hormones, and other additives that make us weak and sickly. The medicines are advertised to us now and those all have worse side effects than what they claim to cure.

Where do you live because I want to move over that way myself if life is so friggin sunny.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 22, 2008)

Dan Rather wasn't demonized for "reporting" the story. He was demonized for pretending there was evidence when in fact, no evidence existed. At the very least, slipshod reporting. At the worst, a criminal offense.

Given his history he's lucky he just lost his job.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 22, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Simply not true, you and the left can make that claim all you want, THAT is the only lie. The president does NOT control what Congress has access to.



Oh, so when the president's inner circle fixed the intel to make it look as though Saddam Hussein was a threat and made the case for war, it was Congress's fault for not researching the intel further.

So I can lie to Congress and that is okay, it is their duty to investigate further and prove me wrong? So Clinton did not commit a crime?


----------



## Annie (Jan 22, 2008)

Taomon said:


> Oh, so when the president's inner circle fixed the intel to make it look as though Saddam Hussein was a threat and made the case for war, it was Congress's fault for not researching the intel further.
> 
> So I can lie to Congress and that is okay, it is their duty to investigate further and prove me wrong? So Clinton did not commit a crime?



Sort of along the lines of reading the bills they are voting on...


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 22, 2008)

It depends on whether or not your lies are orchestrated to the objective of obstructing justice.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 22, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Actually, except for lying to Congress, it's not impeachable or none of our presidents would have served out a single term.
> 
> So I'd say at this point that Bush probably hasn't lied to Congress. Or if he has, nobody has caught him.
> 
> ...



You scoff at the UN, and it was our aggression during the Reagan years that weakened it. Why is that a good thing? Are we supposed to be a rogue state? Doesn't that make America an empire rather than a Democracy?

And lying to the masses is not without dangers. Should we rise against the state, the state would be powerless to stop us.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 22, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Dan Rather wasn't demonized for "reporting" the story. He was demonized for pretending there was evidence when in fact, no evidence existed. At the very least, slipshod reporting. At the worst, a criminal offense.
> 
> Given his history he's lucky he just lost his job.



He was a news caster. He was reading a teleprompter. He was reporting the story.

Bush lied to Congress, he is lucky that Nancy Pelosi is a friggin sell out bitch.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 22, 2008)

We don't belong to the United Nations of the United Nations first, and exist as our own country second. We are first, Americans. And no, we don't answer to the United Thug Nations.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 22, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> Sort of along the lines of reading the bills they are voting on...



So the President is allowed to lie to Congress? Do you feel the same way about Bill Clinton?


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 22, 2008)

Taomon said:


> He was a news caster. He was reading a teleprompter. He was reporting the story.
> 
> Bush lied to Congress, he is lucky that Nancy Pelosi is a friggin sell out bitch.



No, the story was his. He put his name and face to it. That's what it means to be a newsman, and that's why it behooves them to check out sources.

And, as an old hand, he knew that. He was zapped once before for making up stories.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 22, 2008)

Taomon said:


> So the President is allowed to lie to Congress? Do you feel the same way about Bill Clinton?



Nooo...the president shouldn't lie to Congress. WHat I said is despite all the caterwauling, Bush hasn't actually been caught lying to Congress. Which puts him head and shoulders above Clinton.


----------



## Annie (Jan 22, 2008)

Taomon said:


> So the President is allowed to lie to Congress? Do you feel the same way about Bill Clinton?



Lying and omitting are different things, neither of which I'm assuming. Do legislators have an obligation to check things for themselves? I would think so.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 22, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> We don't belong to the United Nations of the United Nations first, and exist as our own country second. We are first, Americans. And no, we don't answer to the United Thug Nations.



Dude, we are signatories of the UN Charter. We are signatories of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We are part of the UN.

We are also the thugs, not the UN. We are the aggressors in every country that we exploit resources in, and every populace that we use military and economic tactics against.

We are the thugs.

And if we are not part of the UN, then why was Bush and Powell addressing the UN for permission to attack Iraq? When do we have an ambassador in the UN?

Check your facts fool.


----------



## Annie (Jan 22, 2008)

Taomon said:


> Dude, we are signatories of the UN Charter. We are signatories of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We are part of the UN.
> 
> We are also the thugs, not the UN. We are the aggressors in every country that we exploit resources in, and every populace that we use military and economic tactics against.
> 
> ...


Do you have a clue to what you are ranting about? Didn't think so.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 22, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> No, the story was his. He put his name and face to it. That's what it means to be a newsman, and that's why it behooves them to check out sources.
> 
> And, as an old hand, he knew that. He was zapped once before for making up stories.



You are so full of crap. Dan Rather was an anchor on television. He was not a reporter nor an investigative journalist. It sickens me that you readily forgive Bush or believe his lies and attack anyone who questions the official story.

And you do this according to partisan politics, which is truly pathetic.


----------



## Annie (Jan 22, 2008)

Taomon said:


> You are so full of crap. Dan Rather was an anchor on television. He was not a reporter nor an investigative journalist. It sickens me that you readily forgive Bush or believe his lies and attack anyone who questions the official story.
> 
> And you do this according to partisan politics, which is truly pathetic.



You really haven't a clue. Yet you are so damn pompous.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 22, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Nooo...the president shouldn't lie to Congress. WHat I said is despite all the caterwauling, Bush hasn't actually been caught lying to Congress. Which puts him head and shoulders above Clinton.



Actually, the evidence is there. I am wondering how much political clout his father has in Washington that makes W like Teflon?


----------



## Taomon (Jan 22, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> Lying and omitting are different things, neither of which I'm assuming. Do legislators have an obligation to check things for themselves? I would think so.



Yes they do have an obligation, but that does not give Bush a pass, and that is what RGS and ali are trying to do. Lying and omitting are the same thing.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 22, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> Do you have a clue to what you are ranting about? Didn't think so.



What? Yes I do.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 22, 2008)

No, the thugs are the ones who take food they are supposed to be distributing to starving people, and trade it for oil. The thugs are the ones who commit human rights violations crimes in their own countries and personally..and who dare to sit in judgment against us.

The UN is a pathetic group of sniveling ankle-biters, many of whom individually hope to exploit others to gain power for themselves.

I get so sick of people whining, "But we must answer to the UN!"

The day we are forced to answer to that bunch of criminals is the day we need to assert ourselves as the ONLY superpower in the world.

And Bush and Powell appealed to them because it was expected and considerate, and because they were hoping for support. But they intended to move forward (as they should have) regardless of whether they gained that support or not.

And they did gain it. But it's a courtesy. They aren't our bosses, ding dong.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 22, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> You really haven't a clue. Yet you are so damn pompous.



Pot calling the kettle black


----------



## Taomon (Jan 22, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> No, the thugs are the ones who take food they are supposed to be distributing to starving people, and trade it for oil. The thugs are the ones who commit human rights violations crimes in their own countries and personally..and who dare to sit in judgment against us.
> 
> The UN is a pathetic group of sniveling ankle-biters, many of whom individually hope to exploit others to gain power for themselves.
> 
> ...



And you wonder why we were attacked on 9/11?


----------



## Annie (Jan 22, 2008)

Taomon said:


> Yes they do have an obligation, but that does not give Bush a pass, and that is what RGS and ali are trying to do. Lying and omitting are the same thing.



No they aren't. That's a strawman.


----------



## Annie (Jan 22, 2008)

Taomon said:


> Pot calling the kettle black



Actually I'm the antithesis of pompous. Seriously.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 22, 2008)

If we were attacked because we pissed off the UN, I'd say that pretty much proves my point.

I hate cowards who think we should submit to pigs and who insist that by not submitting, we bring justified destruction upon our own heads.

We didn't deserve 911, you fucking pig.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 22, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> No they aren't. That's a strawman.



Oh, so if I lie and tell the police "I didn't kill her," that is wrong, but if I say "I did not shoot her with this gun," when it was another gun I used...that is okay?

When you omit specific facts to alter the perception of data, that is lying. Purposeful withholding of information is the same as lying.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 22, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> Actually I'm the antithesis of pompous. Seriously.



No, you are not. You are very uppity, especially towards anyone who dares to disagree with you.

Last time we went at it I tried to be nice to you and you stated "I meant something else, so whatever."

You are pompous. You look down your nose at me and some others on this board. You insult us when ever possible. You act as though nothing we say is remotely intelligent.

I feel real sorry for your husband.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 22, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> If we were attacked because we pissed off the UN, I'd say that pretty much proves my point.
> 
> I hate cowards who think we should submit to pigs and who insist that by not submitting, we bring justified destruction upon our own heads.
> 
> We didn't deserve 911, you fucking pig.



We live in an International Community. There are rules of engagement for a reason...that reason is so that countries like the US, Israel, Iraq and Germany cannot simply invade a weaker nation and take over.

When have we ever been attacked because we pissed off the UN? The UN is the last vestige to keep the various countries from killing each other.

It is not cowardly to promote peace. In fact, it takes courage and ethical reasoning. 9/11 had nothing to do with the UN and everything to do with our hubris.


----------



## maineman (Jan 22, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> It's a common phrase, and doesn't mean anything like you wish it did.



words don't mean what they mean because YOU say so?  who the fuck are YOU?


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 22, 2008)

Someone who thinks dimwits will claim someone is lying when really all they've done is change the meaning of a common phrase into something new and original...for the express purpose of forcing a lie into somebody's mouth.

Cuz they can't get the proof any other way.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 22, 2008)

maineman said:


> words don't mean what they mean because YOU say so?  who the fuck are YOU?



He is the great AllieBabba.


----------



## Annie (Jan 22, 2008)

Taomon said:


> He is the great AllieBabba.



You have nothing to add, so you just chime in on MM. Lame.


----------



## Annie (Jan 22, 2008)

Taomon said:


> No, you are not. You are very uppity, especially towards anyone who dares to disagree with you.
> 
> Last time we went at it I tried to be nice to you and you stated "I meant something else, so whatever."
> 
> ...



Who's us?


----------



## Taomon (Jan 22, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Someone who thinks dimwits will claim someone is lying when really all they've done is change the meaning of a common phrase into something new and original...for the express purpose of forcing a lie into somebody's mouth.
> 
> Cuz they can't get the proof any other way.


No, you are someone who will argue semantics because you cannot argue the original point and must try to find a way to attack the character of the opposition.

In layman's terms...you're a tool.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 22, 2008)

Instead we give the pass to the ones who exist only as tyrants...and insist that if we upset them, we deserve to have our inncocents killed.

Brilliant.


----------



## maineman (Jan 22, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Someone who thinks dimwits will claim someone is lying when really all they've done is change the meaning of a common phrase into something new and original...for the express purpose of forcing a lie into somebody's mouth.
> 
> Cuz they can't get the proof any other way.




"There is no doubt Saddam has WMD's"?

There was doubt.

I am forcing nothing.

If I were to say, I am absolutely certain that AllieBaba is a disgusting ugly crone....it would be a lie - EVEN IF YOU WERE.  I have never seen you.  I cannot truthfully express absolute certainty when it does not exist.  Similarly, Bush cannot truthfully claim an absence of doubt in the presence of doubt.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 22, 2008)

Taomon said:


> No, you are someone who will argue semantics because you cannot argue the original point and must try to find a way to attack the character of the opposition.
> 
> In layman's terms...you're a tool.



Coming from the kid who thinks HIV started out as anal bacteria, I'll take that as a compliment.


----------



## maineman (Jan 22, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Instead we give the pass to the ones who exist only as tyrants...and insist that if we upset them, we deserve to have our inncocents killed.
> 
> Brilliant.



Taoman may have suggested that...certainly not me.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 22, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> No, the story was his. He put his name and face to it. That's what it means to be a newsman, and that's why it behooves them to check out sources.
> 
> And, as an old hand, he knew that. He was zapped once before for making up stories.



Just because his source wasn't checked out properly, doesn't mean he was wrong or making anything up. In fact, the secretary of Bush's boss said a lot of it was true, but couldn't find the documentation to back it up...


----------



## Taomon (Jan 22, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Instead we give the pass to the ones who exist only as tyrants...and insist that if we upset them, we deserve to have our inncocents killed.
> 
> Brilliant.



What? Are you completely uninformed about our foreign polices, our economic colonialization, our military actions and the effect it has on poor people, especially Muslims?


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 22, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Instead we give the pass to the ones who exist only as tyrants...and insist that if we upset them, we deserve to have our inncocents killed.
> 
> Brilliant.



What are you talkign about?? You mean like your friends the Saudis? Or Pinochet when he controlled Chile? Or Thieu when South Korea was around? Or Batista in Cuba? You mean giving those guys are free pass? Yeah, I hear ya..


----------



## Annie (Jan 22, 2008)

Dr Grump said:


> Just because his source wasn't checked out properly, doesn't mean he was wrong or making anything up. In fact, the secretary of Bush's boss said a lot of it was true, but couldn't find the documentation to back it up...



Might have been, but wasn't. Was way beyond proved. Rather and cohorts blew it. Didn't have the commonsense to say so.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 22, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Coming from the kid who thinks HIV started out as anal bacteria, I'll take that as a compliment.



Whatever, you cannot even hit the quote button so people can follow what you are posting. 

I was making an observation, so sorry that I am not a science major. Please tell us Mr. Wizard, how did HIV come to be?


----------



## Taomon (Jan 22, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> Might have been, but wasn't. Was way beyond proved. Rather and cohorts blew it. Didn't have the commonsense to say so.



They needed resources like Bush has to cover up all truths and a the PR firms to offer a slick repackaging of _HIS_story.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 22, 2008)

I did hit the quote button, kidlet.

Never fear. I shall vote for you at Nobel Peace Prize time.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 22, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> Might have been, but wasn't. Was way beyond proved. Rather and cohorts blew it. Didn't have the commonsense to say so.



They blew their method of doing if for sure. Doesn't mean they were wrong though...


----------



## Taomon (Jan 22, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> I did hit the quote button, kidlet.
> 
> Never fear. I shall vote for you at Nobel Peace Prize time.



Dipshit, look at post 768, no quote. Your statement is out of context.

So you can make shit up all you want and talk out of your ass...but if I make an observation about HIV...and I never claimed that what I said was gospel...I am the asshole? Dude, you are a complete tool.

Answer me this...do you understand why we were attacked on 9/11?


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 22, 2008)

Whoops, I thought you were referring to Quote #770.

You should have hit the quote button, I guess, so I'd known what the hell you were talking about!


----------



## Taomon (Jan 22, 2008)

Dr Grump said:


> They blew their method of doing if for sure. Doesn't mean they were wrong though...



I actually read an interview with the Colonel from that unit who signed Bush's papers at the behest of George HW Bush so lil W could get in and avoid the draft.

He also stated that Bush was an inept pilot and worse soldier. He went AWOL when a drug screen was due and showed up with a note from the family doctor claiming Bush was drug free.

That Colonel died and there are no other witnesses who are able or willing to testify to those statements. And yet, somehow Dan Rather is wrong?


----------



## Taomon (Jan 22, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Whoops, I thought you were referring to Quote #770.
> 
> You should have hit the quote button, I guess, so I'd known what the hell you were talking about!



I did kidlet. But that is not the only post. You habitually post disconnected statements. It is hard to tell who you are addressing and why.

So why were we attacked on 9/11 and where did HIV come from?


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 22, 2008)

Omg, you really are clueless.

Dan Rather admitted he was wrong, admitted his source was not checked, admitted the story was botched, badly, and didn't prove anything.

CHeck your sources, bud.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 22, 2008)

Taomon said:


> I did kidlet. But that is not the only post. You habitually post disconnected statements. It is hard to tell who you are addressing and why.
> 
> So why were we attacked on 9/11 and where did HIV come from?



We were attacked on 911 because there are pigs who want us to die, without rhyme, without reason. They hate us, they hate our women and children because we are Christian and western.

And I never claimed to know where HIV came from. You did. Why don't you share your knowledge with us, again?


----------



## Taomon (Jan 22, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Omg, you really are clueless.
> 
> Dan Rather admitted he was wrong, admitted his source was not checked, admitted the story was botched, badly, and didn't prove anything.
> 
> CHeck your sources, bud.



I did. A year before Dan Rather did that story, I read the interview with the Colonel. Dan Rather was told to announce that he was wrong...not unlike a criminal making a plea bargain and announcing that they are guilty for a lighter sentence.

Don't believe everything you hear on FoxNews dude. Read a fucking book, read academic research, read Seymour Hirsch for Christ's sake.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 22, 2008)

He admitted the way the story was handled was wrong and he sure can wear that aspect of it. Not that the story itself was wrong..


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 22, 2008)

The part that he admitted was the part that involved using non-existent proof.


----------



## Annie (Jan 22, 2008)

Taomon said:


> They needed resources like Bush has to cover up all truths and a the PR firms to offer a slick repackaging of _HIS_story.



I can back up what I posted, can you?


----------



## Taomon (Jan 22, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> We were attacked on 911 because there are pigs who want us to die, without rhyme, without reason. They hate us, they hate our women and children because we are Christian and western.
> 
> And I never claimed to know where HIV came from. You did. Why don't you share your knowledge with us, again?



You are such a dink. You never claimed to know where HIV came from and yet you have the nerve to attack me for making an observation? The anus has bacteria because of it's main function. This bacteria is all through the colon and so on. To have unprotected anal sex is to introduce all types of bacteria to your own system through the penis. Not exactly healthy.

9/11 is a direct result of our military actions in the Middle East, our covert actions in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and our trans-national companies like Unocal's attempt to lay pipe through the region to sap more resources from the poor Muslims in the area to maximize profits for NY banks.

Now al Qaeda is a radical group. Their ideology is zealous interpretations of the Koran and Islamic justice. They are dangerous. Not unlike our own Evangelicals.

The reason why the clerics are dangerous is because they can easily point their fingers at all of our Middle East policies (installing despots to marginalize citizens and funnel wealth, oil & natural gas from the region) that cause great suffering. It doesn't take much to radicalize someone who has nothing or has been brutalized by a regime that we installed. The clerics give them money, food, shelter and an education.

Incidentally, we are the ones who helped build & finance the Madrases in Pakistan and Afghanistan because of Reagan's fanatical zeal to destroy Russia.

Is Russia less of a threat now?

We fulfill all of the rhetoric of the clerics about us being the great Satan with our foreign policies in the Middle East...all of which is fueled by our greed and hubris.

Do I think we deserved 9/11? No. But we were complicit while we fostered Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, the Taliban, The Shah of Iran, Israel, and Saudi Arabia. And now you believe that BS story that Bush spewed about how we are hated because we are Christian.

We are hated because we are in the Holy Land and we have a perverse sense of entitlement. If we develop alternate sources of energy, we will not need oil or natural gas and this problem can be eradicated.

Is that clear enough for you?


----------



## maineman (Jan 22, 2008)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_on_go_pr_wh/misinformation_study

seems two non-partisan groups are saying what we've been saying all along.

LIARS!


----------



## Annie (Jan 22, 2008)

maineman said:


> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_on_go_pr_wh/misinformation_study
> 
> seems two non-partisan groups are saying what we've been saying all along.
> 
> LIARS!



I saw those. Let me ask you this, to someone who claims to have the US interests at heart. Do you think that GW, et al, really were trying to bring us to war for personal benefit? May not be monetary, but say legacy? Do you believe that true? They 'lied' to the American people, nay, the world for selfish reasons? I that your position?


----------



## Alucard (Jan 22, 2008)

maineman said:


> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_on_go_pr_wh/misinformation_study
> 
> seems two non-partisan groups are saying what we've been saying all along.
> 
> LIARS!



Non patisan... Charles Lewis... and Mark Reading Smith conducted that study...

They are left wing wackjob hacks that have been attacking the Bushes for ever...

Why would you decieve to push your agenda... You just cant do it honestly...


----------



## Annie (Jan 22, 2008)

Alucard said:


> Non patisan... Charles Lewis... and Mark Reading Smith conducted that study...
> 
> They are left wing wackjob hacks that have been attacking the Bushes for ever...
> 
> Why would you decieve to push your agenda... You just cant do it honestly...



C'mon, we grant them something. It's been a long time. I feel we are going to know what that feels like, real soon.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 23, 2008)

maineman said:


> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_on_go_pr_wh/misinformation_study
> 
> seems two non-partisan groups are saying what we've been saying all along.
> 
> LIARS!



"White House spokesman Scott Stanzel did not comment on the merits of the study Tuesday night but reiterated the administration's position that the world community viewed Iraq's leader, Saddam Hussein, as a threat."

Oh, so the world community (not the UN?) felt Saddam was a threat. The whole notion of the preemptive strike was to protect America from an imminent attack by Iraq. 

They are liars and now they are back peddling.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 23, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> I saw those. Let me ask you this, to someone who claims to have the US interests at heart. Do you think that GW, et al, really were trying to bring us to war for personal benefit? May not be monetary, but say legacy? Do you believe that true? They 'lied' to the American people, nay, the world for selfish reasons? I that your position?



Monetary reasons are initial (war profiteering has become an industry unto itself). But control of oil is the main reason. That means a Shah of Iraq to ensure that the region does not profit from the oil and that who ever the US dems as hostile towards US  policy will have an economic stranglehold on their industries that rely on oil and natural gas.

This is about power, domination and capital.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 23, 2008)

Alucard said:


> Non patisan... Charles Lewis... and Mark Reading Smith conducted that study...
> 
> They are left wing wackjob hacks that have been attacking the Bushes for ever...
> 
> Why would you decieve to push your agenda... You just cant do it honestly...



Is Bush an innocent and honest politician? I must have missed that memo.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 23, 2008)

Dr Grump said:


> It's not just proving the record, it's looking at the man himself over a period of time. He had no doubt - therefore he must have had irrefutable proof.


That doesnt follow at all.
To wit:

*Neither of us has ever suggested that we can prove our opinions in a court of law....but we both know what we believe to be the facts.*
-Maineman
http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpo...&postcount=439



> If so, where are they? If not, he lied. Simple.


Only to those that start with "I hate Bush" and work backwards from there.


----------



## maineman (Jan 23, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> I saw those. Let me ask you this, to someone who claims to have the US interests at heart. Do you think that GW, et al, really were trying to bring us to war for personal benefit? May not be monetary, but say legacy? Do you believe that true? They 'lied' to the American people, nay, the world for selfish reasons? I that your position?



I think that they believed the neocon premise as delineated in the Project for a New American Century... that American needed to aggressively sow the seeds of democracy in the middle east, and that we needed another Pearl Harbor to reawaken the American people to that need.  I believe that they all saw 9/11 as just such an event and decided to channel the public outcry that followed in their plan to jumpstart the PNAC vision and for them, Iraq was the perfect place to start.

All that Bush needed to do was to create the belief that Saddam was an imminent and credible threat, and that he and OBL were on the same page.  If Bush could get people to believe that Saddam had stockpiles of dangerour weapons AND that he was in cahoots with Al Qaeda, then Americans would support his PNAC inspired vision for a democratic Iraq... so he sexed up the intell and painted a picture that was less than accurate.

I have never said that Bush was selfish or that he was doing this solely for financial benefit.  I have said that he was and remains misguided and mishandled.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 23, 2008)

Of course this premise requires the belief that the American people are so stupid they can't figure things out on their own, and the only people we listen to are politicians. Whom we believe blindly.

What a load.


----------



## maineman (Jan 23, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Of course this premise requires the belief that the American people are so stupid they can't figure things out on their own, and the only people we listen to are politicians. Whom we believe blindly.
> 
> What a load.



please explain to me why, years after the attack, a majority of Americans believed that Saddam had planned 9/11.

and the majority of Americans ARE so ill-informed that they don't even know who our Vice President is and cannot find Iraq on a map of the world.  That is a sad, but true fact.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 23, 2008)

I don't think that's true. I think that's b.s. that's put out there by liberals, who have been saying for so long that Saddam wasn't responsible for 911 that they've either come to believe, or don't believe but still push, the idea that everybody thinks Saddam was behind 9/11.

The liberal press paints us as a bunch of dufuses, and the libs believe it.

Honest. We're not that dumb. You aren't the smartest guy on the block. Doubly so since apparently you're buying your own press, which is complete hogwash.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 23, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Honest. We're not that dumb. You aren't the smartest guy on the block. Doubly so since apparently you're buying your own press, which is complete hogwash.


Does anyone personally know someone that thinks Iraq was involved with 9/11?   If, as is claimed, Buch managed to convince 70% of the people think so, then surely you know someone.


----------



## maineman (Jan 23, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> I don't think that's true. I think that's b.s. that's put out there by liberals, who have been saying for so long that Saddam wasn't responsible for 911 that they've either come to believe, or don't believe but still push, the idea that everybody thinks Saddam was behind 9/11.
> 
> The liberal press paints us as a bunch of dufuses, and the libs believe it.
> 
> Honest. We're not that dumb. You aren't the smartest guy on the block. Doubly so since apparently you're buying your own press, which is complete hogwash.




http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/05/AR2006070501144.html


http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm

the press is always hogwash when it doesn't conform to your viewpoints, it would seem.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 23, 2008)

I don't do polls. Like I said, you're buying your own press. Time/CNN. Hahahaha

Do you know anyone who believes what you're saying the majority believes? I don't...


----------



## maineman (Jan 23, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> I don't do polls. Like I said, you're buying your own press. Time/CNN. Hahahaha
> 
> Do you know anyone who believes what you're saying the majority believes? I don't...



so if the press all lies, how do you find out what is happening in the world?  Are there any press organizations that do not cause you to laugh?

I actually DID know several people who believed that Saddam had planned 9/11.  According to them, the pastor at their church had said so.

But now, who would ever admit to being that dumb in 2003?


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 23, 2008)

Well I don't know who you hang out with. Do those two people constitute 70 percent of your friends?

CNN and TIME magazine are two of the most leftist rags we have in the US. I prefer news that, instead of theorizing and polling people actually goes out and reports the news.

I look into things on my own. I don't let the press tell me what to think, which is exactly what those polls are meant to do.


----------



## maineman (Jan 23, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Well I don't know who you hang out with. Do those two people constitute 70 percent of your friends?
> 
> CNN and TIME magazine are two of the most leftist rags we have in the US. I prefer news that, instead of theorizing and polling people actually goes out and reports the news.
> 
> I look into things on my own. I don't let the press tell me what to think, which is exactly what those polls are meant to do.




and I said several, not two. And if you are asking me about my FRIENDS, I hang out with much smarter folks than the average American who is completely clueless about the world.

Oh...and you "look into things on your own", do you?  How, pray tell, do you go about "looking into things on your own" concerning Iraq?  Have you been over to Iraq and driven around the countryside and looked into things on your own, or do you, like everyone else in this country and in the world, rely primarily on the reports of journalists in the field?

And are you actually suggesting that CNN and TIME would concoct fake polling data and then publish it?

But I suppose YOUR favorite media outlet would NEVER do such a thing?

Do you really think that your shit doesn't stink???


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 23, 2008)

So you and your friends are much smarter than the average American?

Like I said. Libs are typically elitist assholes.

And maybe you should look into the history of TIME and CNN. They've concocted and passed on all sorts of drivel through the years....


----------



## maineman (Jan 23, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> So you and your friends are much smarter than the average American?
> 
> Like I said. Libs are typically elitist assholes.
> 
> And maybe you should look into the history of TIME and CNN. They've concocted and passed on all sorts of drivel through the years....



my friends and I can all find Iraq on the map.

and please provide a link that shows where TIME OR CNN has concocted completely fictional survey data for political purposes.

I'll wait.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 23, 2008)

And most of your fellow Americans can't?

Look, we've found a pocket of really smart people co-existing with the retarded Americans! And it consists of this guy and his buddies!

Elitist piece of shit.
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/10705
Gov't 'satisfied' with apology from Time magazine 
Mar 14, 02 2:36am 
......Time's Feb 11 issue carried reports claiming that Malaysia was a regional financial and planning hub linked to the al-Qaeda terrorist network. 


http://www.anca.org/press_releases/press_releases.php?prid=826
WASHINGTON, DC &#8211; Responding to months of protests organized by Armenian National Committee branches around the world, TIME Magazine's European edition published, in its October 17th issue, a brief apology to the Armenian community and all its readers for its dissemination earlier this year of a 70-minute DVD advertisement denying the Armenian Genocide.

TIME's apology was printed alongside an extensive letter to editors of TIME-Europe by leading Armenian, Jewish and human rights organizations....

Here's a funny one, it's a real mistake, but it's super funny:

CNN Apologizes for Mistaken Headline  

Jan 2 02:42 PM US/Eastern
 NEW YORK (AP) - CNN apologized Tuesday for mistakenly promoting a story on the search for Osama bin Laden with the headline "Where's Obama?" 
A spokesman for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama said the apology was accepted. 

http://www.wwe.com/inside/news/cnnapologize
"CNN&#8217;s lack of professionalism has raised the ire of Web sites all over the country. The following are recent quotes taken from web journalists across the nation:


&#8220;I don&#8217;t see how a respected news organization such as CNN &#8211; or any responsible journalist, for that matter &#8211; could omit Cena&#8217;s initial response to the question, which was a clear and direct denial to having ever taken steroids.&#8221; &#8211; Kevin Eck, Baltimore Sun, November 12, 2007

&#8220;I have to agree with the WWE here. The way the interview was edited was unfair, taking out the part where Cena states clearly that he hasn't used steroids and leaving in an ambiguous, out-of-context statement.&#8221; &#8211; Michael David Smith, aol.com, November 12, 2007

It's a case of "he said -- but you didn't get to hear it." &#8211; TMZ.com, November 12, 2007

&#8220;This past week, CNN did their part to inaccurately portray the wrestling industry." &#8211; Patrick Imig, JoeSportsFan.com, November 12, 2007

John Cena is still waiting for a public apology from CNN.  An exclusive interview with Cena will take place tonight and will be posted on wwe.com immediately following WWE&#8217;s presentation of ECW on Sci Fi on the Sci Fi Network from 10 to 11 pm ET....

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthe...ic-bishops-view-highlights-liberal-dissenters
CNN Misleads on Catholic Bishops&#8217; Abortion Views, Quotes Only Liberal Dissenters
By Matthew Balan | November 16, 2007 - 11:38 ET 
CNN, during a report on Thursday&#8217;s "The Situation Room," mislead its viewers by reporting that a new document issued by the Catholic bishops on voting stated that "the candidate who supports abortion rights shouldn't necessarily be counted out for your vote." Besides this misrepresentation, the report also highlighted the issue of denying pro-abortion politicians Communion. CNN correspondent Mary Snow reported that some "critics" state that "the Communion question was created by extremists, and they hope they're shut out of this election cycle." Speaking of "shutting out," conservative and faithful Catholics were not featured at all in the report. Instead, Snow played two sound bites from prominent liberal Catholics.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5Z1A03AGMM[/ame]
CNN misrepresents Spelman College Students on Don Imus 

You want more? These are just the initial hits. I imagine I could find meatier stuff.

Like this from wikipedia:

Operation Tailwind
In 1998, CNN, in partnership with corporate sister Time magazine, ran a report that Operation Tailwind in 1970 in Indochina included use of Sarin gas to kill a group of defectors from the United States military. The Pentagon denied the story. Skeptics deemed it improbable that such an extraordinary and risky atrocity could have gone unnoticed at the height of the Vietnam War's unpopularity. CNN, after a two-week inquiry, issued a retraction.[7].

Ooooh...or this!
Eason Jordan

[edit] Admits lobbying and minimizing atrocities
In April 2003, Eason Jordan, CNN's chief news executive, wrote an op-ed in the New York Times stating that he had lobbied the Iraqi government for 12 years in order to maintain a CNN presence in Iraq. He also admitted to withholding what would be considered newsworthy information of the government's atrocities, citing fears that releasing news would potentially endanger the lives of Iraqis working for CNN in Baghdad, some of whom had already been subject to beatings and torture. [8]


[edit] Resignation after accusations by blogger
In February 2005, Jordan resigned from CNN. The resignation came in response to controversy sparked after bloggers wrote that, at the recent World Economic Forum, Jordan had seemed to accuse the U.S. military of having purposely killed journalists. While Jordan acknowledged his remarks were not sufficiently clear, he denied that this was what he had meant to imply, saying that he had "great admiration and respect for the men and women of the U.S. armed forces."[16]


[edit] Rick Kaplan
Rick Kaplan served as president of CNN from 1997 to 2000. He is a personal friend, since 1977, of Bill Clinton, who was President of the United States during Kaplan's tenure. According to the Media Research Center, Kaplan's friendship, and political affinity, with Clinton affected the way the network covered the Monica Lewinsky scandal: "As the Lewinsky scandal broke, Kaplan leapt into action at CNN with two-hour specials attacking any and all Clinton critics. The programs included 'Media Madness,' which asked 'what the hell are you people doing' probing Bill Clinton&#8217;s sex life?; and 'Investigating the Investigator,' which described Ken Starr as 'suspect' over his 'religious and Republican roots.'"[17] Conservative commentator John Fund wrote that "During Mr. Kaplan's CNN tenure, there were no obvious examples of his coming to Mr. Clinton's aid," but that CNN's "executives create a perception problem when they hobnob with politicians."[18]


----------



## Taomon (Jan 23, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> I don't think that's true. I think that's b.s. that's put out there by liberals, who have been saying for so long that Saddam wasn't responsible for 911 that they've either come to believe, or don't believe but still push, the idea that everybody thinks Saddam was behind 9/11.
> 
> The liberal press paints us as a bunch of dufuses, and the libs believe it.
> 
> Honest. We're not that dumb. You aren't the smartest guy on the block. Doubly so since apparently you're buying your own press, which is complete hogwash.



And yet you believe that 9/11 was caused by people that are jealous of us and hate that we are Christian. You also believe that Bush did not lie and that Iraq was a threat to our security. This isn't looking good for your argument.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 23, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Well I don't know who you hang out with. Do those two people constitute 70 percent of your friends?
> 
> CNN and TIME magazine are two of the most leftist rags we have in the US. I prefer news that, instead of theorizing and polling people actually goes out and reports the news.
> 
> I look into things on my own. I don't let the press tell me what to think, which is exactly what those polls are meant to do.



Wow, what news media outlet does that?


----------



## maineman (Jan 23, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> And most of your fellow Americans can't?
> 
> Look, we've found a pocket of really smart people co-existing with the retarded Americans! And it consists of this guy and his buddies!
> 
> Elitist piece of shit.



most americans cannot show you where Iraq is on a map.  fact.

stupid "See You Next Tuesday"


----------



## maineman (Jan 23, 2008)

maineman said:


> my friends and I can all find Iraq on the map.
> 
> and please provide a link that shows where TIME OR CNN has concocted completely fictional survey data for political purposes.
> 
> I'll wait.




any luck on that link?


----------



## maineman (Jan 23, 2008)

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/01/how_well_would_you_do_on_lates.html

national geographic society...now THERE'S a lefty pinko group, eh?


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 23, 2008)

maineman said:


> most americans cannot show you where Iraq is on a map.  fact.
> 
> stupid "See You Next Tuesday"



Prove it, elitist. Using something other than a cub poll from CNN.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 23, 2008)

maineman said:


> http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/01/how_well_would_you_do_on_lates.html
> 
> national geographic society...now THERE'S a lefty pinko group, eh?



About as lefty as they get.

CNN polls weighted
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner...-poll-questions-weighted-against-surge-report
This is particularly interesting:
"Only half of sample asked certain questions?

Then we get to the odd choice of asking only half those interviewed some of the questions from the poll. What was the deal with this? At least questions 28 through 33 were only presented to half those interviewed. One of those questions pertained to how respondents viewed the report general Petraeus would be giving next month.

33. As you may know, in September the top U.S. commander in Iraq will report to the President and Congress about how the war is going. Do you trust him to report what's really going on in Iraq without making the situation sound better than it actually is, or don't you feel that way? (ASKED OF HALF SAMPLE)"

Who conducted the "Idiot American" poll?


----------



## maineman (Jan 23, 2008)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2496427.stm


----------



## maineman (Jan 23, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> About as lefty as they get.



so they are lying too?

is that your reply to every news report that you disagree with?


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 23, 2008)

The BBC just recently was found in COURT to be biased, you moron. They've admitted, over and over, to being biased in their hiring practices AND their stories.

"BBC executives have been forced to admit what critics have known for years - that the corporation is institutionally biased. The revelation came after details of an &#8216;impartiality&#8217; summit called by its chairman, Michael Grade, were leaked. Senior figures admitted that the BBC is guilty of promoting Left-wing views and an anti-Christian sentiment. They also said that as an organisation it was disproportionately over-represented by gays and ethnic minorities. It was also suggested that the Beeb is guilty of political correctness, the overt promotion of multiculturalism and of being anti-American and against the countryside.

During the meeting, hosted by Sue Lawley, executives admitted they would happily broadcast the image of a Bible being thrown away - but would not do the same for the Koran."

http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=7695

BBC bias complaint upheld
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2005/nov/26/bbc.radio

BBC admits bias against Christianity
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/45336.aspx

BBC admits: We are biased on religion and politics
Internal corporation memo on &#8216;impartiality&#8217; summit leaked to British media exposes truth on BBC bias 
Hagit Klaiman Published:  10.23.06, 16:10 / Israel News  
LONDON &#8211; The British Broadcasting Corporation has been struggling for several years against criticisms and claims of biased reporting concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and distorted coverage of the global fight against terror. (This is the one they went to court on)
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3318582,00.html

Want more?


----------



## maineman (Jan 23, 2008)

I guess that answered my question.  thanks.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 23, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> And most of your fellow Americans can't?
> 
> Look, we've found a pocket of really smart people co-existing with the retarded Americans! And it consists of this guy and his buddies!
> 
> ...



So is it entirely outside the realm of possibility that the Bush Administration has put pressure on news media outlets to tow the party line?


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 23, 2008)

We're talking about media bias, not whether or not politicians will take advantage of it.

But if you have evidence of some media group that is routinely producing conservatively biased stories and trying to pass them off as neutral, feel free.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 23, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> The BBC just recently was found in COURT to be biased, you moron. They've admitted, over and over, to being biased in their hiring practices AND their stories.
> 
> "BBC executives have been forced to admit what critics have known for years - that the corporation is institutionally biased. The revelation came after details of an impartiality summit called by its chairman, Michael Grade, were leaked. Senior figures admitted that the BBC is guilty of promoting Left-wing views and an anti-Christian sentiment. They also said that as an organisation it was disproportionately over-represented by gays and ethnic minorities. It was also suggested that the Beeb is guilty of political correctness, the overt promotion of multiculturalism and of being anti-American and against the countryside.
> 
> ...



So basically anyone who does not agree with Bush or FoxNews


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 23, 2008)

Er..genius (Larkinn's gone, so you have inherited his title) the BBC admitted repeatedly to bias.

That's not just me saying they aren't reporting "nice". It's them stating they INTENTIONALLY slant the news.


----------



## maineman (Jan 23, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Er..genius (Larkinn's gone, so you have inherited his title) the BBC admitted repeatedly to bias.
> 
> That's not just me saying they aren't reporting "nice". It's them stating they INTENTIONALLY slant the news.




so you are denying the substance of the link from the national geographic survey of 18-24 year old americans because it was reported by the BBC?  Are you using that as your reason to deny that I proved to you that americans can't find Iraq on a map?

pretty fuckin' weak.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 23, 2008)

You mean it's pretty weak support for your allegation that Americans are stupid.

A national geographic/bbc survey. I wonder who they polled, and what they asked?

Baboons? Residents of nursing home facilities? Children in the special class of an innercity school????


----------



## maineman (Jan 23, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> You mean it's pretty weak support for your allegation that Americans are stupid.
> 
> A national geographic/bbc survey. I wonder who they polled, and what they asked?
> 
> Baboons? Residents of nursing home facilities? Children in the special class of an innercity school????



so... a survey about geography from the world's most respected organization concerning geography is "weak"?  Did you even READ the article, which, or course, answers your lameass questions?

give it up.  You asked for a source other than CNN and I gave it to you. Sit on it.


----------



## Alpha1 (Jan 23, 2008)

maineman said:


> and I said several, not two. And if you are asking me about my FRIENDS, I hang out with much smarter folks than the average American who is completely clueless about the world.
> 
> Now thats funny.....
> Do these smart friends of yours also believe Clinton was never charged with perjury, ..... and never acquitted, as you  do????
> ...


------


----------



## maineman (Jan 23, 2008)

Alpha1 said:


> ------



To suggest that the impeachment proceedings are synonymous with our criminal justice system is ridiculous.

I have said that Clinton was never found guilty of the crime of perjury.  Do you want to argue that or not?


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 23, 2008)

So much smarter than the regular American....


----------



## maineman (Jan 23, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> So much smarter than the regular American....



I can find Iraq on a map....so I guess that's right.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 23, 2008)

So can I, idiot. Being able to find Iraq on a map doesn't make you smarter.

That's just what the libs want you to believe, and like a complete sap, you do. That's the way they get you to go along with legislation that erodes the rights of Americans. By telling you OTHER Americans are too stupid to make their own decisions.

So who's the stupid one, I wonder?


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 23, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> That doesnt follow at all.
> To wit:
> 
> *Neither of us has ever suggested that we can prove our opinions in a court of law....but we both know what we believe to be the facts.*
> ...



1) I am not Maineman
2) Your quoting of Maineman's post is a non-sequiter to mine..


----------



## Alpha1 (Jan 23, 2008)

maineman said:


> To suggest that the impeachment proceedings are synonymous with our criminal justice system is ridiculous.
> 
> 
> Synonymous with our criminal justice system???
> ...


****************************************************************888


Did you not say this ????
Are you not right on both counts?
Did you read the Articles of Impeachment?
Are you not an asshole?



maineman said:


> he may have lied under oath, but, as I said, he was never found guilty of the CRIME of perjury... *nor was he acquited.  He was never even brought to court on that charge where a finding of guilt or acquital could have been rendered.*



Do you consider the impeachment by House and trial by the Senate, presided over by the CJ of the SC, not the "court"?

Now really....didn't you really mean your friends are much, much smarter than you....or would they make this kind of nutty claim too....


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Jan 23, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> There is nothing to indicate that we jumped into the war too quickly.



Anyone who starts a war jumped into war too quickly.


----------



## maineman (Jan 23, 2008)

Alpha1 said:


> ****************************************************************888
> 
> 
> Did you not say this ????
> ...



no.  I do not consider the impeachment trial to be a criminal justice matter at all, but a constitutional one.  The senate is not a court.  it is a legislative body charged, in that instance with affirming or denying the impeachment by the other legislative body.  Clinton was never acquited of the crime of perjury, nor was he ever found guilty.


----------



## Alpha1 (Jan 23, 2008)

maineman said:


> no.  I do not consider the impeachment trial to be a criminal justice matter at all, but a constitutional one.  The senate is not a court.  it is a legislative body charged, in that instance with affirming or denying the impeachment by the other legislative body.  Clinton was never acquited of the crime of perjury, nor was he ever found guilty.



Thats clever, but I said nothing about criminal justice....and you are right to claim Judge Judy didn't get to hear Clintons case.....

Your claim was Clinton was never brought to court on a perjury charge....
You said:
"nor was he acquited. He was never even brought to court on that charge where a finding of guilt or acquital could have been rendered."

Sorry dimbulb.... The Senate impeachment hearing was a court and the judge was the Chief Justice....and the jury was the Senators.....and the charges included perjury and the verdict was acquittal..and that makes you a clown...


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 23, 2008)

He was acquitted. Half thought he should be ousted but you need 2/3.

The supreme court was fairly convinced he'd committed perjury and obstructed justice, otherwise they wouldn't have disbarred him. I'd say it's easier to be convicted of a crime than to get disbarred.


----------



## Steerpike (Jan 23, 2008)

As I recall, even after the Clinton acquittal some of those Senators who voted to acquit issued statements to the effect that they believed he had lied under oath and interfered with evidence.  The crux of the matter, for them, was that they did not believe the conduct rose to the high standard required for impeachment and removal from office, so they voted to acquit even though they agreed that Clinton did those things.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 23, 2008)

And then he was disbarred.

Badambum.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 23, 2008)

Steerpike said:


> As I recall, even after the Clinton acquittal some of those Senators who voted to acquit issued statements to the effect that they believed he had lied under oath and interfered with evidence.  The crux of the matter, for them, was that they did not believe the conduct rose to the high standard required for impeachment and removal from office, so they voted to acquit even though they agreed that Clinton did those things.



No wonder Bush is the Teflon President.


----------



## maineman (Jan 23, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> He was acquitted. Half thought he should be ousted but you need 2/3.
> 
> The supreme court was fairly convinced he'd committed perjury and obstructed justice, otherwise they wouldn't have disbarred him. I'd say it's easier to be convicted of a crime than to get disbarred.


 who disbarred him?

and you'd say a lot of stupid shit that you don't know fuck-all about.


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Jan 24, 2008)

maineman said:


> a good read.
> 
> http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0804-11.htm



Well that explains why your brain is so distorted, reading that crap,. You didnt resond to my post/questions.


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Jan 24, 2008)

maineman said:


> so you are denying the substance of the link from the national geographic survey of 18-24 year old americans because it was reported by the BBC?  Are you using that as your reason to deny that I proved to you that americans can't find Iraq on a map?
> 
> pretty fuckin' weak.



Not being able to find Iraq on a map proves nothing,] except ignorance. much less that anyone is stupid.
Lots of intelligent people wouldnt be able to find Iraq on a map.


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Jan 24, 2008)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Anyone who starts a war jumped into war too quickly.



U r a stupid LIAR


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Jan 24, 2008)

maineman said:


> so... a survey about geography from the world's most respected organization concerning geography is "weak"?  Did you even READ the article, which, or course, answers your lameass questions?
> 
> give it up.  You asked for a source other than CNN and I gave it to you. Sit on it.



IT wasnt a survey about geography, it was about the intelligence of AMericans, or at least the part you brought up. The geography part was used to try to show their conclusions are correct.

Try again. DId they do a similar survey on other countries.?


----------



## maineman (Jan 24, 2008)

LuvRPgrl said:


> IT wasnt a survey about geography, it was about the intelligence of AMericans, or at least the part you brought up. The geography part was used to try to show their conclusions are correct.
> 
> Try again. DId they do a similar survey on other countries.?



who cares? why do I need to try anything again? the point is:  a majority of those Americans surveyed could not find Iraq on a map.  that was my assertion and the survey proves my point. 

Either keep up or stay the fuck out.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 24, 2008)

How come the Dial-A-Bride dude has turned up again??


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 24, 2008)

So it does not matter that no attempt is made to show the supposed intelligence or lack there of ( using the same method as used on the US) all the Countries that supposedly agree with your position?


----------



## maineman (Jan 24, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> So it does not matter that no attempt is made to show the supposed intelligence or lack there of ( using the same method as used on the US) all the Countries that supposedly agree with your position?



my position in this issue was that Americans were ignorant of the world and that most could not even find Iraq on a map.  Allie questioned that assertion.  I provided her a link that proved my point.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 24, 2008)

Outside of your fair borders I must agree with MM. Most of us see the US as very ethno- ego centric and pretty damn ignorant. What is even more surprising is most neocons and right-wing nutjobs answer this by going "well, of course we look after our own interests, doesn't everyone".....Um, no, we don't. We actually give a shit about the rest of the world. And to make things every more absurb/weird/just plain crazy, most righties think the world is either jealous of the US, and just can't understand how the "most free country in the world and the greatest place in the world" isn't loved by anyone.

Off the top of my head I can name four countries that are easily more "free" than the US....and more in keeping within the spirit of its constitution. You guys invented modern freedom for sure (along with the Frogs in 1789)..been pretty downhill since then really!


----------



## Taomon (Jan 24, 2008)

LuvRPgrl said:


> U r a stupid LIAR



Why is that a lie? We did jump too soon into war in Iraq and Afghanistan. And war is never the only solution, it is the last solution.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 24, 2008)

Dr Grump said:


> Outside of your fair borders I must agree with MM. Most of us see the US as very ethno- ego centric and pretty damn ignorant. What is even more surprising is most neocons and right-wing nutjobs answer this by going "well, of course we look after our own interests, doesn't everyone".....Um, no, we don't. We actually give a shit about the rest of the world. And to make things every more absurb/weird/just plain crazy, most righties think the world is either jealous of the US, and just can't understand how the "most free country in the world and the greatest place in the world" isn't loved by anyone.
> 
> Off the top of my head I can name four countries that are easily more "free" than the US....and more in keeping within the spirit of its constitution. You guys invented modern freedom for sure (along with the Frogs in 1789)..been pretty downhill since then really!



You care so much the US does all the heavy lifting in every world wide disaster and every major problem in the world, sure thing.


----------



## maineman (Jan 24, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> You care so much the US does all the heavy lifting in every world wide disaster and every major problem in the world, sure thing.



and more than half of us STILL can't find Iraq on a map!


----------



## Angel Heart (Jan 24, 2008)

maineman said:


> and more than half of us STILL can't find Iraq on a map!



I wonder, how many could of found Germany on a map during WW2?.. How about Viet Nam? What about the USA?


----------



## maineman (Jan 24, 2008)

Angel Heart said:


> I wonder, how many could of found Germany on a map during WW2?.. How about Viet Nam? What about the USA?




is that an admission that Americans are woefully ignorant of the world outside (or for many, even inside) our borders?


----------



## Shogun (Jan 24, 2008)

LuvRPgrl said:


> Just one would do, where he claimed absolute certainty. Which, by the way, we didnt need to justify our taking out Saddam.





say, i noticed you didn't reply to my lode of bush quotes.

is the epitome of your input going to be U R a stupid liar?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 24, 2008)

Shogun said:


> say, i noticed you didn't reply to my lode of bush quotes.
> 
> is the epitome of your input going to be U R a stupid liar?



I notice you have never explained why Bush lied but none of the quotes from all the democrats saying the SAME thing are lies. Are we just going to get " they were hoodwinked" from you?


----------



## Alpha1 (Jan 24, 2008)

http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv

Its a shame to ignore the truth....so watch it....


----------



## jillian (Jan 24, 2008)

If you have something to post, can you please limit it to one thread instead of spamming the same post over and over? Thanks.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 24, 2008)

jillian said:


> If you have something to post, can you please limit it to one thread instead of spamming the same post over and over? Thanks.



That would depend wouldn't it? If the information applies to several threads and is not a HUGE post, why wouldn't it get posted in every thread it directly applies too? Now if it is a monster I would recommend it be in its own thread.

The problem I see is that some people demand proof or evidence and if you have some and it applies to several threads why be limited to JUST what ever arbitrary single thread you post in forst?


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 24, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> You care so much the US does all the heavy lifting in every world wide disaster and every major problem in the world, sure thing.



Ah, the old "We do everything around the world, therefore that gives us the right to ride roughshod over everyone else in the world."  Another rightwing nutjob mantra to make the patriots feel good about themselves. Here's the thing - per head of population, you guys aren't on top the heap. In fact, you're pretty much down the bottom. The next will be "ah, but what about private donations"...to which I always reply "you don't think other countries have private donors, too?"


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 24, 2008)

Alpha1 said:


> http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv
> 
> Its a shame to ignore the truth....so watch it....



Now you know these Democrats were to stupid to kow they were being mislead, to dumb to know the intel they received independent of the President was secretly ( so secret there is no evidence of it) manipulated by the President.

So we are faced with this dilema... Either the Democrats Lied, as they claim Bush did OR they are just to stupid to be allowed to hold high office in this Country.

Since the Dems insist we were lied to those are the two options available. Which one is it guys?


----------



## jillian (Jan 24, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Now you know these Democrats were to stupid to kow they were being mislead, to dumb to know the intel they received independent of the President was secretly ( so secret there is no evidence of it) manipulated by the President.
> 
> So we are faced with this dilema... Either the Democrats Lied, as they claim Bush did OR they are just to stupid to be allowed to hold high office in this Country.
> 
> Since the Dems insist we were lied to those are the two options available. Which one is it guys?



Whatever happened to "fool me once, shame on *you*?

Oh right, can't blame the people who actually defrauded us into this nightmare. You should be outraged at them, not apologizing for them.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 24, 2008)

Dr Grump said:


> Ah, the old "We do everything around the world, therefore that gives us the right to ride roughshod over everyone else in the world."  Another rightwing nutjob mantra to make the patriots feel good about themselves. Here's the thing - per head of population, you guys aren't on top the heap. In fact, you're pretty much down the bottom. The next will be "ah, but what about private donations"...to which I always reply "you don't think other countries have private donors, too?"



Ahh ok, I guess we should now support the theory we should not help anyone, lets see how well THAT works for the rest of the world, You guys can step up and take over, since after all your doing so much now, right?


----------



## jillian (Jan 24, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ahh ok, I guess we should now support the theory we should not help anyone, lets see how well THAT works for the rest of the world, You guys can step up and take over, since after all your doing so much now, right?



Or maybe you could feel good about our contributions without feeling the need to debase and devalue everyone else's?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 24, 2008)

jillian said:


> Or maybe you could feel good about our contributions without feeling the need to debase and devalue everyone else's?



I have done nothing of the sort, but do pretend otherwise. I have though pointed out the constant refrain from retards like Grump are ignorant at best.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 24, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ahh ok, I guess we should now support the theory we should not help anyone, lets see how well THAT works for the rest of the world, You guys can step up and take over, since after all your doing so much now, right?



Per head of population, yes we are. And guess what, we don't have strings attached. We help because it is the right thing to do, not trying to play some political game with other peoples' lives..


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 24, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> I have done nothing of the sort, but do pretend otherwise. I have though pointed out the constant refrain from retards like Grump are ignorant at best.



Funny coming from one of the most ignorant poeple on the board...but carry on anyway..


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 24, 2008)

Dr Grump said:


> Funny coming from one of the most ignorant poeple on the board...but carry on anyway..



Sure thing, next time there is a world disaster we will wait patiently for that EU Carrier Group to arrive and sort it out.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 24, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Sure thing, next time there is a world disaster we will wait patiently for that EU Carrier Group to arrive and sort it out.



Actually, they do a lot...so do we without your help. The whole point of my argument is that you should help out with disasters willingly and with no strings like we do. You don't seem to be arguing for that point, so I deduce you are against such a thing. Nice. Coming from the land of the free and home of the brave...(like there are no other free countries with brave people in them..lol)


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 24, 2008)

Dr Grump said:


> Actually, they do a lot...so do we without your help. The whole point of my argument is that you should help out with disasters willingly and with no strings like we do. You don't seem to be arguing for that point, so I deduce you are against such a thing. Nice. Coming from the land of the free and home of the brave...(like there are no other free countries with brave people in them..lol)



And you would simply be wrong, be so kind as to point out our demands in all the previous disasters we have helped out in around the world.... List them by disaster and by demand. I won't hold my breath waiting for that list though.

Ohh and then explain, since you and others contend we are in a war against all muslims why we routinely help muslim countries, again with no strings attached?


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 24, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> And you would simply be wrong, be so kind as to point out our demands in all the previous disasters we have helped out in around the world.... List them by disaster and by demand. I won't hold my breath waiting for that list though.
> 
> Ohh and then explain, since you and others contend we are in a war against all muslims why we routinely help muslim countries, again with no strings attached?



if I've argued this point once I've argued it 100 times. It goes something like this

Foreigner (that be me): Why are you always interferring in the internal polices of other countries, such as Panama, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam blah blah blah.

Right-wing American Nutjob (that being you): Nobody complains when we send them aid.

THAT is the crux of the matter. A piss weak argument by the US right, but one I have had many times!


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 24, 2008)

Dr Grump said:


> if I've argued this point once I've argued it 100 times. It goes something like this
> 
> Foreigner (that be me): Why are you always interferring in the internal polices of other countries, such as Panama, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam blah blah blah.
> 
> ...



Ohh so you have no real evidence and no actually demands at all, just the usual left wing US bashing and the attempt to twist what is said to fit your agenda. Thanks for playing, run along now, we don't fall for your shit.


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Jan 25, 2008)

maineman said:


> who cares? why do I need to try anything again? the point is:  a majority of those Americans surveyed could not find Iraq on a map.  that was my assertion and the survey proves my point.
> 
> Either keep up or stay the fuck out.



You dont know what the fuck you are talking about. Not only was the topic not on geography as you erroneously stated, but your assertation was that Americans are stupid, not as you erroneously state above . Dont you remember that far back? Or are you that stupid?


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Jan 25, 2008)

Dr Grump said:


> How come the Dial-A-Bride dude has turned up again??



Whats a dial a bride?
*
Originally Posted by Dr Grump *_ 
Ah, the old "We do everything around the world, therefore that gives us the right to ride roughshod over everyone else in the world." Another rightwing nutjob mantra to make the patriots feel good about themselves. Here's the thing - per head of population, you guys aren't on top the heap. In fact, you're pretty much down the bottom. The next will be "ah, but what about private donations"...to which I always reply "you don't think other countries have private donors, too?" _


You sound like you're arguing with yourself. Well, I guess that way, for once, you get to win the arguement.


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Jan 25, 2008)

Taomon said:


> Why is that a lie? We did jump too soon into war in Iraq and Afghanistan. And war is never the only solution, it is the last solution.



That isnt remotely close to what he said. Go back and read it. I cant believe how really, REALLY stupid you guys are. You take that post of spidey and turn it into what you said above?

And fucking candy ass man, MM, he is all over the board. First he calls Americans stupid, then claims a survey proved it, then he claims the survey was about geography, then he claims he said Americans are ignorant, which is not the same as stupid.

GOOD GODD, no wonder you guys loved the flip flopper Kerry so much.

As for Americans not being able to find Iraq on a map, so what? It only proves they arent interested in learning that. It proves NOTHING about their intelligence.


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Jan 25, 2008)

Shogun said:


> say, i noticed you didn't reply to my lode of bush quotes.
> 
> is the epitome of your input going to be U R a stupid liar?



Holy crap dude !! You need to get  a life. I tried to find your quote by going to "all posts by shogun" and two whole pages and it was still on posting of 1/23.

give me the post number,,, i probably missed it, I dont spend hours and hours on here like you do, I have a life.


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Jan 25, 2008)

Alpha1 said:


> http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv
> 
> Its a shame to ignore the truth....so watch it....



HAHHAHAH, THATS freaking great !! All those dems claiming with no uncertainty that Saddam had WMD's.


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Jan 25, 2008)

Dr Grump said:


> Ah, the old "We do everything around the world, therefore that gives us the right to ride roughshod over everyone else in the world."  Another rightwing nutjob mantra to make the patriots feel good about themselves. Here's the thing - per head of population, you guys aren't on top the heap. In fact, you're pretty much down the bottom. The next will be "ah, but what about private donations"...to which I always reply "you don't think other countries have private donors, too?"



You sound like you're arguing with yourself. Well, I guess that way, for once, you get to win the arguement.


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Jan 25, 2008)

Dr Grump said:


> if I've argued this point once I've argued it 100 times. It goes something like this
> 
> Foreigner (that be me): Why are you always interferring in the internal polices of other countries, such as Panama, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam blah blah blah.
> 
> ...



You're in Europe? HAAHHA, fuck, like, yea, we like to mess in other countries politics. I know you guys dont, YOU JUST FUCKING START WARS AND TAKE THEM OVER. You guys have been going to war with each other for centuries. And he, for centuries, dont mess with other countries policies, just go and take their country from them. French in indo china, British in China, Iraq, South Africa, India.  French in Northern africa, Dutch and Germans all throughout the world too.

Germany attacks Britian. France attacks Britian. Germany attacks France. Italy attacks France. Germany attacks Russia. Russia attacks Finland. Britian attacks France. it has been going on endlessly.

He buddy, who spent BILLIONS of dollars rebuilding Europe after we saved your asses from Hitler? Fucking talk about a nut job. Yea,  you guys should get on your knees and kiss our asses and be grateful for what AMERICA has done to save your fucked up continent.

The French tried to build the Panama canal and failed, so America went in and did it.

EU tried to get a Euro currency to compete with the US, cuz NOT ONE OF YOUR FUCKING COUNTRIES COULD COMPETE WITH US ONE ON ONE, and yet its still the DOLLAR that rules. I could spend American dollars anywhere in the world I traveled, not so with Euros.

We kicked all your guys asses, except occasionally the steriod laden Russian men, errr women, in the Olympics.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 25, 2008)

LuvRPgrl said:


> You're in Europe? HAAHHA, fuck, like, yea, we like to mess in other countries politics. I know you guys dont, YOU JUST FUCKING START WARS AND TAKE THEM OVER. You guys have been going to war with each other for centuries. And he, for centuries, dont mess with other countries policies, just go and take their country from them. French in indo china, British in China, Iraq, South Africa, India.  French in Northern africa, Dutch and Germans all throughout the world too.
> 
> Germany attacks Britian. France attacks Britian. Germany attacks France. Italy attacks France. Germany attacks Russia. Russia attacks Finland. Britian attacks France. it has been going on endlessly.
> 
> ...



No, I'm not in Europe.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 25, 2008)

LuvRPgrl said:


> You're in Europe? HAAHHA, fuck, like, yea, we like to mess in other countries politics. I know you guys dont, YOU JUST FUCKING START WARS AND TAKE THEM OVER. You guys have been going to war with each other for centuries. And he, for centuries, dont mess with other countries policies, just go and take their country from them. French in indo china, British in China, Iraq, South Africa, India.  French in Northern africa, Dutch and Germans all throughout the world too.
> 
> Germany attacks Britian. France attacks Britian. Germany attacks France. Italy attacks France. Germany attacks Russia. Russia attacks Finland. Britian attacks France. it has been going on endlessly.
> 
> ...



Hehe, I sort of like this post


----------



## Taomon (Jan 25, 2008)

LuvRPgrl said:


> That isnt remotely close to what he said. Go back and read it. I cant believe how really, REALLY stupid you guys are. You take that post of spidey and turn it into what you said above?
> 
> And fucking candy ass man, MM, he is all over the board. First he calls Americans stupid, then claims a survey proved it, then he claims the survey was about geography, then he claims he said Americans are ignorant, which is not the same as stupid.
> 
> ...


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 25, 2008)

I know I'm teaching my 4 year old to find places on the map now.

I'd really like to know where that poll came from, and who they were polling. If it was a CNN phone-in, all it proves is that people who respond to CNN polls are retards.


----------



## Shogun (Jan 25, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> I notice you have never explained why Bush lied but none of the quotes from all the democrats saying the SAME thing are lies. Are we just going to get " they were hoodwinked" from you?



Why would I bother defending the stupididty of hoodwinked Dems when I've told you at least 6 times that I'd throw each one of them under a bus?


Fighting to stay relevant is like a fish trying to swim in a sandbox for you, isnt it?


----------



## Shogun (Jan 25, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ahh ok, I guess we should now support the theory we should not help anyone, lets see how well THAT works for the rest of the world, You guys can step up and take over, since after all your doing so much now, right?




Indeed, we'll do just that in 08.   get to the back of the bus, bitch.


----------



## Shogun (Jan 25, 2008)

LuvRPgrl said:


> Holy crap dude !! You need to get  a life. I tried to find your quote by going to "all posts by shogun" and two whole pages and it was still on posting of 1/23.
> 
> give me the post number,,, i probably missed it, I dont spend hours and hours on here like you do, I have a life.



No, what you don't have is a point beyond the usual rhetorical nonsense which is pretty much the standard on your side of the political spectrum.  Of course you can't find it.  finding it would mean having to admit something that you don't want to admit.  It's cool, I'm used to batting down silly right-wing bastards like you anyway.  Truthfully, I didn't really expect to much out of you.  Maybe you can find a way to take a few hours out of your awesome life to do a little research before posting stupid shit next time?  

Hell, it takes an I.Q. of 160 to start going back pages in this very thread, doesn't it?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 25, 2008)

Shogun said:


> Why would I bother defending the stupididty of hoodwinked Dems when I've told you at least 6 times that I'd throw each one of them under a bus?


So, you won't be voting for Hillary?


----------



## maineman (Jan 25, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> So, you won't be voting for Hillary?



I won't...not in my party's caucus.  absolutely not!


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 25, 2008)

maineman said:


> I won't...not in my party's caucus.  absolutely not!



And if she wins the nomination?


----------



## Shogun (Jan 25, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> So, you won't be voting for Hillary?



no.  I've stated as much several times on this board.  If only generalizing liberals wasn't a GOP reflex....

I'm voting for Obama if he gets the dem nomination and RP if not.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 25, 2008)

Shogun said:


> no.  I've stated as much several times on this board.  If only generalizing liberals wasn't a GOP reflex....
> 
> I'm voting for Obama if he gets the dem nomination and RP if not.



And if neither are running and it is Just Hillary and what ever Republican wins the Nomination?


----------



## maineman (Jan 25, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> And if she wins the nomination?




I will vote for her because her position on Iraq is no worse than any of the republicans and her position on damned near everything else is a hell of a lot better, IMHO.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 25, 2008)

Hillary will make a fine president...


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Jan 25, 2008)

Dr Grump said:


> No, I'm not in Europe.



I believe someone referred to your location as EU. So, what skank place do you hail frrom?


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Jan 25, 2008)

Quote:
Originally Posted by RetiredGySgt  
I notice you have never explained why Bush lied but none of the quotes from all the democrats saying the SAME thing are lies. Are we just going to get " they were hoodwinked" from you? 




Shogun said:


> Why would I bother defending the stupididty of hoodwinked Dems when I've told you at least 6 times that I'd throw each one of them under a bus?
> 
> 
> Fighting to stay relevant is like a fish trying to swim in a sandbox for you, isnt it?



YOU DIDNT RESPOND TO HIS QUESTION.


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Jan 25, 2008)

Bitch, you start out bitching that I only post rhetorical nonsense, and then you post this crap below? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. You didnt make one substantive statement in this post. "WAAAAAAAAAAA,  WAAAAAAAAAAA,,,, all you do is post rhetoric, and you wont look things up, waaaaaaaaaaa  wWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA"

Just because you make more posts than right wingers in a thread doesnt mean you whacked em. Just because you falsly claim we are full of rhetoric and lazy, doesnt mean you whacked em. Just because you wont answer any of our questions (because the answer makes you look stupid or wrong, or both) doesnt mean you whacked em.



Shogun said:


> No, what you don't have is a point beyond the usual rhetorical nonsense which is pretty much the standard on your side of the political spectrum.  Of course you can't find it.  finding it would mean having to admit something that you don't want to admit.  It's cool, I'm used to batting down silly right-wing bastards like you anyway.  Truthfully, I didn't really expect to much out of you.  Maybe you can find a way to take a few hours out of your awesome life to do a little research before posting stupid shit next time?
> 
> Hell, it takes an I.Q. of 160 to start going back pages in this very thread, doesn't it?


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Jan 25, 2008)

maineman said:


> I will vote for her because her position on Iraq is no worse than any of the republicans and her position on damned near everything else is a hell of a lot better, IMHO.



Your opinion isnt worth the dog shit on my shoes that I dragged through your living room carpet and took off and whacked it on those living with you.


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Jan 25, 2008)

Dr Grump said:


> Hillary will make a fine president...



YEA? She told us with no uncertainty that saddam had WMD's 

This is from an ardent left winger:

Although I am an ardent Iraq war critic and from the earliest days had serious doubts about granting the president discretionary authority to go to preemptive war in October 2002, I believe Sen. Clinton (whom I am supporting for president) has shown integrity and courage in refusing to pander to state that the vote at the time was a mistake  given the information and belief she had concerning Saddams WMD AND the clear conditions she set in her Senate speech explaining her vote. First she stated her belief that Saddam had WMD and was ready to use them

http://thehill.com/op-eds/three-questions-on-iraq-war-must-be-put-to-obama-edwards-2007-02-21.html


----------



## maineman (Jan 25, 2008)

LuvRPgrl said:


> Your opinion isnt worth the dog shit on my shoes that I dragged through your living room carpet and took off and whacked it on those living with you.



why do you feel the necessity to give my YOUR opinion of MY opinion?  Do you really think I give a fuck?  bar-fine  boy?


----------



## maineman (Jan 25, 2008)

LuvRPgrl said:


> YEA? She told us with no uncertainty that saddam had WMD's
> 
> This is from an ardent left winger:
> 
> ...



so...an "ardent left winger" says he believes Hillary has shown integrity and courage.  That bolsters your argument, how???????


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 25, 2008)

maineman said:


> why do you feel the necessity to give my YOUR opinion of MY opinion?  Do you really think I give a fuck?  bar-fine  boy?



This from the guy that claims he KNOWS with no uncertainty what President Bush knew, thought and believed.  Sure thing retard. Remind us again how when one states a certainty when there is uncertainty it is a lie, then explain why your not a repeat liar on this board.


----------



## maineman (Jan 25, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> This from the guy that claims he KNOWS with no uncertainty what President Bush knew, thought and believed.  Sure thing retard. Remind us again how when one states a certainty when there is uncertainty it is a lie, then explain why your not a repeat liar on this board.



When one states that there is certainty when there is none, they are making a statement that serves to convey a false impression.

Now show me where I have stated certainty about something that was not certain.  Are you suggesting that all of the intelligence analysts who have gone on record as saying that ALL the intell about Saddam's WMD's came laden with caveats and qualifiers are LIARS and NOT Bush?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 25, 2008)

maineman said:


> When one states that there is certainty when there is none, they are making a statement that serves to convey a false impression.
> 
> Now show me where I have stated certainty about something that was not certain.  Are you suggesting that all of the intelligence analysts who have gone on record as saying that ALL the intell about Saddam's WMD's came laden with caveats and qualifiers are LIARS and NOT Bush?



You have stated over and over that Bush lied, that YOU know he lied because he did not believe what he said. No uncertainty there now is there?

Explain again how YOU know what Bush believes or believed, how you KNOW what Bush thought or thinks. Go ahead, proof, using YOUR criteria, your not a liar.


----------



## maineman (Jan 25, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> You have stated over and over that Bush lied, that YOU know he lied because he did not believe what he said. No uncertainty there now is there?
> 
> Explain again how YOU know what Bush believes or believed, how you KNOW what Bush thought or thinks. Go ahead, proof, using YOUR criteria, your not a liar.



once again...for the dim witted.  Every intelligence analyst that has come forward has stated that ALL of the intelligence reports concerning Saddam's  stockpiles of WMD's came laden with caveats and qualifiers - this bit of information was single sourced...that bit of information is from a questionable source...that bit of intelligence is based upon old satellite images...etc.... Team Bush told America that there was absolute certainty about the presence (and the location) of Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's when no such absolute certainty existed.  To state absolute certainty when none existed is to make a statement that conveys a false impression.  that is one of the definitions of the word "lie".

how many fucking times do I have to type that for you to let is sink in to the soft sponge that inhabits the space between your ears?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 25, 2008)

maineman said:


> once again...for the dim witted.  Every intelligence analyst that has come forward has stated that ALL of the intelligence reports concerning Saddam's  stockpiles of WMD's came laden with caveats and qualifiers - this bit of information was single sourced...that bit of information is from a questionable source...that bit of intelligence is based upon old satellite images...etc.... Team Bush told America that there was absolute certainty about the presence (and the location) of Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's when no such absolute certainty existed.  To state absolute certainty when none existed is to make a statement that conveys a false impression.  that is one of the definitions of the word "lie".
> 
> how many fucking times do I have to type that for you to let is sink in to the soft sponge that inhabits the space between your ears?



Yet you claim YOU know what the President believed and thought. Sure thing, liar. Using your own logic your a two faced lying sack of shit. A serial liar bent on conveying information you know can not be certain as if it is.


----------



## maineman (Jan 25, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Yet you claim YOU know what the President believed and thought. Sure thing, liar. Using your own logic your a two faced lying sack of shit. A serial liar bent on conveying information you know can not be certain as if it is.



I do not claim to know what the president believed or thought.  I only claim that many intelligence analysts have stated what the president KNEW.  And based upon the dichotomy between what he knew and what he and his minions SAID, I can fairly easily deduce that he lied.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 25, 2008)

maineman said:


> I do not claim to know what the president believed or thought.  I only claim that many intelligence analysts have stated what the president KNEW.  And based upon the dichotomy between what he knew and what he and his minions SAID, I can fairly easily deduce that he lied.



So you claim to know what the President knew and thought. Liar.


----------



## maineman (Jan 25, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> So you claim to know what the President knew and thought. Liar.



I claim that the people who presented the intelligence to the president have all stated that there was no absolute certainty.  that is a fact.  If the intelligence analysts say that all of their intelligence reports contained degrees of doubt and uncertainty, how can Team Bush say that there was no doubt and that there was absolute certainty?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 25, 2008)

maineman said:


> I claim that the people who presented the intelligence to the president have all stated that there was no absolute certainty.  that is a fact.  If the intelligence analysts say that all of their intelligence reports contained degrees of doubt and uncertainty, how can Team Bush say that there was no doubt and that there was absolute certainty?



How can YOU claim to know what the President thought or believed? And then claim based on this super knowledge he lied?

You have absolutely no problem pretending the Dems that said the exact same things were simply mistaken. And you have said the Congress was hood winked by Bush. How do you KNOW that Congress was lied to by a President when that Congress has complete and total power to gather their own briefs, their own intelligence and their own conclusions? Further you have stated that other Countries Intel was based on what we were saying, explain again how you know this when they are independent agencies with no control from President Bush, his team or anyone in the US?


----------



## maineman (Jan 25, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> How can YOU claim to know what the President thought or believed? And then claim based on this super knowledge he lied?
> 
> You have absolutely no problem pretending the Dems that said the exact same things were simply mistaken. And you have said the Congress was hood winked by Bush. How do you KNOW that Congress was lied to by a President when that Congress has complete and total power to gather their own briefs, their own intelligence and their own conclusions? Further you have stated that other Countries Intel was based on what we were saying, explain again how you know this when they are independent agencies with no control from President Bush, his team or anyone in the US?




I have NEVER said I know what he thought or what he believed.  I only claim to know what those who provided him intelligence SAID they had he KNEW and the dichotomy between that and what he told the american people.

And again.... for the dimwitted...any democrat who voted for the use of force resolution and who has not repented for that vote remains on my shit list.  

I have NEVER stated that other country's intel was based upon what we were saying.  Another lie from the king of liars.  quit while you are behind, you fucking moron.


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Jan 25, 2008)

correct me if im wrong but didnt other countries, even ones that dont like us also think he had weapons of wmds?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 25, 2008)

maineman said:


> I have NEVER said I know what he thought or what he believed.  I only claim to know what those who provided him intelligence SAID they had he KNEW and the dichotomy between that and what he told the american people.
> 
> And again.... for the dimwitted...any democrat who voted for the use of force resolution and who has not repented for that vote remains on my shit list.
> 
> I have NEVER stated that other country's intel was based upon what we were saying.  Another lie from the king of liars.  quit while you are behind, you fucking moron.



Ohh ok, so not only were the Dems in Congress to stupid to get separate intel from our own people, they should have known all the intel coming from around the world that insisted Saddam had weapons was false. The moron is you and anyone else that keeps claiming Bush lied. Your own logic dictates your lying when you make the claim.


----------



## maineman (Jan 25, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ohh ok, so not only were the Dems in Congress to stupid to get separate intel from our own people, they should have known all the intel coming from around the world that insisted Saddam had weapons was false. The moron is you and anyone else that keeps claiming Bush lied. Your own logic dictates your lying when you make the claim.



did ALL of the intelligence from EVERYWHERE express absolute certainty about Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's?

yes or no? 

Did Team Bush express absolute certainty about Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's?

yes or no?


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 25, 2008)

LuvRPgrl said:


> I believe someone referred to your location as EU. So, what skank place do you hail frrom?



Well, it's not a place you have to go to get a Dial-A-Bride...


----------



## Alucard (Jan 25, 2008)

Can you guys agree it was a half truth???

He told the truth... Just not the whole truth... I believe that is what MM is trying to say... And he is likely correct...


----------



## Alucard (Jan 25, 2008)

We need to force the Iraqi govt. and people to take control ....HELP them stabilize... and get the hell out of there... and do what MM has been asking for since I first started hating him months ago... "Hunt down and kill those responsable for 9-11"... he was right... why is that so hard to accept for some of you???... on that subject he is balls on...


----------



## jillian (Jan 26, 2008)

Alucard said:


> We need to force the Iraqi govt. and people to take control ....HELP them stabilize... and get the hell out of there... and do what MM has been asking for since I first started hating him months ago... "Hunt down and kill those responsable for 9-11"... he was right... why is that so hard to accept for some of you???... on that subject he is balls on...



Absolutely....


----------



## Taomon (Jan 26, 2008)

Alucard said:


> We need to force the Iraqi govt. and people to take control ....HELP them stabilize... and get the hell out of there... and do what MM has been asking for since I first started hating him months ago... "Hunt down and kill those responsable for 9-11"... he was right... why is that so hard to accept for some of you???... on that subject he is balls on...



But that is not what the Bush Administration wants. They want an endless war and plenty of fear-mongering PR moves.

Without a doubt we must hunt down all responsible parties who were involved with 9/11. I have a feeling that some of the financing came from Saudi Arabia. 

I also know that if we get all of the 9/11 guilty bastards, that America would want less to do with War than before. 9/11 is a real and horrifying event. But the myth built up of terrorists lurking behind every rock is what the Bush Administration is counting on.


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Jan 27, 2008)

maineman said:


> why do you feel the necessity to give my YOUR opinion of MY opinion?  Do you really think I give a fuck?  bar-fine  boy?





Well, apparently you do since you just told me your wife is a street slut hooker whore.


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Jan 27, 2008)

maineman said:


> so...an "ardent left winger" says he believes Hillary has shown integrity and courage.  That bolsters your argument, how???????



Ok dude. I know retardation runs in your family, but if you are really that stupid then you will never get it. Seriously, I didnt realize you had third grade debate comprhension abilities.

 I seriously thought some of you lefties might be able to put up a viable debate, but all the righties have been seriously hamering you guys so hard, you are punch drunk and cant remember what the point is from post to post.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 27, 2008)

LuvRPgrl said:


> Well, apparently you do since you just told me your wife is a street slut hooker whore.



At least he didn't have to go to the Philippines to buy one...


----------



## maineman (Jan 27, 2008)

LuvRPgrl said:


> Ok dude. I know retardation runs in your family, but if you are really that stupid then you will never get it. Seriously, I didnt realize you had third grade debate comprhension abilities.
> 
> I seriously thought some of you lefties might be able to put up a viable debate, but all the righties have been seriously hamering you guys so hard, you are punch drunk and cant remember what the point is from post to post.



if you can't answer my question, why not just say so?


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Jan 27, 2008)

maineman said:


> once again...for the dim witted.  Every intelligence analyst that has come forward has stated that ALL of the intelligence reports concerning Saddam's  stockpiles of WMD's came laden with caveats and qualifiers - this bit of information was single sourced...that bit of information is from a questionable source...that bit of intelligence is based upon old satellite images...etc.... Team Bush told America that there was absolute certainty about the presence (and the location) of Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's when no such absolute certainty existed.  To state absolute certainty when none existed is to make a statement that conveys a false impression.  that is one of the definitions of the word "lie".
> 
> how many fucking times do I have to type that for you to let is sink in to the soft sponge that inhabits the space between your ears?



Ok dumbfuck retard. Once again, as the SGT stated, how can you be certain what BUSH THOUGHT, and  if all the intell cames with caveats, then why did Hillary and all the other Dems say they were certain he had WMD's also?

You cant have it both ways you retard.

If PRESIDENT Bush blew it, then the Dems blew it.
If President Bush lied, then the Dems lied.


----------



## maineman (Jan 27, 2008)

LuvRPgrl said:


> Well, apparently you do since you just told me your wife is a street slut hooker whore.



you're having reading comprehension problems again, I see.... my wife was never mentioned, except by you.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 27, 2008)

LuvRPgrl said:


> Ok dumbfuck retard. Once again, as the SGT stated, how can you be certain what BUSH THOUGHT, and  if all the intell cames with caveats, then why did Hillary and all the other Dems say they were certain he had WMD's also?
> 
> You cant have it both ways you retard.



Course you can. Bush had access to ALL the info, the Dems didn't. They took his word. How can we be certain what Bush thought...um, because Oh Bright One, he said he had NO DOUBT...his words, not mine, not Hillarys, not Kerry's, not Cheneys, Bush...go look it up..


----------



## DeadCanDance (Jan 27, 2008)

Alucard said:


> Can you guys agree it was a half truth???
> 
> He told the truth... Just not the whole truth... I believe that is what MM is trying to say... And he is likely correct...



I know what you're saying, but I don't think Half-truth is a formal word. 

I prefer to say that BushCo. exaggerated and cherry picked the intelligence, to make a case for a war they had decided to wage come hell or high water.


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Jan 27, 2008)

Dr Grump said:


> Well, it's not a place you have to go to get a Dial-A-Bride...



R u telling me your wife is a fucking ****? 

You guys sure are stupid, you dont even know what a dial a bride is, but surely you bufoons are jealous, my guess is your wife is a fat , lazy bitch that you cant stand, but you stay with her cuz you got no other choice and when you fuck her, you have to close your eyes and imagine Halle  Berry


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Jan 27, 2008)

Alucard said:


> Can you guys agree it was a half truth???
> 
> He told the truth... Just not the whole truth... I believe that is what MM is trying to say... And he is likely correct...



No, MM and all those other frothing at the mouth rabid "compassionate" liberals are bone cold crazy with HATRED for President Bush, in a way unprecedented in US History.

They are seriously pissed off they got their asses kicked TWICE, by a guy they consider a moron, HAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHHA


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Jan 27, 2008)

Dr Grump said:


> At least he didn't have to go to the Philippines to buy one...


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Jan 27, 2008)

maineman said:


> if you can't answer my question, why not just say so?


----------



## jillian (Jan 27, 2008)

LuvRPgrl said:


> R u telling me your wife is a fucking ****?
> 
> You guys sure are stupid, you dont even know what a dial a bride is, but surely you bufoons are jealous, my guess is your wife is a fat , lazy bitch that you cant stand, but you stay with her cuz you got no other choice and when you fuck her, you have to close your eyes and imagine Halle  Berry



Actually, I've met and hung out with his wife a few times. She's lovely. 

Guess that shoots that theory in the genitalia.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 27, 2008)

LuvRPgrl said:


> R u telling me your wife is a fucking ****?
> 
> You guys sure are stupid, you dont even know what a dial a bride is, but surely you bufoons are jealous, my guess is your wife is a fat , lazy bitch that you cant stand, but you stay with her cuz you got no other choice and when you fuck her, you have to close your eyes and imagine Halle  Berry



LOL re my wife, if only you know the half of it. She earns the best part of $150k a year - must be a real lazy arse..lol...although I'm sure your wife does have to close her eyes. After all, she's only with you because she wanted a ticket to live in the US...


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 27, 2008)

Dr Grump said:


> Course you can. Bush had access to ALL the info, the Dems didn't. They took his word. How can we be certain what Bush thought...um, because Oh Bright One, he said he had NO DOUBT...his words, not mine, not Hillarys, not Kerry's, not Cheneys, Bush...go look it up..



Absolute BULLSHIT, once again for the slow, the President can NOT cherry pick what the Congress gets briefed on. Congress can and does call for independent reports and briefs from any and all sources including ones the President may or may not have even used, including Foreign Government briefs and reports.

If your going to argue about American Government at least learn how the hell it works. The claim that some how Bush prevented Congress from seeing things he did not want them to see, that he cherry picked the information they had access to is an outright ignorant LIE.

Edwards and Hillary all expressed NO doubt either as well as Pelosi and Reid. Bill Clinton had no doubts in 1998 and again in 2002 as well as every member of his Government. He even asked the Congress to pass legislation stating the US intended to create a change in Government of Iraq at the soonest possible time.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 27, 2008)

DeadCanDance said:


> I know what you're saying, but I don't think Half-truth is a formal word.
> 
> I prefer to say that BushCo. exaggerated and cherry picked the intelligence, to make a case for a war they had decided to wage come hell or high water.



Which does NOT conform to the simple fact that Congress has access to independent briefings from ANY source they want. That the President can not "cherry pick" anything and expect it to stand the test of the power and ability of Congress. You simply must learn how our Government works.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 27, 2008)

Dr Grump said:


> LOL re my wife, if only you know the half of it. She earns the best part of $150k a year - must be a real lazy arse..lol...although I'm sure your wife does have to close her eyes. After all, she's only with you because she wanted a ticket to live in the US...



Provide some actual evidence or admit that in this case by MM and your definition your a liar.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 27, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Absolute BULLSHIT, once again for the slow, the President can NOT cherry pick what the Congress gets briefed on. Congress can and does call for independent reports and briefs from any and all sources including ones the President may or may not have even used, including Foreign Government briefs and reports.
> 
> If your going to argue about American Government at least learn how the hell it works. The claim that some how Bush prevented Congress from seeing things he did not want them to see, that he cherry picked the information they had access to is an outright ignorant LIE.
> 
> Edwards and Hillary all expressed NO doubt either as well as Pelosi and Reid. Bill Clinton had no doubts in 1998 and again in 2002 as well as every member of his Government. He even asked the Congress to pass legislation stating the US intended to create a change in Government of Iraq at the soonest possible time.




I know how your govt works. You have three branches - executive, legislative and judicial.

Of course Bush can cherrypick and decide what congress sees. Thing is, you wouldn't know. Nobody would know. As for Bill, he had no doubt huh? Is that why he invaded Iraq? Oh, that's right, he didn't....


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 27, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Provide some actual evidence or admit that in this case by MM and your definition your a liar.



WTF does this have to do with the post you quoted??


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Jan 27, 2008)

DeadCanDance said:


> I know what you're saying, but I don't think Half-truth is a formal word.
> 
> I prefer to say that BushCo. exaggerated and cherry picked the intelligence, to make a case for a war they had decided to wage come hell or high water.





Dr Grump said:


> Course you can. Bush had access to ALL the info, the Dems didn't. They took his word. How can we be certain what Bush thought...um, because Oh Bright One, he said he had NO DOUBT...his words, not mine, not Hillarys, not Kerry's, not Cheneys, Bush...go look it up..




THey took his word for it? PROVE IT,


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Jan 27, 2008)

jillian said:


> Actually, I've met and hung out with his wife a few times. She's lovely.
> 
> Guess that shoots that theory in the genitalia.



She's lovely? hahahha, we all know what that means when a woman uses that term, Psss, its called being polite. hahahhahah


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Jan 27, 2008)

Dr Grump said:


> LOL re my wife, if only you know the half of it. She earns the best part of $150k a year - must be a real lazy arse..lol...although I'm sure your wife does have to close her eyes. After all, she's only with you because she wanted a ticket to live in the US...



You sound defensive to me...Im sure every time you see a guy like me with a hot and beautiful younger wife you, like the guy with the retard sons, starts in about dial a bride, cuz you cant stomach the idea that some guys can get a not young woman based on only love, and that you aint one of em.


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Jan 27, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Absolute BULLSHIT, once again for the slow, the President can NOT cherry pick what the Congress gets briefed on. Congress can and does call for independent reports and briefs from any and all sources including ones the President may or may not have even used, including Foreign Government briefs and reports.
> 
> If your going to argue about American Government at least learn how the hell it works. The claim that some how Bush prevented Congress from seeing things he did not want them to see, that he cherry picked the information they had access to is an outright ignorant LIE.
> 
> Edwards and Hillary all expressed NO doubt either as well as Pelosi and Reid. Bill Clinton had no doubts in 1998 and again in 2002 as well as every member of his Government. He even asked the Congress to pass legislation stating the US intended to create a change in Government of Iraq at the soonest possible time.



Lets see if he can come up with some proof, lets see something Hillary and co stated that they didnt have all the info, that they "trusted" the President. HOW ABSOLUTELY HILARIOUS, "they trusted him," OH MY GOD !!!!!!!!!!!

You would get laughed out of the room in a formal debate if you came up with that line.


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Jan 28, 2008)

Dr Grump said:


> I know how your govt works. You have three branches - executive, legislative and judicial.
> 
> Of course Bush can cherrypick and decide what congress sees. Thing is, you wouldn't know. Nobody would know. As for Bill, he had no doubt huh? Is that why he invaded Iraq? Oh, that's right, he didn't....



You claim President Bush lied, but no one in congress did cuz President Bush had Cherry picked some info, then you claim we dont know if he did or not, that we cant even know if he did. Which is it??? Again, youi cant have it both ways.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 28, 2008)

LuvRPgrl said:


> You sound defensive to me...Im sure every time you see a guy like me with a hot and beautiful younger wife you, like the guy with the retard sons, starts in about dial a bride, cuz you cant stomach the idea that some guys can get a not young woman based on only love, and that you aint one of em.



Me being defensive?? LOL...sure I am...heh heh heh.... 

You're the one who had to go to the Philippines to find a wife not me.... 

It must be worth it to her though...having on the very rare ocassion to close her eyes, open her legs and think of having a better lifestyle than she would in the Philippines. Some sacrifice I guess. Kudos to her!


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 28, 2008)

LuvRPgrl said:


> You claim President Bush lied, but no one in congress did cuz President Bush had Cherry picked some info, then you claim we dont know if he did or not, that we cant even know if he did. Which is it??? Again, youi cant have it both ways.



Course I can have it both ways. I only said the latter is a possibility. Personally, I think he lied. It is in keeping with the type of person he is - a naive doofus who's never worked a day in his life and is a lazy arse...


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 28, 2008)

Dr Grump said:


> WTF does this have to do with the post you quoted??



Moron you claimed his wife used him to get to the States, provide information to support it or admit your just a liar.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 28, 2008)

Dr Grump said:


> I know how your govt works. You have three branches - executive, legislative and judicial.
> 
> Of course Bush can cherrypick and decide what congress sees. Thing is, you wouldn't know. Nobody would know. As for Bill, he had no doubt huh? Is that why he invaded Iraq? Oh, that's right, he didn't....



You haven't a clue. The President can not dictate the information Congress has or can get access to. It is physically impossible as well as legally impossible for the President to determine what information Congress receives. Congress receives independent briefs from all the agencies, they can and do request independent foreign briefs and they can and do receive briefs from agencies and people the President may never have talked to.

As for Clinton try actually listening to what he said moron. I know it is hard since it does not conform to your ignorant claims but try it.

You want to argue about things you haven't even a clue about. Either because your to lazy to learn or to busy listening to the lairs that are liberals.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 28, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Moron you claimed his wife used him to get to the States, provide information to support it or admit your just a liar.



You contradict yourself in your own post limpdick...Even YOU say I "claimed"...never said I had "no doubt"..maybe the subtlety is lost on you. I note you didn't accuse him of being a liar with regard to MY wife...more hypocrisy from the right..


----------



## jillian (Jan 28, 2008)

LuvRPgrl said:


> She's lovely? hahahha, we all know what that means when a woman uses that term, Psss, its called being polite. hahahhahah



No. Then I would say she's "nice".


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 28, 2008)

Dr Grump said:


> You contradict yourself in your own post limpdick...Even YOU say I "claimed"...never said I had "no doubt"..maybe the subtlety is lost on you. I note you didn't accuse him of being a liar with regard to MY wife...more hypocrisy from the right..



Play your games. You and MM whine like little girls when someone "insults" your family but sure do not waste any time doing it to others.

Ohh and have you enrolled in a class of US Government yet?


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 28, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Play your games. You and MM whine like little girls when someone "insults" your family but sure do not waste any time doing it to others.
> 
> Ohh and have you enrolled in a class of US Government yet?



Where did I say I minded him insulted my family? Don't mind at all. Water off a duck's back to me...

I understand your govt a lot more than you understand mine. So what, you say? Just shows your ignorance says I...


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 29, 2008)

Dr Grump said:


> Where did I say I minded him insulted my family? Don't mind at all. Water off a duck's back to me...
> 
> I understand your govt a lot more than you understand mine. So what, you say? Just shows your ignorance says I...



Except I don't make ignorant statements about YOUR Government. I do not pretend to know how it works fully nor do I claim things not in evidence.

Your knowledge of how our Government works is fatally flawed. Learn how it rally does work before making ignorant talking point statements that are so factually wrong as to be ignorant.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 29, 2008)

Dr Grump said:


> Course you can. Bush had access to ALL the info, the Dems didn't. They took his word.


That's not how it works.  The intel committees see what Bush sees.
Unless, of course, you can -show- that Bush withheld information...



> How can we be certain what Bush thought...um, because Oh Bright One, he said he had NO DOUBT


That's right.
And for him to have lied, you have to show that he did not believe what he was saying.


----------



## Shogun (Jan 29, 2008)

You bush lovers crack me up.  Somehow, you think it's better that your 00 and 04 choice be too stupid to see through Saddam's WMD facade than believe that *GASP* someone in Washington politics LIED on a bait and wswitch run up to invading iraq!  

 


hey, maybe you should all get a bumper sticker.. you know, one to replace that big W that you scraped off of your car with furious abandon in 2006.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 29, 2008)

Shogun said:


> You bush lovers crack me up.


And you Bush haters need professional help.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 30, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> That's not how it works.  The intel committees see what Bush sees.
> Unless, of course, you can -show- that Bush withheld information...
> 
> 
> ...



No, I don't have to prove that at all. I have an OPINION of the man. IMO he lied. Why do I have this opinion? Because he had NO DOUBT there were WMDs. That leads me to believe he knew that there were definitely WMDs in Iraq. They are not there now. He lied. Then again maybe he is just stupid. Either way, it is not a good look for the so-called leader of the free world..


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 30, 2008)

Dr Grump said:


> No, I don't have to prove that at all. I have an OPINION of the man. IMO he lied.


Your opinion and $0.99 will buy you a double cheeseburger at McD.


----------



## maineman (Jan 30, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> Your opinion and $0.99 will buy you a double cheeseburger at McD.




given Bush's shitty approval ratings, it would seem that the doctor's worthless opinion of Bush is held by many many Americans!


----------



## misericordia (Jan 30, 2008)

watch his online excerpts.  Google Aaron Russo.  5 minutes.


----------



## Zoomie1980 (Jan 30, 2008)

Dr Grump said:


> I know how your govt works. You have three branches - executive, legislative and judicial.
> 
> Of course Bush can cherrypick and decide what congress sees. Thing is, you wouldn't know. Nobody would know. As for Bill, he had no doubt huh? Is that why he invaded Iraq? Oh, that's right, he didn't....



No, he invaded Kosovo.....and we are still there, too.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 30, 2008)

Zoomie1980 said:


> No, he invaded Kosovo.....and we are still there, too.



He didn't invade anywhere. Nato was already there. And how contentious an issue is Kosovo compared to Iraq. You do all things are not the same, right?


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 30, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> Your opinion and $0.99 will buy you a double cheeseburger at McD.



It might also be on the money....


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 30, 2008)

Your Ignorance of our Govrnment is telling, and yet you wnt to argue with us about things you can not even bother learning about.

Congress is NOT controlled by the President. It is Independent and operates INDEPENDENTLY. The President has NO authority to prevent them from doing their jobs, he can not preven them from getting independent briefs and independent opinions from ANY and ALL sources. He can not tell them what intel reports that can and can not read or ask for. He can not order the FBI, CIA or any other intel gathering department to not deliver information to Congress nor can he dictate what information they will provide.

Claiming he can is just proof of your ignorance of our Government and how it functions. Whats worse though is you get these ideas from Americans that KNOW better. Or should.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 30, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Your Ignorance of our Govrnment is telling, and yet you wnt to argue with us about things you can not even bother learning about.
> 
> Congress is NOT controlled by the President. It is Independent and operates INDEPENDENTLY. The President has NO authority to prevent them from doing their jobs, he can not preven them from getting independent briefs and independent opinions from ANY and ALL sources. He can not tell them what intel reports that can and can not read or ask for. He can not order the FBI, CIA or any other intel gathering department to not deliver information to Congress nor can he dictate what information they will provide.
> 
> Claiming he can is just proof of your ignorance of our Government and how it functions. Whats worse though is you get these ideas from Americans that KNOW better. Or should.



I know all that, but there is politics and there is politics....he has knowledge that some others don't. I remember way back near the beginning of his presidency there was some sort of investigation into power company monopolisation (I THINK it was power companies, I could be wrong). The inquiry was closed, lead by Cheney (from memory) and info was given by the power companies themselves AND the findings were never published.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 30, 2008)

Dr Grump said:


> I know all that, but there is politics and there is politics....he has knowledge that some others don't. I remember way back near the beginning of his presidency there was some sort of investigation into power company monopolisation (I THINK it was power companies, I could be wrong). The inquiry was closed, lead by Cheney (from memory) and info was given by the power companies themselves AND the findings were never published.



So what? Vice Presidents can NOT create nor even sign into effect laws. Presidents can not create laws either. Claiming that because a member of the executive had a private meeting somehow equates to lying to Congress is beyond belief.

Further that meeting had nothing to do WITH Congress at all. The Executive is not required to brief the Legislative branch on everything they do.

Now perhaps you can GET on topic and remind us how Bush somehow thwarted Congress from its ability to independently gather information? A claim that is patently false. Provide us with some actual evidence this happened.


----------



## Zoomie1980 (Jan 30, 2008)

Dr Grump said:


> He didn't invade anywhere. Nato was already there. And how contentious an issue is Kosovo compared to Iraq. You do all things are not the same, right?



Uhhhh.....for the CLUELESS, for all practical purposes...we ARE NATO.  We constitute over 75% of it's combat power and are BY FAR it's main funder.  The Balkans was almost 100% an American combat effort.  Bill Clinton committed 20,000 ground troops to the Balkans in 1995 and 1996 with the PROMISE that they'd return home in less than one year....ALL 20,000 are STILL THERE.

And NO Iraq is NO LESS "contentious" than the Balkans were.  The only difference is left wing loons, like you, are blinded by their hatred of ANYTHING Bush does or has ever done.  

And no, I am NOT a Bush fan at all.  Bush bungled what should have been a fairly straight forward operation in Iraq.  Clinton laid the ground work for 9/11 to happen by mostly ignoring Islamic terrorism.  At least he did the right thing in the Balkans, since the Euroweenies can't handle even insignificantly TINY aggressions....they tend to piss on themselves any time they are threatened.


----------



## DeadCanDance (Jan 31, 2008)

Zoomie1980 said:


> Uhhhh.....for the CLUELESS, for all practical purposes...we ARE NATO.  We constitute over 75&#37; of it's combat power and are BY FAR it's main funder.  The Balkans was almost 100% an American combat effort.  Bill Clinton committed 20,000 ground troops to the Balkans in 1995 and 1996 with the PROMISE that they'd return home in less than one year....ALL 20,000 are STILL THERE.
> 
> And NO Iraq is NO LESS "contentious" than the Balkans were.  The only difference is left wing loons, like you, are blinded by their hatred of ANYTHING Bush does or has ever done.
> 
> And no, I am NOT a Bush fan at all.  Bush bungled what should have been a fairly straight forward operation in Iraq.  Clinton laid the ground work for 9/11 to happen by mostly ignoring Islamic terrorism.  At least he did the right thing in the Balkans, since the Euroweenies can't handle even insignificantly TINY aggressions....they tend to piss on themselves any time they are threatened.




_And NO Iraq is NO LESS "contentious" than the Balkans were. _

LOL!

If bill clinton had squandered a trillion dollars in the balkans, killed or wounded 30,000 american soldiers, and bungled us into a civil war there, I guarantee you that liberals would be among the first to say we needed to get out of that sh*t. 

Now that the table are turned however, and Bush has bungled us into a costly disaster in iraq, republicans are sticking by their hero and blindly taking orders from him.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 31, 2008)

DeadCanDance said:


> _And NO Iraq is NO LESS "contentious" than the Balkans were. _
> 
> LOL!
> 
> ...


I love when you retards claim we are blindly following. What we are doing,as we did under Clinton is acknowledging Bush is President. Admit it you Liberals just want to accuse Bush cause your hero got impeached for lying to a Judge under Oath. You can't let it go.

There was not this huge camp of people constantly calling Clinton a liar EVEN after he admitted he lied under oath, NOR did we the Conservatives spend 8 years claiming Clinton was not "our" President. We did not do much of anything even after it became clear your hero Clinton was even taking Bribes from China. And nothing was done after he sold pardons for cash. No action was taken for him renting out the White House to his supporters either. And nothing happened to him for having over 900 FBI files in his residence ( of political enemies) which also is against the law. No action was taken after he fired the white house travel office and made false claims they committed crimes either.

Clinton never got 50 percent of the vote in either election, yet we did not spend 8 years decrying he was not our President.


----------



## Zoomie1980 (Jan 31, 2008)

DeadCanDance said:


> _And NO Iraq is NO LESS "contentious" than the Balkans were. _
> 
> LOL!
> 
> ...



We are in an on-going civil war in the Balkans.  It is only our presence that keeps the murderous factions in the Balkans apart.  You have no clue, obviously.  Just because the left-wing dominated world media chooses not to cover it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I'm not sure what "orders" they are taking....


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 31, 2008)

Zoomie1980 said:


> Uhhhh.....for the CLUELESS, for all practical purposes...we ARE NATO.  We constitute over 75% of it's combat power and are BY FAR it's main funder.  The Balkans was almost 100% an American combat effort.  Bill Clinton committed 20,000 ground troops to the Balkans in 1995 and 1996 with the PROMISE that they'd return home in less than one year....ALL 20,000 are STILL THERE.
> 
> And NO Iraq is NO LESS "contentious" than the Balkans were.  The only difference is left wing loons, like you, are blinded by their hatred of ANYTHING Bush does or has ever done.
> 
> And no, I am NOT a Bush fan at all.  Bush bungled what should have been a fairly straight forward operation in Iraq.  Clinton laid the ground work for 9/11 to happen by mostly ignoring Islamic terrorism.  At least he did the right thing in the Balkans, since the Euroweenies can't handle even insignificantly TINY aggressions....they tend to piss on themselves any time they are threatened.




You are beyond an idiot...here's a news flash, the European arm of NATO was involved long before America re the Balkans (not talking just Kosovo here, but the whole region). By the time you guys got your arses involved it had been going for a couple of years. I suppose you believe WWII started in 1941 too? And as part of NATO, you should have been involved A LOT earlier. 

The Euros main problem was they were too PC. Then again, they are right in the vacinity so any impact vis-a-vis refugees etc would have an immediate impact.

BS being no less contentious. What a load of utter crap. Kosovo was a police action as was Somalia. Iraq is a full blown war. Do a little research and draw upo a chart with two headings. On one side put the word Kosovo, on the other Iraq. Then start lists: How many died in Iraq vs Kosovo?, then put the numbers. Do the same with the number of wounded, equipment used, financial costs etc, etc, etc.

There are some clueless people on these boards for sure, and it looks like you've stepped up to be their poster boy..congrats...


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 31, 2008)

Zoomie1980 said:


> We are in an on-going civil war in the Balkans.  It is only our presence that keeps the murderous factions in the Balkans apart.  You have no clue, obviously.  Just because the left-wing dominated world media chooses not to cover it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
> 
> I'm not sure what "orders" they are taking....



It is not just the US involved. Typical right-wing loon patriot crapola... There is no on-going civil war at all. There are the odd run-ins happening, but nothing more that is happening in other parts of the world. There is no wholesale war going on. Where do you get this crap? Your cheerios packet?


----------



## Zoomie1980 (Jan 31, 2008)

Dr Grump said:


> It is not just the US involved. Typical right-wing loon patriot crapola... There is no on-going civil war at all. There are the odd run-ins happening, but nothing more that is happening in other parts of the world. There is no wholesale war going on. Where do you get this crap? Your cheerios packet?



Reading for comprehension is not a strong suit of yours...obviously.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 31, 2008)

Zoomie1980 said:


> Reading for comprehension is not a strong suit of yours...obviously.



Obviously...


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 1, 2008)

DeadCanDance said:


> If bill clinton had squandered a trillion dollars in the balkans, killed or wounded 30,000 american soldiers, and bungled us into a civil war there, I guarantee you that liberals would be among the first to say we needed to get out of that sh*t.


So, it IS OK to lie about going to war -- so long ad you dont kill 'too many' people, spend 'too much' money and have a (D) next to your name.

Good to see you can admit it.


----------



## Taomon (Mar 2, 2008)

M14 Shooter said:


> So, it IS OK to lie about going to war -- so long ad you dont kill 'too many' people, spend 'too much' money and have a (D) next to your name.
> 
> Good to see you can admit it.



No, it is never okay to lie in order to go to war. But pointing the finger at Clinton and ignoring Bush is just plain biased. And you are deflecting fom the argument.

Clinton was culpable for the Balkans. No doubt. Bush is culpable for so much more, so just admit it already and be done with this straying off the beaten path thing.


----------



## GHook93 (Mar 11, 2008)

mattskramer said:


> Is anyone willing to say that Bush should have at least inspected the hospitals before he had us go to war?  Can you say that there is anything that you think would be obvious that Bush should have done differently?  (Im not talking about hindsight being 20/20. Im talking about foresight that would make you think that Bush jumped into war too quickly.) Would anyone say something along these lines, Wow?  You screwed up here. Didnt it ever dawn on you that this action would be more appropriate?   - or do all pro-Bush and Pro-Iraq people think that all of Bushs decisions throughout the war in Iraq to this point were reasonable and well-planned-out.



If you talking hinder-sight, then you would say then we should have never went in to Iraq. But if the "let's get out of Iraq today" crowd will also have to look back in hindsight if it does happen and Iraq turns into a Rwanda like massacre and a genocidal civil war! Will you then look back in hindsight and say maybe the war was a mistake, but maybe we should have given the war effort a chance, while at least there was a glimpse of things working out!


----------



## BrianH (Mar 12, 2008)

If people would look beyond the last 8 years before making their predictions, we would be alot better off.  The fact is , (Republican or Democrat) the last 10 (at least) presidents were involved in some kind of conflict/war...many of which we were not attacked.  Spanish-American War, Korea, Vietnam...I believe the latter two involved Democrat presidents.  (Just for FYI).  I'm not saying that I'm a staunch republican, but I tend to lean more conservative than I do liberal, however, I see alot of finger-pointing going on in these forums and it makes me laugh.  I don't really know who to respond to.  Do I respond to the hard-core republicans? Or do I respond to the liberal-Dems?  Either way is interesting. 
   Bush is not the first president to get involved in this kind of situation.  We're still in Korea (I wonder how much money has been spent, we've been there for around 60 years.)  We still have troops in the Balkans.  As much as you would like to scorn Bush and hate the war, just remember that this isn't the first time that this has happened, and not nearly all of the presidents were republican.  And for you Dems out there, remember, it was the Democrats that succeeded from the Union, spurring the Civil War.  (FYI).  

You know what?   I think I am a staunch republican


----------



## freedombecki (Oct 4, 2011)

BrianH said:


> If people would look beyond the last 8 years before making their predictions, we would be alot better off.  The fact is , (Republican or Democrat) the last 10 (at least) presidents were involved in some kind of conflict/war...many of which we were not attacked.  Spanish-American War, Korea, Vietnam...I believe the latter two involved Democrat presidents.  (Just for FYI).  I'm not saying that I'm a staunch republican, but I tend to lean more conservative than I do liberal, however, I see alot of finger-pointing going on in these forums and it makes me laugh.  I don't really know who to respond to.  Do I respond to the hard-core republicans? Or do I respond to the liberal-Dems?  Either way is interesting.
> Bush is not the first president to get involved in this kind of situation.  We're still in Korea (I wonder how much money has been spent, we've been there for around 60 years.)  We still have troops in the Balkans.  As much as you would like to scorn Bush and hate the war, just remember that this isn't the first time that this has happened, and not nearly all of the presidents were republican.  And for you Dems out there, remember, it was the Democrats that succeeded from the Union, spurring the Civil War.  (FYI).
> 
> You know what?   I think I am a staunch republican


Found this online this morning from back sometime after 9/11/01, but not long, had to log in but had saved this info:



> [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]*Anonymous          Intelligence Report - Bin Laden Linked to Saddam Hussein.*[/FONT]
> [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The          September 11 attacks in the United States were carried out by operatives          of Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaida organization, but the initial plans for          the terrorist attack were made in Baghdad six years ago.[/FONT]
> [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Iraqi          intelligence trained at least two of bin Ladens suicide pilots on Boeing          jetliners the Iraqis captured during the Gulf war. The Iraqis provided          several of bin Ladens men with forged passports and vials of anthrax,          which were delivered to one of the suicide pilots, Mohammad Atta, during          secret meetings in Prague.
> 
> ...


I don't think it was hocus-pocus that we invaded Iraq. I do believe Madeline Albright's notes would confirm almost all of the above, if only it were available. Unfortunately, information on Iraq confirming both right and responsibility of the executive branch to go into and remove Saddam Hussein have been either scrubbed or obfuscated from the internet for political purposes of lying by omission that somehow, Bush was a bad guy, when the complete opposite is true: Bush went after bad guys. Pretty inconvenient for the get-Bush crowd whose use of the convict's unpublished-due-to-falsification-of-data-on-Bush became their party platform and smarm in 2000 and 2004 presidential elections.


----------



## louisshane (Jan 2, 2012)

I'm Praying for peace and more comfort and strength for Iraq's People.


----------

