# Algore would have invaded Iraq



## Gord (Dec 24, 2008)

Would Al Gore have invaded Iraq? Definitely, concludes new study


Kelly McParland: Would Al Gore have invaded Iraq? Definitely, concludes new study - Full Comment


----------



## jillian (Dec 24, 2008)

More revisionist history?

You loonies just don't stop, do you?


----------



## Gord (Dec 24, 2008)

jillian said:


> More revisionist history?
> 
> You loonies just don't stop, do you?


Ah - the comic relief has arrived early from Daily Kos...


----------



## jillian (Dec 24, 2008)

Gord said:


> Ah - the comic relief has arrived early from Daily Kos...



Interestingly, I've never been on DailyKos or any other site like that.
Wingnuts like you assume that others must inhabit wingnut sites.

Frankly, I just have little patience for stupidity like you posted. 

Happy Holidays.


----------



## Gord (Dec 24, 2008)

jillian said:


> Interestingly, I've never been on DailyKos or any other site like that.
> Wingnuts like you assume that others must inhabit wingnut sites.
> 
> Frankly, I just have little patience for stupidity like you posted.
> ...


You should go - they sound just like you...


----------



## sparky (Dec 24, 2008)

could Al have done worse?

hey, at least those Iraqi's would have twisty light bulbs by now.....


----------



## Tuatara (Dec 25, 2008)

Has anyone asked Al Gore?


----------



## Gord (Dec 25, 2008)

Tuatara said:


> Has anyone asked Al Gore?


What would that prove after the fact?


----------



## editec (Dec 25, 2008)

jillian said:


> More revisionist history?
> 
> You loonies just don't stop, do you?


 
What_ else_ have they got to work with?


----------



## Tuatara (Dec 26, 2008)

Gord said:


> What would that prove after the fact?


Is there no literature available at the time of invasion of whether or not he approved of it?


----------



## Gord (Dec 26, 2008)

Tuatara said:


> Is there no literature available at the time of invasion of whether or not he approved of it?


Don't know. But he had made statements that he believed that Saddam had WMDs and would use them. The Democrat leadership had access to the same intel as the administration and they also believed Saddam had WMDs and was willing to use them. The head of the CIA was a Clinton-Gore appointment and he assured Bush the intel was a "slam dunk" that Saddam had WMDs.

So does it make sense that Algore would listen to his own CIA head whom he had a hand in appointing? Yeah it makes sense...


----------



## Tuatara (Dec 26, 2008)

Gord said:


> Don't know. But he had made statements that he believed that Saddam had WMDs and would use them.


Yes I have seen the quotes from 2002 but that still doesn't mean he supported the invasion.


> The Democrat leadership had access to the same intel as the administration


Wrong. I thought this argument died a long time ago. Here are just five of several arguments that dispute this claim.


> FACT  Dissent From White House Claims on Iraq Nuclear Program Consistently Withheld from Congress:
> 
> everal Congressional and intelligence officials with access to the 15 assessments [of intel suggesting aluminum tubes showed Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program] said not one of them informed senior policy makers of the Energy Departments dissent. They described a series of reports, some with ominous titles, that failed to convey either the existence or the substance of the intensifying debate. [NYT, 10/3/04]
> 
> ...






> and they also believed Saddam had WMDs and was willing to use them.


Not all of them did. There were a few who didn't. Congress failed. Only six members read any of the intelligence. The rest relied on Bush's word.


> The head of the CIA was a Clinton-Gore appointment and he assured Bush the intel was a "slam dunk" that Saddam had WMDs.


Yet all the UNMOVIC inspectors had already announced that Saddam gave up his WMD programs. Political analyst Ralph Whitehead said it best about Tenet: "Tenet's statement is so clear, direct, assertive and just completely wrong". 


> So does it make sense that Al gore would listen to his own CIA head whom he had a hand in appointing? Yeah it makes sense...


It makes sense but it's still only speculation. 

This is why I'd rather go to the horse's mouth

Al Gore said in September of 2002:


> I want to talk about the relationship between America's war against terrorism and America's proposed war against Iraq. Like most Americans I've been wrestling with the question of what our country needs to do to defend itself from the kind of focused, intense and evil attack that we suffered a year ago, September 11. We ought to assume that the forces responsible for that attack are even now attempting to plan another attack against us.
> 
> I'm speaking today in an effort to recommend a specific course of action for our country, which I sincerely believe would be better for our country than the policy that is now being pursued by President Bush. Specifically, I am deeply concerned that the course of action that we are presently embarking upon with respect to Iraq has the potential to seriously damage our ability to win the war against terrorism and to weaken our ability to lead the world in this new century.



He did not support the war in Iraq.


Couldn't post links because of:


> You are only allowed to post URLs to other sites after you have made 15 posts or more.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 26, 2008)

you could post the site without making it a link


----------



## Ravi (Dec 26, 2008)

Bush is an idiot.

And before you start whining, of course this thread is about Bush. Incompetent Excuse for Bush #472: _Someone else would have done what he did._


----------



## Gord (Dec 26, 2008)

Actually the invasion of Iraq was inevitable, regardless of who became president.


*If not invasion of Iraq - then what?!?*

If you thought the invasion of Iraq was the incorrect decision, what would you have recommended president Bush do?


Here's the situation in March, 2003 that you and the president were faced with:


1. Saddam had refused to live up to the conditions of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, the final in a long list of UN resolutions Saddam had ignored since 1991 (*1).


2. The UN Oil for Food Program was rife with corruption, with Saddam buying off international players to get around UN sanctions against Iraq (*2).


3. Intelligence pointed to a conclusion that Saddam was hiding quantities of WMDs and desired to develop more (*3).


4. Intelligence pointed to a conclusion that Saddam had harbored, trained and funded international terrorists in the past and desired to do so again (*4).


5. Evidence and intelligence pointed to a conclusion that Saddam had in the past, and was continuing to mass murder the Iraqi population (*5).


7. Evidence and intelligence pointed to a conclusion that Saddam was not cooperating with agreed upon UN sanctions on Iraq, and the Oil for Food Program, resulting in additional hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths as a result of malnutrition and a lack of medicine and healthcare (*6).


8. 71% of congress had passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (*7). Among the many reasons given to justify the attack on Iraq the Resolution included:


- the continuing repression and murdering of Iraq's civilian population


- the continuing support of international terrorist organizations and harboring of terrorists


- the refusal of Saddam Hussein to fully cooperate in the discovery and removal of weapons of mass destruction programs as proscribed by UN Resolution 1441 and previous UN resolutions


9. Many prominent Democrats (including those in the know from the previous administration) had pronounced that Saddam was hiding WMDs and desired to develop more (*8).


Here is what the invasion of Iraq produced:


Iraq is no longer a rogue nation, threatening its neighbors, and harboring, training and funding terrorism. It is no longer a WMD threat. Though many Iraqis have died since the beginning of the conflict (*9), undoubtedly hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been saved from certain death through starvation, lack of medicine and Saddam's mass murdering. Major terrorism against the West has been reduced, with no further attacks on American soil (*10). Unfortunately there has been a cost of some thousands of coalition troops, hundreds of billions of dollars, and damage to America's international reputation.


Here are your alternatives of going to war:


1. Continue with the status quo. Ignore that UN Security Council Resolution 1441 and the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, thus proving both the UN and the U.S.A. impotent. Ignore that the UN Oil for Food Program had been completely corrupted, and keep the sanctions in place thus allowing the additional deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis through malnutrition and lack of medicine as a result of Saddam diverting the Oil for Food Program money to building his palaces and his military, and buying off international players to get around the sanctions. With no international presence Saddam would be free to do as he pleased within Iraq, including further rebuilding his military capabilities, developing new WMDs, training new terrorism recruits, financing international terrorism, advising terrorist organizations on the development and use of WMDs, and continue to mass murder and starve the Iraqi people. Other rogue nations and terrorist groups would certainly see this as a sign of weakness in the West and a signal to accelerate their aggression.


2. Lift the UN sanctions against Iraq and allow Saddam to freely participate in worldwide trade and commerce. This might eventually save hundreds of thousands of Iraqis from certain death brought on by starvation and lack of medicine, depending on whether Saddam diverted money to these problems. But it would not necessarily halt Saddam's mass murdering. It would also allow Saddam to develop his oil fields, bringing in huge profits to be spent as he pleased. Of course this would include building his military, developing his WMD programs, including reconstituting his nuclear weapons program, and resuming his harboring, training and funding of international terrorism. This would most certainly have been seen by other rogue countries and terrorist groups as a complete capitulation by the West, and that America and the West could be defeated.


So now what is your choice? The cost of the war has undoubtedly been high for America in terms of casualties, money and reputation. But what of the costs of the alternatives? Would either alternative have saved casualties, money or America's reputation? 9/11 alone cost America over 3,000 of her citizens and almost two trillion dollars in the financial markets (*11). Would have being branded as paper tigers reduced the likelihood of further terrorist attacks on American soil and throughout the world? Or would it have encouraged even more terrorism, especially with an emboldened Saddam Hussein harboring, training and financing further terrorism, and potentially supplying terrorist groups with WMDs? And what of Iraq's innocent citizens? After the fiasco of the hundreds of thousands mass murdered in Rwanda (*12), and the hundreds of thousands of already needless deaths in Iraq, would you have been willing to turn your back on hundreds of thousands more in Iraq? These were your choices: Invasion with thousands of casualties, hundreds of billions of dollars spent, and a suffering of America's reputation. Or a retreating America seen as ripe for defeat by emboldened rogue nations and terror groups, likely resulting in increased worldwide terrorism, maybe eventually with Saddam supplied WMDs. No doubt that WMD terror attacks would have spawned new wars and destroyed the worldwide economy if the response to 9/11 is any indication. And would Libya and North Korea have voluntarily given up their nuclear weapons programs? Not likely. Can anyone reasonably argue that the world would be safer and more stable if Saddam had been allowed to continue as ruler of Iraq? (*13)


(*1) resolution 1441 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Resolution_1441

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 - Wikisource


(*2) oil for food Oil-for-Food Programme - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

USATODAY.com - U.S. weapons report details corruption of oil-for-food program


(*3) intelligence WMDs Fred Hiatt - 'Bush Lied'? If Only It Were That Simple. - washingtonpost.com

American Thinker: Play President, Real Threats


(*4) intelligence terrorists Saddam Hussein's Support for International Terrorism

The Big Picture

Saddam's Terror Training Camps


(*5) intelligence mass murder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_graves_in_Iraq

Saddam Hussein killer file

USAID: Assistance for Iraq - Iraq's Legacy of Terror: Mass Graves


(*6) intelligence starvation Iraq blames UN sanctions for 1.5 million deaths

Archived Weblog Entry - 05/23/2003: "Doctors say Hussein, not UN sanctions, caused children's deaths"

A Hard Look at Iraq Sanctions | | AlterNet


(*7) congressional authorization Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

American Thinker: Who Lied About Iraq?


(*8) Democrat quotes Freedom Agenda - Quotes and Facts on Iraq

If The Bush Administration Lied About WMD, So Did These People -- Version 3.0 - Right Wing News (Conservative News and Views)


(*9) Iraqi deaths Iraq Body Count

A Study In Lies | NewsBusters.org


(*10) attacks down U.S. says terrorism down, excluding Iraq - Security- msnbc.com

Terrorism Down Worldwide | Right Voices

News You Won't Hear: Terrorism Is Down Almost Everywhere | NewsBusters.org


(*11) 9/11 cost - When the Market Moves, Will You Be Ready? - Peter Navarro - Ph.D. economics, Harvard


(*12) Rwanda deaths Rwandan Genocide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


(*13) Confessions of an Anti-Iraq War Democrat: Memories of a Purple Finger « FOX Forum « FOXNews.com


----------



## Amanda (Dec 26, 2008)

Who cares? Al Gore is irrelevant why elevate his importance by bringing him up?


----------



## Gord (Dec 26, 2008)

Amanda said:


> Who cares? Al Gore is irrelevant why elevate his importance by bringing him up?


The point is: War with Iraq was inevitable.


----------



## PatBuchanan (Dec 26, 2008)

I love the way Al Gore's name was merged into one (Algore)...Sounds like Eegore. I'm not a huge Limbaugh fan, but I do think it was he, who started that.


----------



## Amanda (Dec 26, 2008)

Gord said:


> The point is: War with Iraq was inevitable.



I don't agree, but if that's the point why bring Gore into it at all?


----------



## Gord (Dec 26, 2008)

Amanda said:


> I don't agree, but if that's the point why bring Gore into it at all?


Maybe you missed my long post at the bottom of the first page.

Why Gore? Because he could have potentially been the one making the decision.


----------



## Gord (Dec 26, 2008)

PatBuchanan said:


> I love the way Al Gore's name was merged into one (Algore)...Sounds like Eegore. I'm not a huge Limbaugh fan, but I do think it was he, who started that.


Yes...


----------



## Amanda (Dec 26, 2008)

Gord said:


> Maybe you missed my long post at the bottom of the first page.
> 
> Why Gore? Because he could have potentially been the one making the decision.



I don't generally read super long posts. 

But why Gore? He wasn't the one making the decision.

Why not Bill Bradley or Paul Wellstone? Why not Lamar Alexander, Elizabeth Dole, John Kasich, Dan Quayle, Robert C. Smith, Pat Buchanan, John McCain, Alan Keyes, Steve Forbes, Gary Bauer, or Orrin Hatch?


----------



## Gord (Dec 26, 2008)

Amanda said:


> I don't generally read super long posts.
> 
> But why Gore? He wasn't the one making the decision.
> 
> Why not Bill Bradley or Paul Wellstone? Why not Lamar Alexander, Elizabeth Dole, John Kasich, Dan Quayle, Robert C. Smith, Pat Buchanan, John McCain, Alan Keyes, Steve Forbes, Gary Bauer, or Orrin Hatch?


I don't generally answer the same question twice...


----------



## Amanda (Dec 26, 2008)

Gord said:


> I don't generally answer the same question twice...



Oh well. I find every time I read one of those long rambling posts I kick myself for wasting the time. The modern world moves too fast to spend a lot of time reading what _could be_ be put succinctly.


----------



## Gord (Dec 26, 2008)

Amanda said:


> Oh well. I find every time I read one of those long rambling posts I kick myself for wasting the time. The modern world moves too fast to spend a lot of time reading what _could be_ be put succinctly.


Oh well. I find every time I answer someone who isn't intellectually curious enough to read what I'm talking about before asking questions I've already answered I kick myself for wasting the time...


----------



## Amanda (Dec 26, 2008)

Gord said:


> Oh well. I find every time I answer someone who isn't intellectually curious enough to read what I'm talking about before asking questions I've already answered I kick myself for wasting the time...



If the best you can come up with is to mock me then I feel pretty confident I made the right decision. 

Gonna unsub the thread now, bye!


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 26, 2008)

Its partisan pablum, why would anyone read such clap trap as this clown would write.

He altered AP stories and admitted it.


----------



## Gord (Dec 26, 2008)

Amanda said:


> If the best you can come up with is to mock me then I feel pretty confident I made the right decision.
> 
> Gonna unsub the thread now, bye!


Actually the best I came up with was the post you refuse to read - but mocking you _was_ fun.

Bye...


----------



## Gord (Dec 26, 2008)

Truthmatters said:


> Its partisan pablum, why would anyone read such clap trap as this clown would write.
> 
> He altered AP stories and admitted it.


Who are you talking about:

Frank Harvey - the study author

Kelly McParland - the article author

Or me - the thread starter


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 26, 2008)

Kelly McParland - the article author

He admitted to chaging words in AP articles and then pretending they were intact.

Hes a partisan hack.


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 26, 2008)

National Post gives stupidity a bad name


A week after CBC broke the story, McParland, foreign editor of the National Post, wrote a column in which he not only admitted to being the one who doctored the Reuters copy, but defended his action.&#8224; He said he did so because he wanted to convey to readers the real nature of the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade: &#8220;[It] is dedicated to destroying Israel, and aims to achieve that goal through a campaign of violence. Though it originally targeted members of the Israeli military, two years ago it began killing civilians as well.&#8221;


----------



## Gord (Dec 26, 2008)

Truthmatters said:


> National Post gives stupidity a bad name
> 
> 
> A week after CBC broke the story, McParland, foreign editor of the National Post, wrote a column in which he not only admitted to being the one who doctored the Reuters copy, but defended his action. He said he did so because he wanted to convey to readers the real nature of the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade: [It] is dedicated to destroying Israel, and aims to achieve that goal through a campaign of violence. Though it originally targeted members of the Israeli military, two years ago it began killing civilians as well.


Doesn't seem like much of an infraction to me.

Anyways, in this column he basically reports about a study. Unless you can show where he made things up about the study I don't see any reason to discount the conclusions of the study.


----------



## Tuatara (Dec 26, 2008)

Gord said:


> Actually the invasion of Iraq was inevitable, regardless of who became president.


Would you be willing to speculate that theory, even if Nader or Kucunich had been President? Since you've thrown the Gore argument out the window, your current one has become that there was no other choice but to invade. I shall look at every argument you present and counter every one but not now as I am too sick.


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 26, 2008)

Gord said:


> Doesn't seem like much of an infraction to me.
> 
> Anyways, in this column he basically reports about a study. Unless you can show where he made things up about the study I don't see any reason to discount the conclusions of the study.




Its called lying.


You dont change someone elses writting and then not tell anyone.

How about we just change every referance in any article about Republicans to criminals instead?

Its illegal and its biased propaganda you fool.


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 26, 2008)

I submitt if Gore had been elected then 911 would have been prevented.

Go ask Richard Clarke about how Bushy and team refused to listen to any counter terrorism concerns.


----------



## Gord (Dec 26, 2008)

Tuatara said:


> Would you be willing to speculate that theory, even if Nader or Kucunich had been President? Since you've thrown the Gore argument out the window, your current one has become that there was no other choice but to invade. I shall look at every argument you present and counter every one but not now as I am too sick.


I didn't throw the Algore argument out the window - I just added to it. The Algore argument isn't my argument however, but that of the study's author.

No I asked what choice you would make if you were to have recommended no invasion to president Bush. I gave you two choices - care to make one?


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 26, 2008)

There was no reason TO invade Iraq.


----------



## Gord (Dec 26, 2008)

Truthmatters said:


> I submitt if Gore had been elected then 911 would have been prevented.
> 
> Go ask Richard Clarke about how Bushy and team refused to listen to any counter terrorism concerns.


Richard Clarke didn't come out of all that with much integrity, so I don't buy that. But as I said above Algore isn't my argument, but that of the author of the study.

Anyway, would you care to address the choice I gave as to your recommendation to president Bush?


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 26, 2008)

Truthmatters said:


> I submitt if Gore had been elected then 911 would have been prevented.
> 
> Go ask Richard Clarke about how Bushy and team refused to listen to any counter terrorism concerns.


Clarke was a LIAR

he contradicted himself several times over


----------



## Gord (Dec 26, 2008)

Truthmatters said:


> There was no reason TO invade Iraq.


So what would your recommendation to Bush have been? Here I'll post them again:



> Here are your alternatives of going to war:
> 
> 
> 1. Continue with the status quo. Ignore that UN Security Council Resolution 1441 and the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, thus proving both the UN and the U.S.A. impotent. Ignore that the UN Oil for Food Program had been completely corrupted, and keep the sanctions in place thus allowing the additional deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis through malnutrition and lack of medicine as a result of Saddam diverting the Oil for Food Program money to building his palaces and his military, and buying off international players to get around the sanctions. With no international presence Saddam would be free to do as he pleased within Iraq, including further rebuilding his military capabilities, developing new WMDs, training new terrorism recruits, financing international terrorism, advising terrorist organizations on the development and use of WMDs, and continue to mass murder and starve the Iraqi people. Other rogue nations and terrorist groups would certainly see this as a sign of weakness in the West and a signal to accelerate their aggression.
> ...


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 26, 2008)

Gord said:


> Richard Clarke didn't come out of all that with much integrity, so I don't buy that. But as I said above Algore isn't my argument, but that of the author of the study.
> 
> Anyway, would you care to address the choice I gave as to your recommendation to president Bush?




Only in the minds of cons did RC do anything wrong.


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 26, 2008)

Only in the minds of cons did RC do anything wrong.


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 26, 2008)

Gord said:


> So what would your recommendation to Bush have been? Here I'll post them again:



The same as many told him. There is no reaons to go into Iraq and it will just be an utter mess if you do.

The truth is they wanted to do Iraq. Their reasons had nothing to do with the countries security.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 26, 2008)

Truthmatters said:


> Only in the minds of cons did RC do anything wrong.


only to those with MASSIVE cases of ABDS


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 26, 2008)

Truthmatters said:


> The same as many told him. There is no reaons to go into Iraq and it will just be an utter mess if you do.
> 
> The truth is they wanted to do Iraq. Their reasons had nothing to do with the countries security.


yup, keep posting those lies


----------



## Gord (Dec 26, 2008)

Truthmatters said:


> The same as many told him. There is no reaons to go into Iraq and it will just be an utter mess if you do.
> 
> The truth is they wanted to do Iraq. Their reasons had nothing to do with the countries security.


You are very brave in defending not going to war, but the world would not have come to a stop at that point. There would have been consequences. If Bush had listened to your advise he would have been left with a decision between two choices - which would you have advised him to take?


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 26, 2008)

First answer me on what Richard Clarke did in your mind to discredit himself?


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 26, 2008)

Gord said:


> You are very brave in defending not going to war, but the world would not have come to a stop at that point. There would have been consequences. If Bush had listened to your advise he would have been left with a decision between two choices - which would you have advised him to take?



Not going to war with Iraq would have had very few consequences.


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 26, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> yup, keep posting those lies




Do you have a monopoly on what goes on in Bush's brain?


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 26, 2008)

Truthmatters said:


> Do you have a monopoly on what goes on in Bush's brain?


no, but its clear Bush owns a HUGE piece of your brain


----------



## Gord (Dec 26, 2008)

Truthmatters said:


> First answer me on what Richard Clarke did in your mind to discredit himself?


I remember he contradicted himself a number of times. But what has that got to do with the choice you would have had to have made if you had recommended to president Bush to not invade Iraq? Seems like you are looking for a way to weasel out of answering a natural question about the consequences to such advise...


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 26, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> no, but its clear Bush owns a HUGE piece of your brain



Dude that was really lame.

So you think they really were stupid enough to think doing Iraq would turn out great?

They wanted to tap the oil and every reasonable person knows it.


----------



## Gord (Dec 26, 2008)

Truthmatters said:


> Not going to war with Iraq would have had very few consequences.


Please...


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 26, 2008)

Gord said:


> Please...


clearly these people didnt understand the situation, its all "Bush lied, people died" bs


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 26, 2008)

Truthmatters said:


> Dude that was really lame.
> 
> So you think they really were stupid enough to think doing Iraq would turn out great?
> 
> They wanted to tap the oil and every reasonable person knows it.


no, reasonable people know there were more factors involved
you have not shown me you are a "reasonable person"


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 26, 2008)

Gord said:


> Please...




What were the consequences of not going to Iraq in your mind?


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 26, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> no, reasonable people know there were more factors involved
> you have not shown me you are a "reasonable person"



All the Bush factors turned out to be lies .


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 26, 2008)

gord said:


> i Remember He Contradicted Himself A Number Of Times. But What Has That Got To Do With The Choice You Would Have Had To Have Made If You Had Recommended To President Bush To Not Invade Iraq? Seems Like You Are Looking For A Way To Weasel Out Of Answering A Natural Question About The Consequences To Such Advise...




He Did Not!!!!


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 26, 2008)

Name the contridictions!


You dont like him because he told the truth when Bush was trying to lie.


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 26, 2008)

Now that you have gone and checked you must realize he is an American Hero who refused to help lie to the American people huh?


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 26, 2008)

Truthmatters said:


> Now that you have gone and checked you must realize he is an American Hero who refused to help lie to the American people huh?


how old are you? 13?


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 26, 2008)

Richard Clarke served his country under many presidents, he served with honor. 

Prove he did not if you claim so.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 26, 2008)

Truthmatters said:


> Richard Clarke served his country under many presidents, he served with honor.
> 
> Prove he did not if you claim so.


he had said that Bush changed the whole way we looked at terrorist, and changed it from a watch out for them to an eliminate them, vs what he claimed later that bush did nothing
so, either he lied at first, or he lied later
either way, he lied


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 26, 2008)

What you just said barely makes any sense. Now prove what you claim.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 26, 2008)

Truthmatters said:


> What you just said barely makes any sense. Now prove what you claim.


nope, not gonna waste my time trying to find something from 8 years ago for you to play ignorant fucking games with

you dont want to deal with truth, you are nothing but a moron filled with ABDS


----------



## Gord (Dec 26, 2008)

Truthmatters said:


> What were the consequences of not going to Iraq in your mind?


I've already posted them twice, once specifically to you. But since you didn't even bother to read them, I will return the favor and ignore your posts as well.


----------



## Gord (Dec 26, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> how old are you? 13?


Yup I think you nailed it - this is just a kid.


----------



## Tuatara (Dec 27, 2008)

I noticed neither one has been able to present these Richard Clarke lies or when he contradicted himself. I was going to delve into Gord's post but if he can't even back up his first claim then there is no point.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 27, 2008)

Tuatara said:


> I noticed neither one has been able to present these Richard Clarke lies or when he contradicted himself. I was going to delve into Gord's post but if he can't even back up his first claim then there is no point.


i already did


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 27, 2008)

Gord said:


> I've already posted them twice, once specifically to you. But since you didn't even bother to read them, I will return the favor and ignore your posts as well.



Give me a post number?


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 27, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> i already did




No you made unsubstanciated claims.

Care to prove anything you say?


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 27, 2008)

Truthmatters said:


> No you made unsubstanciated claims.
> 
> Care to prove anything you say?


thus proving you dont have a clue


----------



## Tuatara (Dec 27, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> i already did


I didn't see a quote of a reference to any publication, letter. speech or document. I saw your interpretation of nothing specific.


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 27, 2008)

Post 15?
Here's the situation in March, 2003 that you and the president were faced with:


1. Saddam had refused to live up to the conditions of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, the final in a long list of UN resolutions Saddam had ignored since 1991 (*1).


Hans Blix told the world that the inspections were working


2. The UN Oil for Food Program was rife with corruption, with Saddam buying off international players to get around UN sanctions against Iraq (*2).

Why does this made invasion necessary
3. Intelligence pointed to a conclusion that Saddam was hiding quantities of WMDs and desired to develop more (*3). No it did not, the intell was cherry picked.


4. Intelligence pointed to a conclusion that Saddam had harbored, trained and funded international terrorists in the past and desired to do so again (*4).No it did not, the intell was cherry picked.


5. Evidence and intelligence pointed to a conclusion that Saddam had in the past, and was continuing to mass murder the Iraqi population (*5).More Iraqis died because of the invasion.


7. Evidence and intelligence pointed to a conclusion that Saddam was not cooperating with agreed upon UN sanctions on Iraq, and the Oil for Food Program, resulting in additional hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths as a result of malnutrition and a lack of medicine and healthcare (*6).The above answers cover this one.


8. 71% of congress had passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (*7). Among the many reasons given to justify the attack on Iraq the Resolution included:Bush failed to use all diplomatic options as requested by the resolution


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 27, 2008)

Tuatara said:


> I didn't see a quote of a reference to any publication, letter. speech or document. I saw your interpretation of nothing specific.





Fact and proof just ruin his argument which is why he ignores them and never uses them.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 27, 2008)

Truthmatters said:


> Fact and proof just ruin his argument which is why he ignores them and never uses them.


fuck off liar


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 27, 2008)

Tuatara said:


> I didn't see a quote of a reference to any publication, letter. speech or document. I saw your interpretation of nothing specific.


because it is a waste of time
it is as i said it was


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 27, 2008)

A 30 year terror specialist who served under several presidents is a bad man because DC says so?


Wow, Im sure that is enough evidence for anyone.

Who needs facts?


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 27, 2008)

Truthmatters said:


> A 30 year terror specialist who served under several presidents is a bad man because DC says so?
> 
> 
> Wow, Im sure that is enough evidence for anyone.
> ...


the facts are that he contradicted himself
you choose to ignore the facts


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 27, 2008)

lets see your proof he did?


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 27, 2008)

Truthmatters said:


> lets see your proof he did?


yes, because if i dont post a link, it didnt happen

if its not on the internet, it didnt happen


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 27, 2008)

And if you just say it happened then it must be true?


The problem is its not true and that is why you refuse to back up your claim.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 27, 2008)

Truthmatters said:


> And if you just say it happened then it must be true?
> 
> 
> The problem is its not true and that is why you refuse to back up your claim.


it is true and you dont want to admit it because you'd rather believe the lies


obviously, you do not understand the nature of the internet, it changes, documents are removed to make room for new


----------



## Gord (Dec 27, 2008)

Tuatara said:


> I noticed neither one has been able to present these Richard Clarke lies or when he contradicted himself. I was going to delve into Gord's post but if he can't even back up his first claim then there is no point.


Clark to the 9/11 Commission - he claimed he told Bush in regard to a plan about al Qaeda:



> " ... and I said, well, you know, we've had this strategy ready ... ahh ... since before you were inaugurated.  I showed it to you.  You have the paperwork.  We can have a meeting on the strategy anytime you want."



Clark recorded on tape of a conference call with seven reporters in August of 2002:



> "I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush Administration."


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 27, 2008)

Gord said:


> Clark to the 9/11 Commission - he claimed he told Bush in regard to a plan about al Qaeda:
> 
> 
> 
> Clark recorded on tape of a conference call with seven reporters in August of 2002:


thats just the tip of the iceberg


FOXNews.com - Transcript: Clarke Praises Bush Team in '02 - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum


----------



## Gord (Dec 27, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> thats just the tip of the iceberg
> 
> 
> FOXNews.com - Transcript: Clarke Praises Bush Team in '02 - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum


That's a great link. Clarke is nothing more than opportunist willing to say whatever is necessary for his own gain.

Guess that's the last we'll hear from Tuatara...


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 27, 2008)

Gord said:


> That's a great link. Clarke is nothing more than opportunist willing to say whatever is necessary for his own gain.
> 
> Guess that's the last we'll hear from Tuatara...


don't count on it

the ABDS runs deep in these people


----------



## Gord (Dec 27, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> don't count on it
> 
> the ABDS runs deep in these people


Yeah he might come back with the excuse of the time, that Clarke was lying for Bush, but told the truth to the 9/11 commission. Of course selling his book had nothing whatsoever to do with it - no, no, no - Clark had much too much integrity to do that just to sell books. I'm sure Clarke would insist that he will stand on his record of integrity...

...oops!


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 27, 2008)

Gord said:


> Yeah he might come back with the excuse of the time, that Clarke was lying for Bush, but told the truth to the 9/11 commission. Of course selling his book had nothing whatsoever to do with it - no, no, no - Clark had much too much integrity to do that just to sell books. I'm sure Clarke would insist that he will stand on his record of integrity...
> 
> ...oops!


either way, he is a liar


----------



## Gord (Dec 27, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> either way, he is a liar


Yup - can't get around it. Makes me wonder what kind of skeletons are hiding in his closet. There should be an investigation into this guy. After all he was involved in deep security. Was he bought off to lie to the 9/11 commission? Was he blackmailed? Someone should get to the bottom of this.

Maybe a little water boarding... he he


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 27, 2008)

Richard A. Clarke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In response to Clarke's charges against the Bush administration, Fox News, with the Administration's consent, identified and released a background briefing that Clarke gave in August 2002, at the Administration's request, to minimize the fallout from a Time Magazine story about the President's failure to take certain actions before 9/11.[22] In that briefing on behalf of the White House, Clarke stated "there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration," and that after taking office President Bush decided to "add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, fivefold, to go after Al Qaeda."[23] At the next day's hearing, 9/11 Commission member Thompson challenged Clarke with the 2002 account, and Clarke explained: I was asked to make that case to the press. I was a special assistant to the president, and I made the case I was asked to make....I was asked to highlight the positive aspects of what the administration had done and to minimize the negative aspects of what the administration had done. And as a special assistant to the president, one is frequently asked to do that kind of thing. I've done it for several presidents."["24]


----------



## Gord (Dec 27, 2008)

I am going to keep a running tab on this thread of all those that opposed the invasion of Iraq who I have invited to answer my question in this post:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/iraq/66348-algore-would-have-invaded-iraq.html#post960420

*So far we have a list of posters to this thread who have chickened out:*

Amanda, Truthmatters, Tuatara

*Others who I have invited from other threads:*

sky dancer, Neubarth, Old Rocks, Gunny, Kevin Kennedy, thirteen31

*And finally we have those from the above two lists who have been bold enough to answer my question:*

...


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 27, 2008)

OK lets see the rest of the Iceberg?


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 27, 2008)

Truthmatters said:


> Post 15?
> Here's the situation in March, 2003 that you and the president were faced with:
> 
> 
> ...





I think you missed this post.


----------



## Gord (Dec 27, 2008)

Truthmatters said:


> Richard A. Clarke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> In response to Clarke's charges against the Bush administration, Fox News, with the Administration's consent, identified and released a background briefing that Clarke gave in August 2002, at the Administration's request, to minimize the fallout from a Time Magazine story about the President's failure to take certain actions before 9/11.[22] In that briefing on behalf of the White House, Clarke stated "there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration," and that after taking office President Bush decided to "add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, fivefold, to go after Al Qaeda."[23] At the next day's hearing, 9/11 Commission member Thompson challenged Clarke with the 2002 account, and Clarke explained: I was asked to make that case to the press. I was a special assistant to the president, and I made the case I was asked to make....I was asked to highlight the positive aspects of what the administration had done and to minimize the negative aspects of what the administration had done. And as a special assistant to the president, one is frequently asked to do that kind of thing. I've done it for several presidents."["24]


Uh - there it is, right on cue. A lie to cover up for the last lie. This guy really needs to be investigated...


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 27, 2008)

Truthmatters said:


> Richard A. Clarke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> In response to Clarke's charges against the Bush administration, Fox News, with the Administration's consent, identified and released a background briefing that Clarke gave in August 2002, at the Administration's request, to minimize the fallout from a Time Magazine story about the President's failure to take certain actions before 9/11.[22] In that briefing on behalf of the White House, Clarke stated "there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration," and that after taking office President Bush decided to "add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, fivefold, to go after Al Qaeda."[23] At the next day's hearing, 9/11 Commission member Thompson challenged Clarke with the 2002 account, and Clarke explained: I was asked to make that case to the press. I was a special assistant to the president, and I made the case I was asked to make....I was asked to highlight the positive aspects of what the administration had done and to minimize the negative aspects of what the administration had done. And as a special assistant to the president, one is frequently asked to do that kind of thing. I've done it for several presidents."["24]


so, was he lying then too?


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 27, 2008)

I was asked to highlight the positive aspects of what the administration had done and to minimize the negative aspects of what the administration had done

He told you already


----------



## Gord (Dec 27, 2008)

Truthmatters said:


> Post 15?
> Here's the situation in March, 2003 that you and the president were faced with:
> 
> 
> ...


Your responses are nonsense and contradicted by the links I provided. But the issue is what would you have recommended Bush do after convincing him not to invade.

Hmmm...


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 27, 2008)

So many disgruntled employees.

Why did Bush inspire so many people who came out and complained about the half truths they were asked to tell and believe?


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 27, 2008)

Gord said:


> Your responses are nonsense and contradicted by the links I provided. But the issue is what would you have recommended Bush do after convincing him not to invade.
> 
> Hmmm...




To actually fight the people who attacked us on 911 instead of having a war for oil in Iraq.


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 27, 2008)

U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix faults Bush Administration for lack of "critical thinking" in Iraq



BERKELEY &#8211; Speaking on the anniversary of the United States' invasion of Iraq, originally declared as a pre-emptive strike against a madman ready to deploy weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), the man first charged with finding those weapons said that the U.S. government has "the same mind frame as the witch hunters of the past" &#8212; looking for evidence to support a foregone conclusion.


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 27, 2008)

Think Progress » National Intel Director: Bush Admin. Manipulated Iraq Intel &#8216;Because They Didn&#8217;t Like The Answers&#8217;


McConnell decried the &#8220;secondary unit&#8221; established within the Pentagon to &#8220;reinterpret information&#8221; prior to the war. An internal Pentagon investigation released in February revealed that former Undersecretary of Defense Doug Feith utilized the Counter-Terrorism Evaluation Group within the Pentagon to create and promote false links between Iraq and al Qaeda.

Specifically, then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz &#8220;asked Feith&#8217;s analysts to ignore the intelligence community&#8217;s belief that the militant Islamist al-Qaida and Saddam&#8217;s secular dictatorship were unlikely allies.&#8221; Subsequently, Feith &#8220;disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al-Qaida relationship&#8230;to senior decision-makers.&#8221;

McConnell stated, &#8220;The way you do intelligence is all sources considered. You have to factor one issue against the other and balance it.&#8221; Four years later, this administration is still reinterpreting intelligence.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 27, 2008)

Truthmatters said:


> U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix faults Bush Administration for lack of "critical thinking" in Iraq
> 
> 
> 
> BERKELEY &#8211; Speaking on the anniversary of the United States' invasion of Iraq, originally declared as a pre-emptive strike against a madman ready to deploy weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), the man first charged with finding those weapons said that the U.S. government has "the same mind frame as the witch hunters of the past" &#8212; looking for evidence to support a foregone conclusion.


Blix is doing CYA, nothing more


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 27, 2008)

USATODAY.com - Poll: Iraqis out of patience


Note the date?


 4/30/2004 6:54 AM 

Poll: Iraqis out of patience
By Cesar G. Soriano and Steven Komarow,USA TODAY
BAGHDAD &#8212; Only a third of the Iraqi people now believe that the American-led occupation of their country is doing more good than harm, and a solid majority support an immediate military pullout even though they fear that could put them in greater danger, according to a new USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 27, 2008)

CNN.com - Transcript of Blix's U.N. presentation - Mar. 7, 2003

Hans Blix before we invaded:
How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks? While cooperation can -- cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament, and at any rate verification of it, cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude induced by continued outside pressure, it will still take some time to verify sites and items, analyze documents, interview relevant persons and draw conclusions. It will not take years, nor weeks, but months.


----------



## Gord (Dec 27, 2008)

Truthmatters said:


> To actually fight the people who attacked us on 911 instead of having a war for oil in Iraq.


All of your posts to this point have been nothing but dodges. Go back and read my post:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/iraq/66348-algore-would-have-invaded-iraq.html#post960420

and tell me what your choice would have been...


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 27, 2008)

I read the clap trap and answered it .

Hans Blix said the inspections were working , Bush invaded anyway and guess what Hans Blix was right.

Now you want to blame Al Gore for the mess.

You people are the most dishonest people there are.


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 27, 2008)

You built your house on sand my friend and your little questions are false because your whole premise is flawed


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 27, 2008)

Truthmatters said:


> I read the clap trap and answered it .
> 
> Hans Blix said the inspections were working , Bush invaded anyway and guess what Hans Blix was right.
> 
> ...


no, moron, no one is blaming AlGore
we are saying he would have had the SAME INTEL


----------



## Gord (Dec 27, 2008)

Truthmatters said:


> You built your house on sand my friend and your little questions are false because your whole premise is flawed


Were you born stupid or do you really have to work at it? 

I granted that you could have your way and convinced Bush not to go to war. Natually that brings up the question of what next?



> Here are your alternatives of going to war:
> 
> 
> 1. Continue with the status quo. Ignore that UN Security Council Resolution 1441 and the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, thus proving both the UN and the U.S.A. impotent. Ignore that the UN Oil for Food Program had been completely corrupted, and keep the sanctions in place thus allowing the additional deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis through malnutrition and lack of medicine as a result of Saddam diverting the Oil for Food Program money to building his palaces and his military, and buying off international players to get around the sanctions. With no international presence Saddam would be free to do as he pleased within Iraq, including further rebuilding his military capabilities, developing new WMDs, training new terrorism recruits, financing international terrorism, advising terrorist organizations on the development and use of WMDs, and continue to mass murder and starve the Iraqi people. Other rogue nations and terrorist groups would certainly see this as a sign of weakness in the West and a signal to accelerate their aggression.
> ...


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 27, 2008)

why are those the only choices?


Because your writer is an partisan hack who based this shit on lies.

There were no WMDs or AQ contacts with Sadam and the intell people have stated that.


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 27, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> no, moron, no one is blaming AlGore
> we are saying he would have had the SAME INTEL




Bush was warned there were no WMD, says former CIA man - Americas, World - The Independent



And Bush and team cherry picked the intell which Gore would not have done


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 27, 2008)

Truthmatters said:


> why are those the only choices?
> 
> 
> Because your writer is an partisan hack who based this shit on lies.
> ...


wrong again, moron

there WERE WMD, just not the stockpiles that were expected

and there were connections to Al Qaeda via the oil for food program


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 27, 2008)

Truthmatters said:


> Bush was warned there were no WMD, says former CIA man - Americas, World - The Independent
> 
> 
> 
> And Bush and team cherry picked the intell which Gore would not have done


the independent is a rag


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 27, 2008)

It was broadcast on 60 minutes you fool.


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 27, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> wrong again, moron
> 
> there WERE WMD, just not the stockpiles that were expected
> 
> and there were connections to Al Qaeda via the oil for food program




There were no viable WMDs and to pretend their was is just insanity.

Go get the proof of what you claim.


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 27, 2008)

Senate Report: Bush Used Iraq Intel He Knew Was False

The Bush team altered the intell results


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 27, 2008)

Truthmatters said:


> It was broadcast on 60 minutes you fool.


same thing you moron


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 27, 2008)

If Al Gore had been president then 911 may have been stopped instead of allowed to happen.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 27, 2008)

Truthmatters said:


> Senate Report: Bush Used Iraq Intel He Knew Was False
> 
> The Bush team altered the intell results


and now the puffington post
LOL
what a fucking moronic clown you are


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 27, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> same thing you moron



The CIA guy is seen on film saying it.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 27, 2008)

Truthmatters said:


> If Al Gore had been president then 911 may have been stopped instead of allowed to happen.


just more proof of what a fucking moron you are


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 27, 2008)

Truthmatters said:


> The CIA guy is seen on film saying it.


SO???
dan rather was sure his documents were real too


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 27, 2008)

Prove he would have ignored the threats like Bush did?


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 27, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> SO???
> dan rather was sure his documents were real too





The man saying it was head of the CIA for eruope you dillhole.


The revelation, by the CIA's former European chief Tyler Drumheller, was broadcast on CBS's news magazine Sixty Minutes last night and added to the body of evidence that US and British leaders saw the weapons of mass destruction issue only as a selling point for a war they had already decided to wage for other reasons.

According to Mr Drumheller, Western intelligence services were told about Iraq's lack of chemical and biological weapons by Naji Sabri, a former Iraqi foreign minister. The CIA director of the time, George Tenet, took this information straight to President George Bush, Vice-President Dick Cheney and other senior officials, but it made no impression on them.


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 27, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> and now the puffington post
> LOL
> what a fucking moronic clown you are



U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

Its a senate report you fucking partisan hack.

You dont have a grain of sand to stand on in your arguement


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 27, 2008)

Divecon are you a plant?

Are you TRYING to make republicans look stupid?


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 27, 2008)

Truthmatters said:


> U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
> 
> Its a senate report you fucking partisan hack.
> 
> You dont have a grain of sand to stand on in your arguement


wrong asshole
you linked to them NOW
but the puffingtonpost put a spin on them you wont find in the originals
which i highly doubt you have read


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 27, 2008)

Truthmatters said:


> Divecon are you a plant?
> 
> Are you TRYING to make republicans look stupid?


you are the stupid fuck
piss off asshole

just like always, the people that use "truth" in their usernames are the biggest LIARS on the internet


----------



## Gord (Dec 27, 2008)

Truthmatters said:


> why are those the only choices?
> 
> 
> Because your writer is an partisan hack who based this shit on lies.
> ...


I am the writer.

What other choice?

You either keep the UN sanctions in place and continue to allow Iraqis to die of starvation and a lack of medicine and health care, or you lift the sanctions and allow Saddam to market his oil on the open market. Either way you are going to allow Saddam to run the country as he sees fit, including mass murdering his people, building his military, and rebuilding his WMD stockpiles, reopening his nuclear program, again training, harboring and financing terrorist groups.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 27, 2008)

Gord said:


> I am the writer.
> 
> What other choice?
> 
> You either keep the UN sanctions in place and continue to allow Iraqis to die of starvation and a lack of medicine and health care, or you lift the sanctions and allow Saddam to market his oil on the open market. Either way you are going to allow Saddam to run the country as he sees fit, including mass murdering his people, building his military, and rebuilding his WMD stockpiles, reopening his nuclear program, again training, harboring and financing terrorist groups.


and the sanctions were due to expire and Saddam had already bought off the french and Russians to oppose continuing them


----------



## Gord (Dec 27, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> and the sanctions were due to expire and Saddam had already bought off the french and Russians to oppose continuing them


By 2003 between one and two million Iraqis are estimated to have died (mostly children) because of the sanctions that had kept food, medicine and healthcare from the Iraqi people. And that is on top of Saddam's mass murdering ways which would add a few more hundred thousand to that list. So the question is whether those who opposed the invasion were willing to allow those death counts to continue, or allow Saddam to sell his oil on the open market and also allow him to buy whatever military, WMD and terrorism related products he wished, and also allow him to harbor, support and train terrorism groups.


----------



## bk1983 (Jan 3, 2009)

Uhh, some of you need to get a clue.. The intel was cherry picked to make the case fot the Iraq war, just like a defense attorney makes the case for a client. The White House ignored overwhelming intelligence that proved no connections between Al Qaeda and Saddam, or Iraq having WMD's. 

Since you lack the ability to understand how policy is created let me give you a brief description. The advisors analyze intelligence debate on it then devise a policy from the findings. The Iraq war was done the other way around, the policy was fine tuned and created, the intelligence was then wrapped around the policy. The admin was warned time and time again that the information was not credible and could not be verified. The FBI and CIA looked back into 10 years and over 70,000 pages of intelligence to try and find the connections. THERE WERE NONE!!

 So Rumsfeld created his own intelligence wing within the pentagon who drafted a report countering the findings of CIA and FBI. Cheney and Rumsfeld were the too greatest advocates for the Iraq war(I cannot picture either of them in a Gore admin). Powell and Armitage of the state dept were initially against it. 

Iraq did not have stockpiles of WMD's.

Iraq did not have an active nuclear program.

Saddam did not have links to Al Qaeda or Bin laden.

Look at the original intelligence memos from the NIE, the highest level intel report generated. It clearly states that they believe Iraq does not have stockpiles of wmd's nor active wmd programs. It also debunks the mythical connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Then look at the filtered intel reports generated later by Rumsfelds newly created intel wing. It makes the case of wmd's using intel from sources already proven to be alcoholic fabricators. But hey I guess some of you value the word of an Iraqi exiles alcoholic brother in law over our own federal intelligence agencies.


----------



## Gord (Jan 3, 2009)

bk1983 said:


> Uhh, some of you need to get a clue.. The intel was cherry picked to make the case fot the Iraq war, just like a defense attorney makes the case for a client. The White House ignored overwhelming intelligence that proved no connections between Al Qaeda and Saddam, or Iraq having WMD's.
> 
> Since you lack the ability to understand how policy is created let me give you a brief description. The advisors analyze intelligence debate on it then devise a policy from the findings. The Iraq war was done the other way around, the policy was fine tuned and created, the intelligence was then wrapped around the policy. The admin was warned time and time again that the information was not credible and could not be verified. The FBI and CIA looked back into 10 years and over 70,000 pages of intelligence to try and find the connections. THERE WERE NONE!!
> 
> ...


Another one who does not get it. Sigh...

The issue is that there were consequences to not invading Iraq. Saddam had mass murdered hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and the UN sanctions had caused between one million and two million additional deaths. There were two choices:

1. Renew the sanctions and attempt to fix the Oil for Food Program that Saddam had completely corrupted, thus allowing Saddam to continue mass murdering hundreds of thousands more Iraqis, and allowing even more hundreds of thousands to die of starvation and lack of medicine and healthcare due to the sanctions.

or

2. Let the sanctions expire allowing Saddam to sell his oil on the open market and freely participate in the global market. This would then have allowed him to continue mass murdering his people, reconstitute his WMD programs, and again finance, harbor and train terrorism groups.

Either decision would have signaled that America and the UN were nothing more than paper tigers to rogue nations and terrorist groups around the world. Lybia would not have freely given up its nuclear program which was more mature than Iran's is now. N. Korea probably would not have given up its nuclear program. It is highly likely that in the near fututure Saddam's WMD's would end up in terrorism group's hands.

So if you would have advised Bush not to invade  what would you have advised him to do?


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 3, 2009)

You are delousional.

The inspections were working you factvoid.

The world is not black and white and NO Gore would not have invaded Iraq.


Your Team screwed the pooch.

Hell they screwed every pooch they could find.


----------



## Gord (Jan 3, 2009)

Truthmatters said:


> You are delousional.
> 
> The inspections were working you factvoid.
> 
> ...


Dodge and weave. You are the best weasel I have ever seen...


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 3, 2009)

Truthmatters said:


> You are delousional.
> 
> The inspections were working you factvoid.
> 
> ...


again proving that truth and you are not even on the same planet


----------



## Tuatara (Jan 3, 2009)

Gord said:


> I didn't throw the Algore argument out the window - I just added to it. The Algore argument isn't my argument however, but that of the study's author.
> 
> one?


You posted the argument, and you argued for it which means you agree with the author's position.


----------



## xsited1 (Jan 3, 2009)

Al Gore is thanking his lucky stars that he didn't become President.  If he had, he wouldn't have won the Nobel Peace Prize nor would he have become a multi-millionaire with his Global Warming enterprise.  And, of course, Bill Clinton is now worth $100 million.  These guys know how to play the system.


----------



## Tuatara (Jan 3, 2009)

Gord said:


> Clark to the 9/11 Commission - he claimed he told Bush in regard to a plan about al Qaeda:


You have to be more specific than that . Clarke charged :


> that before and during the 9/11 crisis, many in the administration were distracted from efforts against Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda organization by a pre-occupation with Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Clarke had written that on September 12, 2001, President Bush pulled him and a couple of aides aside and "testily" asked him to try to find evidence that Saddam Hussein was connected to the terrorist attacks. In response he wrote a report stating there was no evidence of Iraqi involvement and got it signed by all relevant agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the CIA.


That doesn't say they ignored him but they they were more distracted about Saddam than Bin Laden. Was Richard Clarke lying about this?


> After initially denying that such meeting and request between the President and Clarke took place, the White House later reversed its denial when others present backed Clarke's version of the events.


So we see that the Whitehouse is again lying. As for the quote you provided, 





> "I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush Administration."


This does not contradict his testimony. In fact the Republicans handed in the towel on this particular issue.


> Conservatives inside and outside the Bush Administration vigorously attacked both Clarke's testimony and his tenure during the hearings. In the furor over Clarke's revelations before the 9/11 Commission, Senate Republican Majority Leader Bill Frist immediately took to the Senate floor to make a speech accusing Clarke of telling "two entirely different stories under oath", pointing to congressional hearing testimony *Clarke gave in 2002, but Frist later admitted to reporters that he was unaware of any actual discrepancies in Clarke's testimony.*


Richard A. Clarke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I do applaud you for finally making an attempt to back up your argument surrounding Richard Clarke. I had only noticed it today. 



> Guess that's the last we'll hear from Tuatara...


Never count me out.


----------



## Gord (Jan 3, 2009)

Tuatara said:


> You have to be more specific than that . Clarke charged :
> That doesn't say they ignored him but they they were more distracted about Saddam than Bin Laden. Was Richard Clarke lying about this?
> So we see that the Whitehouse is again lying. As for the quote you provided, This does not contradict his testimony. In fact the Republicans handed in the towel on this particular issue.
> 
> ...


Yawn...


----------

