# Bush and Officials Lied leading up to Iraq war



## JimH52

Documented!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_on_go_pr_wh/misinformation_study


----------



## Gunny

JimH52 said:


> Documented!
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_on_go_pr_wh/misinformation_study



Not "another" Bush lied thread.

LMFAO.  This study is so twisted I can't believe it actually got printed.  I can easily believe some of you Bush-haters would jump right on though.  

What a joke.

Oh, and since Clinton and Congressional Dems said and believed the same things PRIOR TO the war or even GWB, does that mean they lied too?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

GunnyL said:


> Not "another" Bush lied thread.
> 
> LMFAO.  This study is so twisted I can't believe it actually got printed.  I can easily believe some of you Bush-haters would jump right on though.
> 
> What a joke.
> 
> Oh, and since Clinton and Congressional Dems said and believed the same things PRIOR TO the war or even GWB, does that mean they lied too?



You must have missed the whacko defense of that, According to them since Clinton did not start the war it doesn't matter what they actually said or believed. Further there is the claim that the US bullied all those other Countries into providing false intelligence to the UN and the world so as not to anger us.


----------



## rayboyusmc

The Dems who voted for the war were WRONG!  I don't need to play the right wing card and defend my side when they screw up.

Please don't use the argument that they had the same information that the President had.  No one but him and Cheney had access to some of this information.  Let's parse our words and say they didn't really lie, they just cherry picked and "reformed" the data.

Why did they say they knew where the WMDs would be?  Is that a lie?

What about the Mushroom Cloud Condi warned US of?   Was that a lie?

Why has Cheney come out and again claimed the Saddam 9-11 link even after Bush and our inteligence agencies said it didn't exist.  THAT IS A LIE HE STILL TELLS WHEN HE NEEDS TO RALLY THE TRUE BELIEVERS.

Fear has always been a tool of some government folks to get the sheeple to get in line.  What color is the threat level today?


----------



## rayboyusmc

I notice no one is giving data to disprove any of the statements in the link.


----------



## mattskramer

GunnyL said:


> Not "another" Bush lied thread.
> 
> LMFAO.  This study is so twisted I can't believe it actually got printed.  I can easily believe some of you Bush-haters would jump right on though.
> 
> What a joke.
> 
> Oh, and since Clinton and Congressional Dems said and believed the same things PRIOR TO the war or even GWB, does that mean they lied too?



Ultimately, Bush was the one who pushed the button.  All of the rest is fluff.  Democrats thought there were WMD.  Perhaps but so what?  The Democrats pressured Bush to proceed.  Perhaps but so what?  Ultimately, Bush was the one who pushed the button.   In my opinion he should have waited and demanded irrefutable absolute proof before he pushed the button.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

mattskramer said:


> Ultimately, Bush was the one who pushed the button.  All of the rest is fluff.  Democrats thought there were WMD.  Perhaps but so what?  The Democrats pressured Bush to proceed.  Perhaps but so what?  Ultimately, Bush was the one who pushed the button.   In my opinion he should have waited and demanded irrefutable absolute proof before he pushed the button.



What a load of BULLSHIT. So we should have waited until Saddam Hussein was released from sanctions, built his bombs and missiles and then used them on us? Good plan......


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> What a load of BULLSHIT. So we should have waited until Saddam Hussein was released from sanctions, built his bombs and missiles and then used them on us? Good plan......



no.  we should have kept our priorities in order and continued our fight against islamic extremists.  We do not have the resources to fight every battle that needs to be fought simultaneously.  We need to take care of the most pressing...and Iraq wasn't it.

RGS:  "my wife just set the kitchen on fire... my daughter is being raped in the front yard by a motorcycle gang,  my son just cut off his finger with the table saw in the garage and I just found out I have termites.... the first thing I'M gonna do is call the Orkin man!!!!"


----------



## rayboyusmc

> What a load of BULLSHIT. So we should have waited until Saddam Hussein was released from sanctions, built his bombs and missiles and then used them on us? Good plan......
> __________________



Actually, the sanctions were working.  The inspectors found the greatest percentage of WMDs he was hiding.  If the sanctions had been lifted, we would have put in place measures to ensure he didn't reconstitute them.  Your argument is just another right wing talking point.

To try and justify a pre-emptive war on a third rate dicktator who couldn't beat Iran in an 8 year war makes as much sense as saying it's okay to burn your neighbors' house down because he doesn't like you and he may be able to buy a pack of matches to burn yours down.   Pre-emption is only applied by lawful countries when there is an eminent and real threat.

Saddam was no threat.  Al Quaeda in Afghanistan was.  Bush took his eye of of this battle and now they are back on the rise.

Your little cowboy couldn't fight his way out of a paper bag with a bayonet in each hand .  They refused from the beginning to listen to any military leaders who didn't agree with them and now look at the fine kettle fish shit we are in.

Please yawn all you want.  That's the common come back when you don't have data to refute the facts.


----------



## mattskramer

rayboyusmc said:


> Actually, the sanctions were working.  The inspectors found the greatest percentage of WMDs he was hiding.  If the sanctions had been lifted, we would have put in place measures to ensure he didn't reconstitute them.  Your argument is just another right wing talking point.
> 
> To try and justify a pre-emptive war on a third rate dicktator who couldn't beat Iran in an 8 year war makes as much sense as saying it's okay to burn your neighbors' house down because he doesn't like you and he may be able to buy a pack of matches to burn yours down.   Pre-emption is only applied by lawful countries when there is an eminent and real threat.
> 
> Saddam was no threat.  Al Quaeda in Afghanistan was.  Bush took his eye of of this battle and now they are back on the rise.
> 
> Your little cowboy couldn't fight his way out of a paper bag with a bayonet in each hand .  They refused from the beginning to listen to any military leaders who didn't agree with them and now look at the fine kettle fish shit we are in.
> 
> Please yawn all you want.  That's the common come back when you don't have data to refute the facts.



Those are my sentiments exactly.  We had time.  Iraq was far from being a threat to America.


----------



## Shogun

RetiredGySgt said:


> What a load of BULLSHIT. So we should have waited until Saddam Hussein was released from sanctions, built his bombs and missiles and then used them on us? Good plan......




Clearly, with all of those NUKES and BIO AND CHEM WEAPONS we find all the time your paranoid, braindead fear was well worth it!


Hey, we can assume the same about ANYONE and then invade them when they dont disarm with the weapons that they DONT HAVE.


Hey, RGS...  PROVE that you have stopped sucking cock.  Seriously, I know you love the man meat and all and any denial is just a front meant to keep the world from knowing how much tube steak you can gobble at one setting.  If you can't figure out how your answer to this relates to the PHANTOM WMD scheme then push the button for nurse Gary 'cause it's time for your meds.


----------



## JimH52

Bush had this war planned long before he was elected.  He owned a lot of people.  The war was the way to makehis buddies wealthy.  He dupped everyone...well except Sarg who still thinks bush is a great president.

This was the biggest snow job ever inflicted on the US.


----------



## Gunny

rayboyusmc said:


> I notice no one is giving data to disprove any of the statements in the link.



What data would you like?  Data that proves Saddam, manufactured, posesseed and used WMDs?

Or data that he in fact did have links to members of al Qaeda?

They're all over this board, and have been ignored each and every time posted, followed by yet another thread in the neverending quest to perpetuate a lie.  

This one isn't the first, nor will it be the last.


----------



## Dr Grump

I wouldn't go so far as to say it was planned all along, but they certainly made it a priority once Bush was elected. Notice I say "they", and by that I mean the puppet masters - Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rove et al.

Not too sure if they did it to make themselves rich, although a lot of the reason was about oil. WMD's gave them the excuse and I don't believe for one minute they honestly thought Sadman was a threat..


----------



## maineman

GunnyL said:


> Or data that he in fact did have links to members of al Qaeda?



is this the old Al-Zarqawi in the hospital stuff?


----------



## Gunny

rayboyusmc said:


> Actually, the sanctions were working.  The inspectors found the greatest percentage of WMDs he was hiding.  If the sanctions had been lifted, we would have put in place measures to ensure he didn't reconstitute them.  Your argument is just another right wing talking point.
> 
> To try and justify a pre-emptive war on a third rate dicktator who couldn't beat Iran in an 8 year war makes as much sense as saying it's okay to burn your neighbors' house down because he doesn't like you and he may be able to buy a pack of matches to burn yours down.   Pre-emption is only applied by lawful countries when there is an eminent and real threat.
> 
> Saddam was no threat.  Al Quaeda in Afghanistan was.  Bush took his eye of of this battle and now they are back on the rise.
> 
> Your little cowboy couldn't fight his way out of a paper bag with a bayonet in each hand .  They refused from the beginning to listen to any military leaders who didn't agree with them and now look at the fine kettle fish shit we are in.
> 
> Please yawn all you want.  That's the common come back when you don't have data to refute the facts.



Your argument is just anothe left-wing talking point.  Sanctions were working?  On the rank and file Iraqi they were.  Saddam's standard of living didn't seem to be going down much.

That you believe "most" WMDs were found is your opinion.  He most certainly did not account for "most" WMDs he was on record as posessing.


----------



## Gunny

mattskramer said:


> Ultimately, Bush was the one who pushed the button.  All of the rest is fluff.  Democrats thought there were WMD.  Perhaps but so what?  The Democrats pressured Bush to proceed.  Perhaps but so what?  Ultimately, Bush was the one who pushed the button.   In my opinion he should have waited and demanded irrefutable absolute proof before he pushed the button.



Nothing like setting an impossible standard.


----------



## Gunny

JimH52 said:


> Bush had this war planned long before he was elected.  He owned a lot of people.  The war was the way to makehis buddies wealthy.  He dupped everyone...well except Sarg who still thinks bush is a great president.
> 
> This was the biggest snow job ever inflicted on the US.



Unsupported supposition on your part.


----------



## maineman

GunnyL said:


> Your argument is just anothe left-wing talking point.  Sanctions were working?  On the rank and file Iraqi they were.  Saddam's standard of living didn't seem to be going down much.
> 
> That you believe "most" WMDs were found is your opinion.  He most certainly did not account for "most" WMDs he was on record as posessing.



the sanctions were working.  Our own secretary of state explicitly said exactly that months BEFORE 9/11.


----------



## Shogun

GunnyL said:


> Nothing like setting an impossible standard.




oh, you mean like insisting that a nation DISARM when they don't have the WMDs that they are accused of having?


----------



## Gunny

maineman said:


> the sanctions were working.  Our own secretary of state explicitly said exactly that months BEFORE 9/11.



And you know better.  The sanctions were causing suffering amongst the rank and file Iraqi.  Saddam meanwhile was siphoning off Oil for Food bucks into his personal stash, and making deals with France purchasing their UN vote for cut-rate oil.

Saddam defied the UN to the end.  All he had to do was comply with the terms of a ceasefire HE agreed to.  The ink wasn't even dry before he was defying it.


----------



## maineman

GunnyL said:


> And you know better.  The sanctions were causing suffering amongst the rank and file Iraqi.  Saddam meanwhile was siphoning off Oil for Food bucks into his personal stash, and making deals with France purchasing their UN vote for cut-rate oil.
> 
> Saddam defied the UN to the end.  All he had to do was comply with the terms of a ceasefire HE agreed to.  The ink wasn't even dry before he was defying it.




The sanctions weren't designed to limit Saddam's bank account.  Colin Powell stated unequivocably that the sanctions WERE working.


----------



## Gunny

maineman said:


> The sanctions weren't designed to limit Saddam's bank account.  Colin Powell stated unequivocably that the sanctions WERE working.



The sanctions were designed to bring Saddam and his regime into compliance; which, they failed to do.


----------



## rayboyusmc

One point at time here:



> What data would you like? Data that proves Saddam, manufactured, posesseed and used WMDs?



When.  When did he have them?  Did he have them when we attacked?  If he didn't, why the shit did we attack  him then.  If as the Weapons instpectors said ,and has been shown to date that they destroyed most of them, why did we attack?  If you say he sent them all to other countries, then please don't ever complain about leftwing conspiracy theories again.


What about the Mushroom Cloud statements by Condi?  How close was Saddamn to a bomb?

Please let's cover another piece of data and discuss it.

935 times.  Documented lies.  And we are supposed to believe everyone of those was not a lie, right? 

And the old saw that the right brings up about we discussed that already doesn't carry water if you didn't prove it wrong, but just moved on to another topic.

Sort of like Bush said he couldn't discuss the Libby case as long as it was an on-going investigation.   Well, it isn't anymore and the little liar still won't discuss it.


----------



## maineman

GunnyL said:


> The sanctions were designed to bring Saddam and his regime into compliance; which, they failed to do.



Colin Powell would disagree with you.

They were working.  they weren't DONE working, but they WERE working.  Like I said, to point to Saddam's bank accounts as proof that they weren't shows you really don't know what they were intended to do.


----------



## AllieBaba

Like they'd been working all the previous times?

They weren't working. THey never worked. It was time to pull the plug.


----------



## maineman

AllieBaba said:


> Like they'd been working all the previous times?
> 
> They weren't working. THey never worked. It was time to pull the plug.



so now you know more that the former secretary of state?

what an arrogant moron you are!


----------



## AllieBaba

Not an ignorant sheep like you, at least.

Given the fact you think all Americans are morons, I feel honored to be considered among them. I'd rather be an American Moron than an anti-American piece of shit such as yourself.


----------



## maineman

AllieBaba said:


> Not an ignorant sheep like you, at least.
> 
> Given the fact you think all Americans are morons, I feel honored to be considered among them. I'd rather be an American Moron than an anti-American piece of shit such as yourself.



I don't think all Americans are morons.  I do think you are, and I am pretty amazed that a majority of Americans can't find Iraq on a map...aren't you? 

Or ..ooops... maybe you're one of them! 

but tell me again why you think you know more about sanctions against Iraq than the secretary of state.  I'd love to hear.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> so now you know more that the former secretary of state?
> 
> what an arrogant moron you are!



You mean the guy that went to the UN and STATED Saddam HAD weapons and mobile Labs? That guy? The one you claim lied then? Isn't it interesting that when he says what you WANT to hear he is telling the truth but when he says what you do not want to hear he must have been a liar.

Once again DUMBSHIT, if Colin lied about weapons, if Bush LIED about weapons, so did Bill and Hillary Clinton, so did Pelosi, so Did Reid, so did Feingold, so did every major Democrat in Congress in 2002. As well as the German, French, English, Polish, hell every intel agency in the world. As well as the Iraq inspectors, they DEMANDED more time, not because they had found everything, but because Saddam Hussein was once again PREVENTING them from doing their job. THAT is in the report to the UN.

The French Intel even said Saddam Had weapons and that he was working on more, they6 just did not care because they were paid off to lift sanctions. The Russians also believed the same as did the Chinese. I wonder why they are not listed as liars as well?


----------



## Gunny

Shogun said:


> oh, you mean like insisting that a nation DISARM when they don't have the WMDs that they are accused of having?



I mean like do what you agreed to do.  He got his ass kicked.  He agreed to terms to stop that ass-kicking.  He lived up to none.

Fact is, if Saddam had been taken care of when he should have, he would have been a historical issue by the time Bush took office.  

And if he didn't have any WMDs then the dumbass shouldn't have acted like he did and give the entire world the impression he was playing a shell game with inspectors.


----------



## maineman

GunnyL said:


> I mean like do what you agreed to do.  He got his ass kicked.  He agreed to terms to stop that ass-kicking.  He lived up to none.
> 
> Fact is, if Saddam had been taken care of when he should have, he would have been a historical issue by the time Bush took office.
> 
> And if he didn't have any WMDs then the dumbass shouldn't have acted like he did and give the entire world the impression he was playing a shell game with inspectors.



he wanted to play macho for his neighbors.  still not a good reason for us to switch priorities and invade his country given who our real enemies were.


----------



## Gunny

rayboyusmc said:


> One point at time here:
> 
> When.  When did he have them?  Did he have them when we attacked?  If he didn't, why the shit did we attack  him then.  If as the Weapons instpectors said ,and has been shown to date that they destroyed most of them, why did we attack?  If you say he sent them all to other countries, then please don't ever complain about leftwing conspiracy theories again.



First off, don't put words in my mouth.  I didn't say he sent them anywhere.  He DID however have enough time while Bush spent months telegraphing our blow.  Fact remains, I have never made any such statement.

When Saddam had them is irrelevant.  There is no evidence to support a statement that weapons inspectors most of them had been destroyed, and is in direct conflict with the UN, where he is STILL accountable for tons of as of yet not located WMDs/components.

And as previously stated, when you're known to produce, posess and use WMDs, and then give weapons inspectors the runaround, you're an idiot if you DON'T have any.  

Please don't insult my intelligence.  You aren't some uneducated civilian.  In a tactical situation you KNOW you would HAVE TO assume based on the above he had them.



> What about the Mushroom Cloud statements by Condi?  How close was Saddamn to a bomb?



How about it?  I have no idea how close Saddam was obtaining nuclear weapons and/or their components, and have never made such a statement.



> Please let's cover another piece of data and discuss it.
> 
> 935 times.  Documented lies.  And we are supposed to believe everyone of those was not a lie, right?



Bullshit.  953 cases of using Monday morning quarterbacking to twist statemetns made previous to the fact and call them lies.



> And the old saw that the right brings up about we discussed that already doesn't carry water if you didn't prove it wrong, but just moved on to another topic.
> 
> Sort of like Bush said he couldn't discuss the Libby case as long as it was an on-going investigation.   Well, it isn't anymore and the little liar still won't discuss it .



Neither does the old saw the left uses of telling lies to accuse one of lying.  You might be new here. I'm not.  I haven't lost this arguement yet because the bottom line is you "Bush lied" types can't prove shit with any amount of fact and honesty.  

All you got's smoke and mirrors and little else.


----------



## Gunny

maineman said:


> Colin Powell would disagree with you.
> 
> They were working.  they weren't DONE working, but they WERE working.  Like I said, to point to Saddam's bank accounts as proof that they weren't shows you really don't know what they were intended to do.



He can disagree all her wants, and so can you.  It's pretty obvious what they were put in place for, and I think trying to discount the fact that the sanctions were having NO effect on the very person they were supposed to affect would be an obvious statement that YOU really don't know what they were intended to do.


----------



## JimH52

Powell did not lie.  Powell became a puppet for bush, DICK, AND rove.  He was so embarassed by what the three stooges had him do that he left public life and will probably never return.  Another good one that fell prey to the bush wh.  A top notch military man who wasn't listened to and was turned away while the Cheney war machine was planning.

The GOP payed heavily in 2006 and they will pay even more in 2008.  It will literally take generations for the GOP to recover from the bush-DICK years.


----------



## maineman

GunnyL said:


> He can disagree all her wants, and so can you.  It's pretty obvious what they were put in place for, and I think trying to discount the fact that the sanctions were having NO effect on the very person they were supposed to affect would be an obvious statement that YOU really don't know what they were intended to do.



the sanctions were against a government, not a person.

and like I said, you may be one smart gunny sergeant, but if I had to put money on who knew more about the effectiveness or lack thereof of sanctions on Iraq, I would have to go with the former four star, CJCS, and secretary of state.  sorry.


----------



## Gunny

maineman said:


> the sanctions were against a government, not a person.
> 
> and like I said, you may be one smart gunny sergeant, but if I had to put money on who knew more about the effectiveness or lack thereof of sanctions on Iraq, I would have to go with the former four star, CJCS, and secretary of state.  sorry.



Well yeah ... except Saddam WAS the government.  That's arguing semnatics, IMO.

I'm not offended.  The fact that sanctions were NOT working was quite obvious to anyone paying attention throughout the 12+ years they were in place.  If you choose to disregard that in favor of quoting someone who agrees with you while disagreeing with the administration, that's on you.


----------



## Gunny

JimH52 said:


> Powell did not lie.  Powell became a puppet for bush, DICK, AND rove.  He was so embarassed by what the three stooges had him do that he left public life and will probably never return.  Another good one that fell prey to the bush wh.  A top notch military man who wasn't listened to and was turned away while the Cheney war machine was planning.
> 
> The GOP payed heavily in 2006 and they will pay even more in 2008.  It will literally take generations for the GOP to recover from the bush-DICK years.



The whole problem with you, and threads like this is ... some of you people need to figure out how to use a dictionary and look up the word "lie."  It's quite obvious some of y'all are oblivivious to the definition.

Here's a good example of a lie:  Claiming someone lied after the fact for acting on information that later turned out to be incorrect, PURPOSEFULLY knowing it is an attempt to deceive/mislead anyone that will listen to you.


----------



## maineman

GunnyL said:


> Well yeah ... except Saddam WAS the government.  That's arguing semnatics, IMO.
> 
> I'm not offended.  The fact that sanctions were NOT working was quite obvious to anyone paying attention throughout the 12+ years they were in place.  If you choose to disregard that in favor of quoting someone who agrees with you while disagreeing with the administration, that's on you.




actually, he was speaking FOR the Bush administration when he said it.


----------



## maineman

GunnyL said:


> The whole problem with you, and threads like this is ... some of you people need to figure out how to use a dictionary and look up the word "lie."  It's quite obvious some of y'all are oblivivious to the definition.
> 
> Here's a good example of a lie:  Claiming someone lied after the fact for acting on information that later turned out to be incorrect, PURPOSEFULLY knowing it is an attempt to deceive/mislead anyone that will listen to you.




the definition of LIE is quite clear: a statement intended to or serving to convey a false impression.

Team Bush's statements about Iraq's stockpiles of WMD's were made to convey the impression that there was absolute certainty about the existence - and the whereabouts - of those stockpiles.  That was not, in fact, true.  And they all knew that there was not absolute certainty.  Ergo:  lie


----------



## Gunny

maineman said:


> actually, he was speaking FOR the Bush administration when he said it.




He was speaking as representative of the Bush administration, an administration he clearly did not agree with.  I don't believe that it is the official position of the Bush admin that sanctions were working.  

I'm not dis'ing Powell.  He's entitled to his opinion.  I just don't agree with him or anyone who says sanctions were working.


----------



## maineman

GunnyL said:


> He was speaking as representative of the Bush administration, an administration he clearly did not agree with.  I don't believe that it is the official position of the Bush admin that sanctions were working.
> 
> I'm not dis'ing Powell.  He's entitled to his opinion.  I just don't agree with him or anyone who says sanctions were working.




Do you have any evidence to prove that he was speaking against the position of the administration?  Do you have any evidence which would show that , in the early months of the Bush administration, before 9/11, that they did NOT think that sanctions were working? Or is that just your opinion?  Can you explain why an administration which, in the early years, was so good at staying "on message" would allow their highest ranking cabinet officer to make public statements that were diametrically opposed to the administration's position and let them stand uncorrected?


----------



## Shogun

GunnyL said:


> I mean like do what you agreed to do.  He got his ass kicked.  He agreed to terms to stop that ass-kicking.  He lived up to none.
> 
> Fact is, if Saddam had been taken care of when he should have, he would have been a historical issue by the time Bush took office.
> 
> And if he didn't have any WMDs then the dumbass shouldn't have acted like he did and give the entire world the impression he was playing a shell game with inspectors.



apparently, the capacity to rationalize ones own shit is a universal trait.


Hey, I posted Bush's own words in another thread.  From a .gov site, no less.  I find it hilarious that we see the right crying about semantics while backpeddling from the entire GOP platform on the run up to the war.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Shogun said:


> apparently, the capacity to rationalize ones own shit is a universal trait.
> 
> 
> Hey, I posted Bush's own words in another thread.  From a .gov site, no less.  I find it hilarious that we see the right crying about semantics while backpeddling from the entire GOP platform on the run up to the war.



I find it hilarious people like you can lie with a straight face. You and all your buddies are either doing exactly what you accuse Bush of doing or your to stupid to know the difference.

I love when Maineman starts in on his "they knew" routine. He can wax poetic about how Bush has some bad ideas and supports them tooth and nail and BELIEVES them, theb can claim with a straight face that Bush knew there was no certainty to the fact Saddam Had WMD's. Something EVERYONE believed before the invasion. There was no doubt in any Intel circles that he had them, none at all. No doubt amongst his Generals he had them as well. AND no doubt amongst the Inspectors he had them, or I guess we are to believe Blix just wanted to keep inspecting a Country for what he knew already did not exists. That Blix kept telling us and the UN that Saddam Hussein would not allow full and free inspections because he wanted a war to ensue?

There are so many factual errors in the claim Bush did not know Weapons existed one could place the State of Texas in the hole. But yet we have Mr. Semantic running on and on about how he just "knows" it to be true, meanwhile demanding others not express their "opinions" on matters relating to his beloved Democratic party and its criminal leaders.

Shogun your just as deluded as Maineman.


----------



## rayboyusmc

Just looking at this logically.  What is the chance that of the 935 statements they made that proved false, that they didn't lie about any of them?  This seems to stretch the bounds of believability.

They wanted a war with Iraq. It's in the AEI literature. I don't see that that can be denied with any kind of believable data.   This is not the first administration that lied, distorted, exagerated (put in your word/s) to get US to buy into war.

It is not Monday morning quarterbacking when you find out now that they may well have lied and can base it no on opinion but on researched data.

Cheney HAS LIED ON TV about the connection between 9-11 and Saddam.  He has made this statement at least twice since Bush admitted there was no connection.  SORRY, BUT THAT IS A FRIGGING LIE.

Here is some of the article.  Does anyone know anything about the Center for Public Integrity?  It says it is non-partisan, but I've seen that before.



> Following 9/11, President Bush and seven top officials of his administration waged a carefully orchestrated campaign of misinformation about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
> 
> 
> By Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith
> 
> President George W. Bush and seven of his administration's top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nearly five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.
> 
> On at least 532 separate occasions (in speeches, briefings, interviews, testimony, and the like), Bush and these three key officials, along with Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan, stated unequivocally that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (or was trying to produce or obtain them), links to Al Qaeda, or both. This concerted effort was the underpinning of the Bush administration's case for war.
> 
> *It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to Al Qaeda.* This was the conclusion of numerous bipartisan government investigations, including those by the *Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (2004 and 2006), the 9/11 Commission, and the multinational Iraq Survey Group, whose "Duelfer Report" established that Saddam Hussein had terminated Iraq's nuclear program in 1991 and made little effort to restart it.*
> 
> In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003. Not surprisingly, the officials with the most opportunities to make speeches, grant media interviews, and otherwise frame the public debate also made the most false statements, according to this first-ever analysis of the entire body of prewar rhetoric.
> 
> President Bush, for example, made 232 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and another 28 false statements about Iraq's links to Al Qaeda. Secretary of State Powell had the second-highest total in the two-year period, with 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq's links to Al Qaeda. Rumsfeld and Fleischer each made 109 false statements, followed by Wolfowitz (with 85), Rice (with 56), Cheney (with 48), and McClellan (with 14).
> 
> The massive database at the heart of this project juxtaposes what President Bush and these seven top officials were saying for public consumption against what was known, or should have been known, on a day-to-day basis. This fully searchable database includes the public statements, drawn from both primary sources (such as official transcripts) and secondary sources (chiefly major news organizations) over the two years beginning on September 11, 2001. It also interlaces relevant information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches, and interviews.
> 
> Consider, for example, these false public statements made in the run-up to war:
> 
> On August 26, 2002, in an address to the national convention of the Veteran of Foreign Wars, Cheney flatly declared: *"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." In fact, former CIA Director George Tenet later recalled, Cheney's assertions went well beyond his agency's assessments at the time. *Another CIA official, referring to the same speech, told journalist Ron Suskind, "Our reaction was, 'Where is he getting this stuff from?' "
> In the closing days of September 2002, with a congressional vote fast approaching on authorizing the use of military force in Iraq, Bush told the nation in his weekly radio address: *"The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. . . . *This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year." A few days later, similar findings were also included in a much-hurried National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction  an analysis that hadn't been done in years, as the intelligence community had deemed it unnecessary and the White House hadn't requested it.
> In July 2002, *Rumsfeld had a one-word answer for reporters who asked whether Iraq had relationships with Al Qaeda terrorists: "Sure." In fact, an assessment issued that same month by the Defense Intelligence Agency (and confirmed weeks later by CIA Director Tenet) found an absence of "compelling evidence demonstrating direct cooperation between the government of Iraq and Al Qaeda."* What's more, an earlier DIA assessment said that "the nature of the regime's relationship with  Al Qaeda is unclear."
> On May 29, 2003, in an interview with Polish TV, President Bush declared: *"We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories." But as journalist Bob Woodward reported in State of Denial, days earlier a team of civilian experts dispatched to examine the two mobile labs found in Iraq had concluded in a field report that the labs were not for biological weapons. The team's final report, completed the following month, concluded that the labs had probably been used to manufacture hydrogen for weather balloons. *
> On January 28, 2003, in his annual State of the Union address, Bush asserted: "*The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." Two weeks earlier, an analyst with the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research sent an email to colleagues in the intelligence community laying out why he believed the uranium-purchase agreement "probably is a hoax." *
> On February 5, 2003, in an address to the United Nations Security Council, Powell said: "What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. I will cite some examples, and these are from human sources." As it turned out, however, two of the main human sources to which Powell referred had provided false information. One was an Iraqi con artist, code-named "Curveball," whom American intelligence officials were dubious about and in fact had never even spoken to. The other was an Al Qaeda detainee, Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, who had reportedly been sent to Eqypt by the CIA and tortured and who later recanted the information he had provided. Libi told the CIA in January 2004 that he had "decided he would fabricate any information interrogators wanted in order to gain better treatment and avoid being handed over to [a foreign government]."
> The false statements dramatically increased in August 2002, with congressional consideration of a war resolution, then escalated through the mid-term elections and spiked even higher from January 2003 to the eve of the invasion.




Liberal Media?????????????????




> The cumulative effect of these false statements  amplified by thousands of news stories and broadcasts  was massive, with the media coverage creating an almost impenetrable din for several critical months in the run-up to war. *Some journalists  indeed, even some entire news organizations  have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical. *These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, "independent" validation of the Bush administration's false statements about Iraq.


http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/


----------



## Alpha1

http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv

Its a shame to ignore the truth....so watch it....


----------



## JimH52

I admire you Sarg for your staunch support of your buddy bush.  I hope he invites you to his ranch and shows you his Vietnam war meda.....oh sorry.  Well, I hope he invites you somewhere.


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv
> 
> Its a shame to ignore the truth....so watch it....



only one of those democrats expressed any degree of certainty about Saddam actually having weapons of mass destruction.


----------



## rayboyusmc

Does it make any difference if there were WMDs when the Dems you show talked about Saddam and there were none when Bush launched his war?

Out 935 allegations, none are true.  No lies?

Treason, my ass.

Here is where it all started



> [edit] Contents
> The resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:
> 
> Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.
> Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."[citation needed]
> Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
> Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
> Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
> Members of al-Qaeda were "known to be in Iraq."
> Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
> The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, including the September 11th, 2001 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them.
> The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
> Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.
> The Resolution required President Bush's diplomatic efforts at the U.N. Security Council to "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions." It authorized the United States to use military force to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."
> 
> 
> [edit] Passage
> The authorization was sought by President George W. Bush. Introduced as H.J.Res. 114 (Public Law 107243), it passed the House on October 10, 2002 by a vote of 296-133,[2] and the Senate on October 11 by a vote of 77-23.[3] It was signed into law by President Bush on October 16, 2002.
> 
> 
> United States House of Representatives
> 
> Party        Ayes     Nays     PRES    No Vote
> Republican 215         6          0          2
> Democratic 81       126          0          1
> Independent 0          1          0          0
> TOTALS 296 133 0 3
> 
> United States Senate
> 
> Party            Ayes       Nays      No Vote
> Republican       48          1            0
> Democratic      29         21            0
> Independent      0          1            0
> TOTALS 77 23 0
> 
> 
> [edit] Amendments Offered to the House Resolution
> 
> [edit] The Spratt Amendment
> Required U.N. Security Council authorization for any use of force against Iraq. In the event that the Security Council would not authorize use of force, the President would be required to come back to Congress for a second vote before acting unilaterally. Sponsored by Rep. John Spratt (D-SC).
> 
> Defeated 155 - 270.
> 
> 
> [edit] The Lee Amendment
> Urged the President to work through the United Nations to resolve the dispute peacefully. Sponsored by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA).
> 
> Defeated 72 - 355.[4]
> 
> 
> [edit] Amendments Offered to the Senate Resolution
> 
> [edit] The Byrd Amendment
> Affirmed that no additional constitutional authority was being ceded to the President outside of that necessary to deal with the threat posed by Iraq. Sponsored by Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV)
> 
> Defeated 14 - 86.
> 
> 
> [edit] The Levin Amendment
> Urged to U.N. Security Council to adopt a resolution demanding that Iraq grant immediate and unconditional access to U.N. weapons inspectors. Authorized U.S. use of force only if Iraq failed to comply with the U.N. resolution. Sponsored by Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI)
> 
> Defeated 24 - 75.
> 
> 
> [edit] The Durbin Amendment
> Restricted the use of force authorization to cover only an immediate threat from Iraq rather than a continuing threat. Sponsored by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL).
> 
> Defeated 30 - 70.




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


----------



## glockmail

maineman said:


> only one of those democrats expressed any degree of certainty about Saddam actually having weapons of mass destruction.


 Democrats wishy washy? Whouda thunk?


----------



## maineman

glockmail said:


> Democrats wishy washy? Whouda thunk?



not wishy washy... just not as many liars as your side has, that's all.


----------



## mattskramer

GunnyL said:


> Nothing like setting an impossible standard.



It is not an impossible standard.  We have satellites.  We had Iraq isolated.  When Iraq practically took Kuwait, we made Iraq give it back.  Then when Iraq rattled its saber in the no-fly-zone, we would occasionally send a jet to shut Saddam up.  We had time on our side.  We could have recruited spies investigate in Iraq and supply us with solid evidence.  It is clear that it would have been a very long time before Iraq could touch us.


----------



## mattskramer

GunnyL said:


> Saddam defied the UN to the end.  All he had to do was comply with the terms of a ceasefire HE agreed to.  The ink wasn't even dry before he was defying it.



Oh, so you respect the UN.  If Iraq broke UN resolutions then the war was for the UN to declare.


----------



## Gunny

JimH52 said:


> I admire you Sarg for your staunch support of your buddy bush.  I hope he invites you to his ranch and shows you his Vietnam war meda.....oh sorry.  Well, I hope he invites you somewhere.



First off, if that was aimed at me ... I ain't no f-ing "sarge."  I am a Gunnery Sergeant.  That or Gunny will do.  

Second, Bush isn't my buddy.  Calling bullshit what it is makes that no more true.

Third, how about I bring along MY medals and you bring yours?


----------



## Gunny

maineman said:


> not wishy washy... just not as many liars as your side has, that's all.



Again ... statements made that turn out to be incorrect after the fact are not lies.  

And yeah, you have just as many liars as the right does.  This thread is evidence of that.  The right just doesn't have as many witchhunters.

I'll tell you straight up I was actually listening to what Bill had to say back in 91 and giving him a chance until he said he didn't inhale.  And no matter what you say, he lied about Lewinsky.

AndTHAT is what "Bush lied" has been all about for the past 7 years.  Your boy got caught and you've been grasping at every straw since to call Bush one.


----------



## rayboyusmc

> The right just doesn't have as many witchhunters.



Come on, Gunny.  What do you call the Starr investigation that lasted almost 8  years and cost US 70 million dollars. That was one hell of a fishing expedition and witch hunting.   What about the attacks on:  Max Cleland, John Murtha, Scott Ritter and any other military person who didn't agree with the Right Wing Iraq Agenda?

I for one have never denied Billy lied about his BJ.   But, dammit, lying about his personal sex life does not equate to lying about a war that has now killed 3900 plus of our best people.  No WMDs there, and Bush joked about on TV looking right and left.  This war was planned and sold to the American people by a group who knew that Saddam did not pose any real threat.

Like I asked earlier, all 935 examples are honest mistakes?

Calling Bush a frigging liar, for me, has nothing to do with Clinton getting caught lying.  I am tired of good men and women going to war for some rich crocksuckers financial rewards. 

 His "Bring Em on" and his declaration that Major Combat is over shows me a little tinhorn cowboy who never put his ass on the line for anything.  

General Butler"  



> CHAPTER ONE
> 
> War Is A Racket
> 
> WAR is a racket. It always has been.
> 
> It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.
> 
> A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.
> 
> In the World War _ a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.
> 
> How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?
> _


_

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html_


----------



## RetiredGySgt

rayboyusmc said:


> Come on, Gunny.  What do you call the Starr investigation that lasted almost 8  years and cost US 70 million dollars. That was one hell of a fishing expedition and witch hunting.   What about the attacks on:  Max Cleland, John Murtha, Scott Ritter and any other military person who didn't agree with the Right Wing Iraq Agenda?
> 
> I for one have never denied Billy lied about his BJ.   But, dammit, lying about his personal sex life does not equate to lying about a war that has now killed 3900 plus of our best people.  No WMDs there, and Bush joked about on TV looking right and left.  This war was planned and sold to the American people by a group who knew that Saddam did not pose any real threat.
> 
> Like I asked earlier, all 935 examples are honest mistakes?
> 
> Calling Bush a frigging liar, for me, has nothing to do with Clinton getting caught lying.  I am tired of good men and women going to war for some rich crocksuckers financial rewards.
> 
> His "Bring Em on" and his declaration that Major Combat is over shows me a little tinhorn cowboy who never put his ass on the line for anything.
> 
> General Butler"
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html



Murtha? The Former Marine that called fellow Marines cold blooded murderers with absolutely no facts to back up his claim? That Murtha? All for political gain? Cleland? What being voted out of office is now treasonous and unbecoming a man that picked up his own grenade? Scott Ritter, the man that couldn't make up his mind from year to year what the facts were? You need a new set of heroes.

As for Clinton, he lied under oath to a Judge because he would have been in LEGAL trouble, his affair with Lewinsky showed a clear pattern which could have helped Paula Jones. It was not just about private sex, it was about a pattern of potentially illegal activety the man engaged in as Governor and President. The tired old lie it was a private matter about sex is the biggest lie out there.


----------



## rayboyusmc

Kool Aid anyone?



> On April 8, with a month left in his tour, Cleland was ordered to set up a radio relay station on a nearby hill. A helicopter flew him and two soldiers to the treeless top of Hill 471, east of Khe Sanh. Cleland knew some of the soldiers camped there from Operation Pegasus. He told the pilot he was going to stay a while. Maybe have a few beers with friends.
> When the helicopter landed, Cleland jumped out, followed by the two soldiers. They ducked beneath the rotors and turned to watch the liftoff. Cleland reached down to pick up the grenade he believed had popped off his flak jacket. The blast slammed him backward, shredding both his legs and one arm. He was 25 years old...


  Yah, what a bozo.

He was attacked by the right because he objected to parts of the so called Patriot Act.  They used a picture of Ossama to slime him.  You don't really buy into that, do you?

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



> Murtha remained in the Marine Corps Reserves, and ran a small business, Johnstown Minute Car Wash. He also attended the University of Pittsburgh on the G.I. Bill, and received a degree in economics. Murtha later took graduate courses from the Indiana University of Pennsylvania. Murtha married his wife Joyce on 10 June 1955. They have three children and live in Johnstown.
> 
> In 1959, Murtha, then a captain, took command of the 34th Special Infantry Company, Marine Corps Reserves, in Johnstown. He remained in the Reserves after his discharge from active duty until he volunteered for service in the Vietnam War, serving from 1966 to 1967, serving as a battalion staff officer (S-2 Intelligence Section), receiving the Bronze Star with Valor device, two Purple Hearts and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry. He retired from the Reserves as a colonel in 1990, receiving the Navy Distinguished Service Medal.



Murtha has always been a supporter of the military.  But no, believe those who attacked him because he dared to disagree with Bush.

Ritter was accused of child pornography by the right.  Funny how it never turned out to be so and they just shrugged it off.  Ritter said the inspections were working, and that pissed off the administration.

Sort of like Valerie Plame.  Out a covert CIA Agent because her husband dared to dispute the Prez.


----------



## glockmail

maineman said:


> not wishy washy... just not as many liars as your side has, that's all.


"I (short pause) did not have (comma) sexual relations (comma) with that woman (pause, point out into the audience). Miss Lewinsky."


----------



## glockmail

rayboyusmc said:


> ....Sort of like Valerie Plame.  Out a covert CIA Agent because her husband dared to dispute the Prez.


  Her hubby was a political hack. Plame was not an undercover operative for years before she was erroneously "outed".


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Murtha out right LIED about Marines for the sole purpose of winning what he thought would be great political points. That you think he is a great man is simply proof of your partisan antics.

Cleland was defeated in a fair election by someone the people of his district believed would better represent THEIR opinions. That is HOW our Government works. Then his buddies ( I do not think he did it) cried about how poor disabled Cleland was cheated. Personally I think his pesonal behavior, not his opinions or political stance, were a class act. You sully that by your whining.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> Murtha out right LIED about Marines for the sole purpose of winning what he thought would be great political points. That you think he is a great man is simply proof of your partisan antics.
> 
> Cleland was defeated in a fair election by someone the people of his district believed would better represent THEIR opinions. That is HOW our Government works. Then his buddies ( I do not think he did it) cried about how poor disabled Cleland was cheated. Personally I think his pesonal behavior, not his opinions or political stance, were a class act. You sully that by your whining.




Murtha did not lie.  What he said, turned out to be inaccurate, but he did not know it was inaccurate at the time he said it.

Cleland didn't have a "district".  Did you fail civics?

So you think that comparing a disabled american veteran to osama bin laden is perfectly acceptable campaigning?  nice touch.


----------



## AllieBaba

So this means Bush didn't lie, either. Right?


----------



## maineman

AllieBaba said:


> So this means Bush didn't lie, either. Right?




no.  Bush knew that there was not absolute certainty about Saddam's WMD stockpiles, yet he and his team continually asserted that there was.  That is a lie.


apples and oranges, sweetie.


----------



## JimH52

Alpha1 said:


> http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv
> 
> Its a shame to ignore the truth....so watch it....



This administration controlled the information that was "fed" to congress.  The term "Cherry picked" has been used quite often.

Sorry about that Sarg...


----------



## AllieBaba

If you say so, lol.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> Murtha did not lie.  What he said, turned out to be inaccurate, but he did not know it was inaccurate at the time he said it.
> 
> Cleland didn't have a "district".  Did you fail civics?
> 
> So you think that comparing a disabled american veteran to osama bin laden is perfectly acceptable campaigning?  nice touch.



So Murtha did not lie but Bush did? Got ya.


----------



## AllieBaba

Murtha was _mistaken_, but Bush was the only person on Capitol Hill who was _lying_ when he said Saddam had WMDs.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

JimH52 said:


> This administration controlled the information that was "fed" to congress.  The term "Cherry picked" has been used quite often.
> 
> Sorry about that Sarg...



Except the current admin did not provide ANY information to anyone in 1998 AND the President has no power and no ability to decided what information Congress receives. Just minor points I am sure.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

AllieBaba said:


> Murtha was _mistaken_, but Bush was the only person on Capitol Hill who was _lying_ when he said Saddam had WMDs.



Yup usual garbage from Maineman, any democrat can say or do anything they want and it is ok, but Republicans, why they lied.


----------



## AllieBaba

Here, check this out...Saddam intentionally misled everyone about the WMDs...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/24/60minutes/main3749494.shtml

_CBS) Saddam Hussein initially didn't think the U.S. would invade Iraq to destroy weapons of mass destruction, so he kept the fact that he had none a secret to prevent an Iranian invasion he believed could happen. The Iraqi dictator revealed this thinking to George Piro, the FBI agent assigned to interrogate him after his capture._

And more:

_Saddam still wouldn't admit he had no weapons of mass destruction, even when it was obvious there would be military action against him because of the perception he did. Because, says Piro, "For him, it was critical that he was seen as still the strong, defiant Saddam. He thought that [faking having the weapons] would prevent the Iranians from reinvading Iraq," he tells Pelley. _


Hey, but Bush was lying when he told us he believed there were WMD.


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> Murtha did not lie.  What he said, turned out to be inaccurate, but he did not know it was inaccurate at the time he said it.
> 
> Yeah....democrats make inaccurate claims, Republicans lie....
> what a clown.....you can't even the disguise the fact you're a hack
> 
> 
> Cleland didn't have a "district".  Did you fail civics?
> 
> So you think that comparing a disabled american veteran to osama bin laden is perfectly acceptable campaigning?  nice touch.



 While you obviously found it perfectly acceptable to compare our brave troops serving as guards in Gitmo to Nazies , ala Sen. Durban...
again the clown comes through...


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> no.  Bush knew that there was not absolute certainty about Saddam's WMD stockpiles, yet he and his team continually asserted that there was.  That is a lie.
> 
> 
> apples and oranges, sweetie.



How do you know what Bush knew or didn't know, 
or what he believed or didn't believe, 
or what he thought was fact or not fact....

You think you have some physic power to know what other people believe?
You KNOW bullshit...thats about what you KNOW....


----------



## Alpha1

RetiredGySgt said:


> Except the current admin did not provide ANY information to anyone in 1998 AND the President has no power and no ability to decided what information Congress receives. Just minor points I am sure.



Right on.....these knotheads just ignore what the Dims were saying about Saddam throughout the 90's and well into 2003.....

when Bush says the same thing, suddenly hes a liar... and "fooling" the poor dumb Dims.....


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> Murtha did not lie.  What he said, turned out to be inaccurate, but he did not know it was inaccurate at the time he said it.
> 
> Cleland didn't have a "district".  Did you fail civics?
> 
> So you think that comparing a disabled american veteran to osama bin laden is perfectly acceptable campaigning?  nice touch.



Cleland was a representative, as I recall, thus he had a US District. Now if he were a Senator I would be wrong. But as I recall he was a Representative. Sorry if I am wrong. I suggest you learn about our Government and how it works, maybe you can get Jillian to learn about the Constitution while your at it.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> Cleland was a representative, as I recall, thus he had a US District. Now if he were a Senator I would be wrong. But as I recall he was a Representative. Sorry if I am wrong. I suggest you learn about our Government and how it works, maybe you can get Jillian to learn about the Constitution while your at it.



Cleland was a senator.  moron.

he succeeded Sam Nunn and was beaten by Saxby Chambliss.

take a fucking civics course...idiot.


----------



## JimH52




----------



## DeadCanDance

RetiredGySgt said:


> Cleland was a representative, as I recall, thus he had a US District. Now if he were a Senator I would be wrong. But as I recall he was a Representative. Sorry if I am wrong. I suggest you learn about our Government and how it works, maybe you can get Jillian to learn about the Constitution while your at it.



Please remove yourself, or refrain, from ever commenting in any political threads henceforth. 

Everyone who has even a modest amount of interest and knowledge about politics, knows that Senator Max Cleland served in the US Senate.


----------



## maineman

DeadCanDance said:


> Please remove yourself, or refrain, from ever commenting in any political threads henceforth.
> 
> Everyone who has even a modest amount of interest and knowledge about politics, knows that Senator Max Cleland served in the US Senate.



bingo.  a moron in a gunny sergeant's uniform!


----------



## RetiredGySgt

DeadCanDance said:


> Please remove yourself, or refrain, from ever commenting in any political threads henceforth.
> 
> Everyone who has even a modest amount of interest and knowledge about politics, knows that Senator Max Cleland served in the US Senate.



Sure thing, MORON, this from a retard that keeps making ignorant statements about what this administration has or has not done. You and Maineman need to learn the English lanaguage, the US political structure and how to comprehend evidence, facts and knowledge.

The two of you are about as stupid as they get when it comes to telling others what to talk about.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> bingo.  a moron in a gunny sergeant's uniform!



At least I didn't waste money on a 4 year degree so that I could be as stupid as a 5 year old like you. Or does the Navy have 90 day wonders?


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> Sure thing, MORON, this from a retard that keeps making ignorant statements about what this administration has or has not done. You and Maineman need to learn the English lanaguage, the US political structure and how to comprehend evidence, facts and knowledge.
> 
> The two of you are about as stupid as they get when it comes to telling others what to talk about.




this from a guy who thought Max Cleland was a representative and not a senator?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> this from a guy who thought Max Cleland was a representative and not a senator?



So what? He wasn't my Senator or my Representative. At least I don't go around claiming I know what a President thinks and knows like a certain retard does. Further I already said it is what I thought and I might be wrong. Unlike you, that keeps claiming you KNOW what Bush thought, thinks and believes. Unlike you that keeps claiming all the Dems that said exactly what Bush said were just mistaken but Bush lied. Unlike you that keeps claiming a President somehow got the Intel community to lie to Congress and got Congress to not ask for its own briefings and intel sources. Unlike you that keeps claiming every intel agency in the world lied for Bush in the run up to the Iraq invasion.

Go ahead reminds about those super secret mind reading abilities you have.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> So what? He wasn't my Senator or my Representative. At least I don't go around claiming I know what a President thinks and knows like a certain retard does. Further I already said it is what I thought and I might be wrong. Unlike you, that keeps claiming you KNOW what Bush thought, thinks and believes. Unlike you that keeps claiming all the Dems that said exactly what Bush said were just mistaken but Bush lied. Unlike you that keeps claiming a President somehow got the Intel community to lie to Congress and got Congress to not ask for its own briefings and intel sources. Unlike you that keeps claiming every intel agency in the world lied for Bush in the run up to the Iraq invasion.
> 
> Go ahead reminds about those super secret mind reading abilities you have.




If I didn't know that George Bush was the president for sure, I'd keep my piehole shut.  I gave you an out, but you had to keep pressing your ignorance for all to see.  your fault, not mine.

And I have NEVER claimed that the president got the intel community to lie to congress.  Another LIE by the king of chickenshit liars. 

My claim is that Team Bush lied when he took the intelligence he was given - which came laden with caveats and qualifiers - and claimed that that intelligence showed absolute certainty about the existence (and location) of stockpiles of Saddam's WMD's.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> If I didn't know that George Bush was the president for sure, I'd keep my piehole shut.  I gave you an out, but you had to keep pressing your ignorance for all to see.  your fault, not mine.
> 
> And I have NEVER claimed that the president got the intel community to lie to congress.  Another LIE by the king of chickenshit liars.
> 
> My claim is that Team Bush lied when he took the intelligence he was given - which came laden with caveats and qualifiers - and claimed that that intelligence showed absolute certainty about the existence (and location) of stockpiles of Saddam's WMD's.



So you KNOW that Bush cooked the books and that he somehow prevented Congress from getting the REAL intel? That he got all the world to tell the same story for his ruse to work?

You know with no uncertainty what Bush thought and believed? Using your own logic , you are the serial liar here.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> So you KNOW that Bush cooked the books and that he somehow prevented Congress from getting the REAL intel? That he got all the world to tell the same story for his ruse to work?
> 
> You know with no uncertainty what Bush thought and believed? Using your own logic , you are the serial liar here.



I have NEVER stated that.  

I have only stated that Team Bush's assertions that there was absolute certainty about the presence (and location) of Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's were statements that served to convey a false impression.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> I have NEVER stated that.
> 
> I have only stated that Team Bush's assertions that there was absolute certainty about the presence (and location) of Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's were statements that served to convey a false impression.



You have stated Bush lied. You have stated he KNEW what he said was wrong. You have stated he did not believe what he was saying. Now explain how you KNOW that to be true?


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> You have stated Bush lied. You have stated he KNEW what he said was wrong. You have stated he did not believe what he was saying. Now explain how you KNOW that to be true?



I have never stated that he did not believe what he was saying.  I have stated that, based upon the statements of numerous intelligence analysts that gathered and prepared the intelligence that the president was given, none of that intelligence was without caveats and qualifiers.  If one is to believe them, and I do, one can only surmise that Bush knew there was not absolute certainty, yet he and his team continually expressed absolute certainty...which was a false impression.... ergo, a lie.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> I have never stated that he did not believe what he was saying.  I have stated that, based upon the statements of numerous intelligence analysts that gathered and prepared the intelligence that the president was given, none of that intelligence was without caveats and qualifiers.  If one is to believe them, and I do, one can only surmise that Bush knew there was not absolute certainty, yet he and his team continually expressed absolute certainty...which was a false impression.... ergo, a lie.



You just tried to have it both ways. You tried to claim you did not state you knew what Bush believed and then repeated you DO know what Bush believed.

Your a liar by your own logic.


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> *I have never stated that he did not believe what he was saying. *
> 
> 
> I have stated that, based upon the statements of numerous intelligence analysts that gathered and prepared the intelligence that the president was given, none of that intelligence was without caveats and qualifiers.  If one is to believe them, and I do, one can only surmise that Bush knew there was not absolute certainty, yet he and his team continually expressed absolute certainty...which was a false impression.... ergo, a lie.




*I have never stated that he did not believe what he was saying. * 

And their you have it in mm's own words.......

Now apply a tiny bit of standard logical thinking......

and the result is.......ta da.....

IF YOU BELIEVE WHAT YOU ARE CLAIMING, IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED A LIE.......



Now it would be nice if mm would STFU about Bush lies....once and for all.....


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> You just tried to have it both ways. You tried to claim you did not state you knew what Bush believed and then repeated you DO know what Bush believed.
> 
> Your a liar by your own logic.



There is a difference between knowledge and belief.  I have no knowledge of the presence of God, for example, but I believe in it.

You really need to learn a little bit more about the language, moron.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> There is a difference between knowledge and belief.  I have no knowledge of the presence of God, for example, but I believe in it.
> 
> You really need to learn a little bit more about the language, moron.



Wrong. You keep claiming Bush knew something and thus lied. You can not know what he knew or thought. Further complicated by your insistance that democrats that said the EXACT same things were just "mistaken" or somehow hoodwinked.

It is all about politics and partisan bullshit. Clinton did not lie when HE said what Bush said, But Bush lied. Sure thing.


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> *I have never stated that he did not believe what he was saying. *
> 
> And their you have it in mm's own words.......
> 
> Now apply a tiny bit of standard logical thinking......
> 
> and the result is.......ta da.....
> 
> IF YOU BELIEVE WHAT YOU ARE CLAIMING, IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED A LIE.......
> 
> 
> 
> Now it would be nice if mm would STFU about Bush lies....once and for all.....



What President Bush wanted desperately to believe is of little interest to me.

I know what he many analysts have stated that he KNEW... and I know what he SAID, and I know that there is a dichotomy between the two.

and if you make a statement that you KNOW is incorrect, i.e. absolute certainty concerning Saddam's WMD's - even though you may very well believe that such stockpiles of WMD's do exist - your assertion of absolute certainty is a statement which conveys a false impression..... we are not talking about statements where Team Bush stated that they BELIEVED that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's...we are talking about statements by them where they stated that there was absolute certainty that such stockpiles existed - in direct contradiction to the intelligence reports that came laden with degrees of doubt and uncertainty.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> Wrong. You keep claiming Bush knew something and thus lied. You can not know what he knew or thought. Further complicated by your insistance that democrats that said the EXACT same things were just "mistaken" or somehow hoodwinked.
> 
> It is all about politics and partisan bullshit. Clinton did not lie when HE said what Bush said, But Bush lied. Sure thing.




I can claim to know what he had been told, and what he had been told was that there were degrees of doubt and uncertainty about Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's.  

and what democrats said is irrrelevant.  I have already said that any democrat who claimed certainty was lying and is on my shitlist.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> What President Bush wanted desperately to believe is of little interest to me.
> 
> I know what he many analysts have stated that he KNEW... and I know what he SAID, and I know that there is a dichotomy between the two.
> 
> and if you make a statement that you KNOW is incorrect, i.e. absolute certainty concerning Saddam's WMD's - even though you may very well believe that such stockpiles of WMD's do exist - your assertion of absolute certainty is a statement which conveys a false impression..... we are not talking about statements where Team Bush stated that they BELIEVED that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's...we are talking about statements by them where they stated that there was absolute certainty that such stockpiles existed - in direct contradiction to the intelligence reports that came laden with degrees of doubt and uncertainty.



And you have no way in the world to know they did not believe what they said was absolutely true. Unless your a mind reader. And again when Clinton made the EXACT same speech in 1998,was lying? When Hillary and Edwards made similar speeches in 2002 and 2003 were they LYING? When German Intelligence said Saddam Hussein might have Nuclear capability by 2005 were they lying? When Hans Blix insisted he needed more time to verify if weapons were gone, was he lying?

Using the after the invasion knowledge that the weapons were not found and your logic then all of them are bald face liars. All the Dems, all the intel people, everyone, including the UN inspectors.

If on Friday I believe you have a red car and tell everyone you have a red car and then on Monday I find out you have a blue car, I did not LIE on Friday. Even if someone told me on Friday you had a blue car but others told me you had a red car. IF YOU tell me you have a red car and I accept you at your word, I am not a liar if I find out later your car is blue. Saddam told everyone he had weapons. His own Generals thought he had weapons.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> And you have no way in the world to know they did not believe what they said was absolutely true. Unless your a mind reader. And again when Clinton made the EXACT same speech in 1998,was lying? When Hillary and Edwards made similar speeches in 2002 and 2003 were they LYING? When German Intelligence said Saddam Hussein might have Nuclear capability by 2005 were they lying? When Hans Blix insisted he needed more time to verify if weapons were gone, was he lying?
> 
> Using the after the invasion knowledge that the weapons were not found and your logic then all of them are bald face liars. All the Dems, all the intel people, everyone, including the UN inspectors.
> 
> If on Friday I believe you have a red car and tell everyone you have a red car and then on Monday I find out you have a blue car, I did not LIE on Friday. Even if someone told me on Friday you had a blue car but others told me you had a red car. IF YOU tell me you have a red car and I accept you at your word, I am not a liar if I find out later your car is blue. Saddam told everyone he had weapons. His own Generals thought he had weapons.



when Germany said that Saddam MIGHT have a nuclear capability by 2005, of course they were not lying.  If they said that there was absolutely no doubt that Saddam would have a nuclear capability by that time, they would have been.  

You cannot really be this obtuse.  Are you completely incapable of seeing the difference between suggesting that Saddam might very well have WMD's and stating with absolute certainty that he did?


If you say that you believe I have a red car when I have a blue one, you are not lying.  If you say that there is absolute certainty that I have a red car when, in fact, I do not, then that is a lie. comprendez?


----------



## actsnoblemartin

i thought they were ending?




rayboyusmc said:


> Actually, the sanctions were working.  The inspectors found the greatest percentage of WMDs he was hiding.  If the sanctions had been lifted, we would have put in place measures to ensure he didn't reconstitute them.  Your argument is just another right wing talking point.
> 
> To try and justify a pre-emptive war on a third rate dicktator who couldn't beat Iran in an 8 year war makes as much sense as saying it's okay to burn your neighbors' house down because he doesn't like you and he may be able to buy a pack of matches to burn yours down.   Pre-emption is only applied by lawful countries when there is an eminent and real threat.
> 
> Saddam was no threat.  Al Quaeda in Afghanistan was.  Bush took his eye of of this battle and now they are back on the rise.
> 
> Your little cowboy couldn't fight his way out of a paper bag with a bayonet in each hand .  They refused from the beginning to listen to any military leaders who didn't agree with them and now look at the fine kettle fish shit we are in.
> 
> Please yawn all you want.  That's the common come back when you don't have data to refute the facts.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

actsnoblemartin said:


> i thought they were ending?



France tried to delay our Invasion for JUST that purpose. France, Russia and China had been bribed, they were working to end sanctions by the end of 2003.

Saddam was not worried because he thought France would sabatogue our war effort and prevent our attack. He was told that by France, Russia and China. No UN Sanctioned war and thus the US would back down.


----------



## eots

Shogun said:


> Clearly, with all of those NUKES and BIO AND CHEM WEAPONS we find all the time your paranoid, braindead fear was well worth it!
> 
> 
> Hey, we can assume the same about ANYONE and then invade them when they dont disarm with the weapons that they DONT HAVE.
> 
> 
> Hey, RGS...  PROVE that you have stopped sucking cock.  Seriously, I know you love the man meat and all and any denial is just a front meant to keep the world from knowing how much tube steak you can gobble at one setting.  If you can't figure out how your answer to this relates to the PHANTOM WMD scheme then push the button for nurse Gary 'cause it's time for your meds.



wasn't rgs he also connected to baby killers? sources told me he was


----------



## maineman

yo.... retired gunny.... no comment?  


maineman said:


> when Germany said that Saddam MIGHT have a nuclear capability by 2005, of course they were not lying.  If they said that there was absolutely no doubt that Saddam would have a nuclear capability by that time, they would have been.
> 
> You cannot really be this obtuse.  Are you completely incapable of seeing the difference between suggesting that Saddam might very well have WMD's and stating with absolute certainty that he did?
> 
> 
> If you say that you believe I have a red car when I have a blue one, you are not lying.  If you say that there is absolute certainty that I have a red car when, in fact, I do not, then that is a lie. comprendez?


----------



## DeadCanDance

RetiredGySgt said:


> So what? He wasn't my Senator or my Representative. At least I don't go around claiming I know what a President thinks and knows like a certain retard does. Further I already said it is what I thought and I might be wrong. Unlike you, that keeps claiming you KNOW what Bush thought, thinks and believes. Unlike you that keeps claiming all the Dems that said exactly what Bush said were just mistaken but Bush lied. Unlike you that keeps claiming a President somehow got the Intel community to lie to Congress and got Congress to not ask for its own briefings and intel sources. Unlike you that keeps claiming every intel agency in the world lied for Bush in the run up to the Iraq invasion.
> 
> Go ahead reminds about those super secret mind reading abilities you have.




_"so what? He wasn't my Senator or my Representative."_


Outside of Senator Daschle and Senator Allen, Senator Cleland's election loss in Georgia was likely the most reported on loss by an incumbent senator in the last six years.   Everyone, with a nominal interest in politics knows the Cleland story, and knows he was a senator. 

Honestly, you really should refrain from commenting in any more political threads.  It's getting embarassing.


----------



## JimH52

This thread has taken on a life of its own.  Whats say we let it die?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

DeadCanDance said:


> _"so what? He wasn't my Senator or my Representative."_
> 
> 
> Outside of Senator Daschle and Senator Allen, Senator Cleland's election loss in Georgia was likely the most reported on loss by an incumbent senator in the last six years.   Everyone, with a nominal interest in politics knows the Cleland story, and knows he was a senator.
> 
> Honestly, you really should refrain from commenting in any more political threads.  It's getting embarassing.



The only embarrassment here is your whining and crying. But do continue, I do love a good laugh.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> yo.... retired gunny.... no comment?



Already commented, your attempt to claim you know what Bush did or did not believe is funny as hell. Or would be if it were not so down right ignorant.

If 5 guys tell me 5 stories and I happen to believe 2 of them and not the other 3, I am not lying if I say so.

If my intel guys tell me that Saddam Hussein has never accounted for all his weapons, that he continues to claim he has them, that he continues to have the capability to make more, that he has shown in the past he wants to make and use them, that he has in fact used them numerous times in the past, that he is trying to weasel out of inspections without ever proving he got rid of all his weapons and capability. If all of that is repeated by EVERY Ally I have including my political rivals. Then ya, I am going to say he HAS them and believe it even if some of the people tell me " we can not be sure".

That you can not understand that, I do not believe. This is a game your playing. There is no way your this retarded.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> Already commented, your attempt to claim you know what Bush did or did not believe is funny as hell. Or would be if it were not so down right ignorant.
> 
> If 5 guys tell me 5 stories and I happen to believe 2 of them and not the other 3, I am not lying if I say so.
> 
> If my intel guys tell me that Saddam Hussein has never accounted for all his weapons, that he continues to claim he has them, that he continues to have the capability to make more, that he has shown in the past he wants to make and use them, that he has in fact used them numerous times in the past, that he is trying to weasel out of inspections without ever proving he got rid of all his weapons and capability. If all of that is repeated by EVERY Ally I have including my political rivals. Then ya, I am going to say he HAS them and believe it even if some of the people tell me " we can not be sure".
> 
> That you can not understand that, I do not believe. This is a game your playing. There is no way your this retarded.



I have NEVER said I thought I knew what he "believed".  I merely stated that he KNEW that there was degrees of doubt and uncertainty.  For him to KNOW that and continue to state otherwise is a lie...stating absolute certainty serves to convey a false impression that absolute certainty did, in fact, exist when it did not.  Lie.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> I have NEVER said I thought I knew what he "believed".  I merely stated that he KNEW that there was degrees of doubt and uncertainty.  For him to KNOW that and continue to state otherwise is a lie...stating absolute certainty serves to convey a false impression that absolute certainty did, in fact, exist when it did not.  Lie.



Wrong again, you do not know what Bush knew or even what he BELIEVED. And in the end what you BELIEVE determines whether you lied or not. He can not have lied if he believed he was telling the truth. No matter how you try to stretch and bend it.

I believe God exists, I can not prove it and there are millions of people that will tell you he does not exist and even more that will tell you he may exist but they have doubts. Doesn't mean I am lying when I tell you God exists.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> Wrong again, you do not know what Bush knew or even what he BELIEVED. And in the end what you BELIEVE determines whether you lied or not. He can not have lied if he believed he was telling the truth. No matter how you try to stretch and bend it.
> 
> I believe God exists, I can not prove it and there are millions of people that will tell you he does not exist and even more that will tell you he may exist but they have doubts. Doesn't mean I am lying when I tell you God exists.




Again, for the dimwitted, I have never - repeat - NEVER said I knew what Bush believed.  I do claim to know what many analysts said he was told.  If he was told that intelligence concerning Iraq's WMD's came laden with doubt and uncertainty (which is their assertion), whether he believed it or not, saying "THERE IS NO DOUBT..." "THERE IS ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY" IS, in fact, a lie.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

The report was funded by George Soros.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> Again, for the dimwitted, I have never - repeat - NEVER said I knew what Bush believed.  I do claim to know what many analysts said he was told.  If he was told that intelligence concerning Iraq's WMD's came laden with doubt and uncertainty (which is their assertion), whether he believed it or not, saying "THERE IS NO DOUBT..." "THERE IS ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY" IS, in fact, a lie.



And yet me telling you God exists is not a lie. I wonder why that is? There has to be INTENT for there to be a lie, so what someone BELIEVES is definately important in determining a lie.

Again, because YOU have doubts does not mean I have doubts even if you told me your doubts.

And before we invaded and failed to find what YOU want to call WMD's there was every reason to believe he had them and have no doubt he had them.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> And yet me telling you God exists is not a lie. I wonder why that is? There has to be INTENT for there to be a lie, so what someone BELIEVES is definately important in determining a lie.
> 
> Again, because YOU have doubts does not mean I have doubts even if you told me your doubts.
> 
> And before we invaded and failed to find what YOU want to call WMD's there was every reason to believe he had them and have no doubt he had them.



no.  you are mistaken. 

If the intelligence came with caveats and qualifiers and, in spite of that, Bush had said "I BELIEVE that Saddam has stockpiles of WMD's", that would NOT have been a lie.  That would have been his BELIEF.

But when he and his minions said THERE IS NO DOUBT or THERE IS ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY, that IS a lie...because, whether or not they believed it or put mush stock in it, it WAS there, presented to them in intelligence reports. There WAS doubt.  There WAS uncertainty.  They were told that. 

Ergo:  lies


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> no.  you are mistaken.
> 
> If the intelligence came with caveats and qualifiers and, in spite of that, Bush had said "I BELIEVE that Saddam has stockpiles of WMD's", that would NOT have been a lie.  That would have been his BELIEF.
> 
> But when he and his minions said THERE IS NO DOUBT or THERE IS ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY, that IS a lie...because, whether or not they believed it or put mush stock in it, it WAS there, presented to them in intelligence reports. There WAS doubt.  There WAS uncertainty.  They were told that.
> 
> Ergo:  lies



Intell. reports come to the President from numerous sources, numerous countries, including Great Britain, Russia, Germany, S. Korea, Japan, France, etc., I could go on and on with other sources, including from many in the Middle East.......
YOU have seen NONE of these reports
YOU don't have a clue what intell was available
YOU don't have a clue what caveats or qualifiers were presented
YOU don't have any idea what weight, IF ANY these alledged caveats were given
YOU don't have any idea what certainly any of these countries placed on their sources....
YOU don't know shit, (to make a long story short)

Any doubt in some peoples minds, other than the President or those that made statement are irrelevant to your rant....
Gore KNEW, Pelosi was positive, and many others made accusations without ifs or buts.....without caveats and without qualifiers
All theirs opinions expressed fear of Saddam, past fear, present fear, and future fear.....

Its time to put your insane liar rant to rest. Its become a pathetic obsession with you....your parsing of words borders on fanaticism....you use the same tactic to defend the likes of Durban to explain he didn't say what he plainly did say, and condemn Bush to accuse him of lying when he plainly states what he believes......you need to realize when its time to fade away, to STFU and take a deep breath...


----------



## Shogun

*no. you are mistaken.

If the intelligence came with caveats and qualifiers and, in spite of that, Bush had said "I BELIEVE that Saddam has stockpiles of WMD's", that would NOT have been a lie. That would have been his BELIEF.

But when he and his minions said THERE IS NO DOUBT or THERE IS ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY, that IS a lie...because, whether or not they believed it or put mush stock in it, it WAS there, presented to them in intelligence reports. There WAS doubt. There WAS uncertainty. They were told that.

Ergo: lies*
\
Slamdunk!


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Shogun said:


> *no. you are mistaken.
> 
> If the intelligence came with caveats and qualifiers and, in spite of that, Bush had said "I BELIEVE that Saddam has stockpiles of WMD's", that would NOT have been a lie. That would have been his BELIEF.
> 
> But when he and his minions said THERE IS NO DOUBT or THERE IS ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY, that IS a lie...because, whether or not they believed it or put mush stock in it, it WAS there, presented to them in intelligence reports. There WAS doubt. There WAS uncertainty. They were told that.
> 
> Ergo: lies*
> \
> Slamdunk!



Yup, a slam dunk on your ignorant ass for making a patently false claim again. Neither you nor anyone else on this board know what Bush was told, by whom, nor what certainty he was provided. WE do know that the CIA Director at the time used slam dunk in a sentence though, he STATED for the record it was a SLAM DUNK that the intel on Saddam was right.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> Yup, a slam dunk on your ignorant ass for making a patently false claim again. Neither you nor anyone else on this board know what Bush was told, by whom, nor what certainty he was provided. WE do know that the CIA Director at the time used slam dunk in a sentence though, he STATED for the record it was a SLAM DUNK that the intel on Saddam was right.



he stated for the record that the case could which could be made was a slam dunk.  

I, of course, do not know what Bush HEARD, but I have listened to enough former analysts report that every bit of intelligence they sent to the white house was laden with caveats and qualifiers.... that none of it contained any absolute certainty about Saddam's stockpiles.  Team Bush knew that the intelligence could not support the assertion that it provided absolute certainty about Saddam's WMD stockpiles.  WHen Team Bush went ahead and repeatedly made that claim - it served to convey a false impression.

ergo:  LIE.


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> Intell. reports come to the President from numerous sources, numerous countries, including Great Britain, Russia, Germany, S. Korea, Japan, France, etc., I could go on and on with other sources, including from many in the Middle East.......
> YOU have seen NONE of these reports
> YOU don't have a clue what intell was available
> YOU don't have a clue what caveats or qualifiers were presented
> YOU don't have any idea what weight, IF ANY these alledged caveats were given
> YOU don't have any idea what certainly any of these countries placed on their sources....
> YOU don't know shit, (to make a long story short)
> 
> Any doubt in some peoples minds, other than the President or those that made statement are irrelevant to your rant....
> Gore KNEW, Pelosi was positive, and many others made accusations without ifs or buts.....without caveats and without qualifiers
> All theirs opinions expressed fear of Saddam, past fear, present fear, and future fear.....
> 
> Its time to put your insane liar rant to rest. Its become a pathetic obsession with you....your parsing of words borders on fanaticism....you use the same tactic to defend the likes of Durban to explain he didn't say what he plainly did say, and condemn Bush to accuse him of lying when he plainly states what he believes......you need to realize when its time to fade away, to STFU and take a deep breath...



again.  I have listened to enough former CIA analysts report on what was in the reports that Bush saw.  They ALL have said that NONE of the intelligence was presented as an absolute certainty.

and AGAIN...If Team Bush had said that they "believed" there was no doubt... or that they "believed" that there was absolute certainty, that would be one thing.  They did not say that.  They said that there WAS no doubt.  That is a lie.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> he stated for the record that the case could which could be made was a slam dunk.
> 
> I, of course, do not know what Bush HEARD, but I have listened to enough former analysts report that every bit of intelligence they sent to the white house was laden with caveats and qualifiers.... that none of it contained any absolute certainty about Saddam's stockpiles.  Team Bush knew that the intelligence could not support the assertion that it provided absolute certainty about Saddam's WMD stockpiles.  WHen Team Bush went ahead and repeatedly made that claim - it served to convey a false impression.
> 
> ergo:  LIE.



The only lie here is yours. You do not know what was said, conveyed or provided, you do not know what the President believed or whom he agreed with on intel reports, you ignore the fact numerous NON Bush talking heads and Democratic leaders were all positive and SURE that Saddam was a threat, that Saddam had or could make more WMD, that Saddam was working on Nuclear weapons.

By your own standards you keep lying to us.


----------



## Dr Grump

Bush said no doubt. That was a lie. If there was NO doubt, where are the WMDs.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> The only lie here is yours. You do not know what was said, conveyed or provided, you do not know what the President believed or whom he agreed with on intel reports, you ignore the fact numerous NON Bush talking heads and Democratic leaders were all positive and SURE that Saddam was a threat, that Saddam had or could make more WMD, that Saddam was working on Nuclear weapons.
> 
> By your own standards you keep lying to us.



I am not lying.  I am reporting what is in the public domain - reports from former CIA analysts who have all stated that caveats and qualifiers were attached to every bit of intel about Saddam's WMD's.

Again...I don't give a fuck if Bush believes in the fucking easter bunny.  We are not talking about any statements regarding his beliefs.  We are talking about statements where he and his minions repeatedly stated that THERE was no doubt (as oppsed to "I have no doubt")....when, as I have stated, many other people involved have stated that there WAS doubt contained in the intelligence Team Bush received...

and my issue is not with anyone's statements about Saddam's intent or what he was working on...only those statements which expressed absolute certainty about his stockpiles of WMD's.  those statements were lies.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Dr Grump said:


> Bush said no doubt. That was a lie. If there was NO doubt, where are the WMDs.



There was NO DOUBT. ALL the Dems agreed. all the Foreign Governments agreed, even BLIX agreed. Saddam even had his Generals convinced.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> There was NO DOUBT. ALL the Dems agreed. all the Foreign Governments agreed, even BLIX agreed. Saddam even had his Generals convinced.



Intelligence analysts had doubt and provided that less that certain assessment to Bush.  He knew that there WAS doubt, and chose to say there wasn't.  LIE


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> again.  I have listened to enough former CIA analysts report on what was in the reports that Bush saw.  They ALL have said that NONE of the intelligence was presented as an absolute certainty.
> 
> and AGAIN...If Team Bush had said that they "believed" there was no doubt... or that they "believed" that there was absolute certainty, that would be one thing.  They did not say that.  They said that there WAS no doubt.  That is a lie.



And once again dumbshit, it is not a lie if you believe it to be true. What someone believes IS the entire point. If Bush believed what he said he was NOT attempting to deceive anyone. Deception requires knowledge that what you say is NOT true. If you believe what you say IS true, no lie.

So remind me again how you know what Bush was told, what he beleived and what he thought was true.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> And once again dumbshit, it is not a lie if you believe it to be true. What someone believes IS the entire point. If Bush believed what he said he was NOT attempting to deceive anyone. Deception requires knowledge that what you say is NOT true. If you believe what you say IS true, no lie.
> 
> So remind me again how you know what Bush was told, what he beleived and what he thought was true.




and again, you dimwitted slug...we are not talking about anyone's statements of their fucking beliefs.  We are talking about statements about the fact that there WAS absolute certainty when there wasn't...and the fact that there WAS NO doubt, when there was... even if Bush chose to ignore it.


----------



## maineman

For example:

Let's say that you have admitted to liking to drink miller lite.

If I were to say:

"I personally have no doubt that RGS has empty miller lite cans in his trash."

that is not a lie....it is a statement of my personal belief.

If, on the other hand, I were to say:

"There is absolutely no doubt that RGS has empty miller lite cans in his trash"

that IS a lie.... even if it turns out that you do... what makes it a lie is that I state that there is no doubt about it...not that I, personally, have no doubt about it..but that there IS no doubt about it.

Tell me you aren't too stupid to be able to comprehend the difference.


----------



## Dr Grump

RetiredGySgt said:


> There was NO DOUBT. ALL the Dems agreed. all the Foreign Governments agreed, even BLIX agreed. Saddam even had his Generals convinced.



The Dems only agreed because of what Bush told them. BLix did not agree. Not all the foreign govts agreed and they saw the same intel. However, Bush had NO doubt. So, where are the WMDs. If there was no doubt they'd be around....


----------



## maineman

Dr Grump said:


> The Dems only agreed because of what Bush told them. BLix did not agree. Not all the foreign govts agreed and they saw the same intel. However, Bush had NO doubt. So, where are the WMDs. If there was no doubt they'd be around....



It wasn't even so much that Bush himself had no doubt....he and his team repeatedly conveyed the false impression that NO ONE had any doubt.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Dr Grump said:


> The Dems only agreed because of what Bush told them. BLix did not agree. Not all the foreign govts agreed and they saw the same intel. However, Bush had NO doubt. So, where are the WMDs. If there was no doubt they'd be around....



Learn how our Government works. The President can not "control" what information Congress gets. The President can not "cherry pick" information and have any realistic expectation that Congress can not ask for and receive independent briefs from any and all sources.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> For example:
> 
> Let's say that you have admitted to liking to drink miller lite.
> 
> If I were to say:
> 
> "I personally have no doubt that RGS has empty miller lite cans in his trash."
> 
> that is not a lie....it is a statement of my personal belief.
> 
> If, on the other hand, I were to say:
> 
> "There is absolutely no doubt that RGS has empty miller lite cans in his trash"
> 
> that IS a lie.... even if it turns out that you do... what makes it a lie is that I state that there is no doubt about it...not that I, personally, have no doubt about it..but that there IS no doubt about it.
> 
> Tell me you aren't too stupid to be able to comprehend the difference.



It is NOT a lie if you belief it is true. In order to be a lie you must have an INTENTION to convey a falsehood. Further if 10 guys have briefed you on my trash and even JUST one has told you that ther are in fact those cans in my trash, guess what NIMROD? No lie , no falsehood intentionally conveyed at all.

The only intentional falsehoods are coming from you and your liberal buddies.


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> For example:
> 
> Let's say that you have admitted to liking to drink miller lite.
> 
> If I were to say:
> 
> "I personally have no doubt that RGS has empty miller lite cans in his trash."
> 
> that is not a lie....it is a statement of my personal belief.
> 
> If, on the other hand, I were to say:
> 
> "There is absolutely no doubt that RGS has empty miller lite cans in his trash"
> 
> that IS a lie.... even if it turns out that you do... what makes it a lie is that I state that there is no doubt about it...not that I, personally, have no doubt about it..but that there IS no doubt about it.
> 
> Tell me you aren't too stupid to be able to comprehend the difference.



Thats shows how far you've fallin' into the abyss of insanity....IF Bush had meant that...he would have said NO ONE had any doubt...or WE have no doubt, or MY ADMINISTRATION has no doubt.....

The fact that he didn't shows he was speaking for himself...what he alone believed to be the facts, the truth....HE HAD NO DOUBT.....and THEIR IS NO DOUBT have the same meaning in this context.....
"There is no doubt" (in my mind)..."There is no doubt"(in my opinion), etc....

If he meant to speak for others don't you think he would have conveyed that ..?

When I hear someone express an opinion ...I assume they are speaking for themselves only, unless they clearly convey they are expressing the opinion of a GROUP of people......

You're becoming a wee bit deranged with this simple exercise of reading comprehension.....using common sense, logical reasoning and the all important context of the written word to comprehend the specific idea being expressed by the writer or speaker, must make reading a simple novel a futile exercise for you.....looking for alternate meanings in what is normal common English language usage might be fun and feed your feeling of elitism, but does not advance debate in the normal course of conversation....

In plain Joe six pack English....*we know what the meaning of IS IS......*


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> Thats shows how far you've fallin' into the abyss of insanity....IF Bush had meant that...he would have said NO ONE had any doubt...or WE have no doubt, or MY ADMINISTRATION has no doubt.....
> 
> The fact that he didn't shows he was speaking for himself...what he alone believed to be the facts, the truth....HE HAD NO DOUBT.....and THEIR IS NO DOUBT have the same meaning in this context.....
> "There is no doubt" (in my mind)..."There is no doubt"(in my opinion), etc....
> 
> If he meant to speak for others don't you think he would have conveyed that ..?
> 
> When I hear someone express an opinion ...I assume they are speaking for themselves only, unless they clearly convey they are expressing the opinion of a GROUP of people......
> 
> You're becoming a wee bit deranged with this simple exercise of reading comprehension.....using common sense, logical reasoning and the all important context of the written word to comprehend the specific idea being expressed by the writer or speaker, must make reading a simple novel a futile exercise for you.....looking for alternate meanings in what is normal common English language usage might be fun and feed your feeling of elitism, but does not advance debate in the normal course of conversation....
> 
> In plain Joe six pack English....*we know what the meaning of IS IS......*




ah ...if only editorial parentheticals inserted after the fact counted for anything!  

"There is no doubt"

means something different than

"I have no doubt"

that's a fact.  spin all you want.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> ah ...if only editorial parentheticals inserted after the fact counted for anything!
> 
> "There is no doubt"
> 
> means something different than
> 
> "I have no doubt"
> 
> that's a fact.  spin all you want.



The only one spinning is you.


----------



## M14 Shooter

RetiredGySgt said:


> You must have missed the whacko defense of that, According to them since Clinton did not start the war it doesn't matter what they actually said or believe


Apparently, its OK to lie about the reasons for going to war so long as you don't kill "too many" people or spend "too much" money.

Or, have a (D) next to your name.


----------



## nibor

UM I know that I'm getting into this kinda late.....................the fact is that they all lied and we're at war.................and our kids are dying for it. 

But there is one thing for sure Communist China owns us.............and freakin' pissant MEXICO is taking some of that action......................AND the muslims tried to take over our East coast with the help of the same people who lied..............and we continue to argue over a pissant like Saddam, who's dead I believe..............maybe? 

UM WOULDN'T OUR COUNTRY BEING SLICED AND DICED AND TAKEN OVER BE MORE OF A PRESSING ISSUE........UM JUST SLIGHTLY MORE IMPORTANT IS HOW WE'VE BEEN INTENTIONALLY DIVIDED AND IGNORE THESE THINGS????

WTF difference does it make anymore if PISSANT HUSSEIN HAD WMDS OR NOT we ARE at war there, believe and like it or not.............................BUT WHAT IF THAT ISN'T EVEN THE MAIN STAGE?????????


----------



## Shogun

RetiredGySgt said:


> Yup, a slam dunk on your ignorant ass for making a patently false claim again. Neither you nor anyone else on this board know what Bush was told, by whom, nor what certainty he was provided. WE do know that the CIA Director at the time used slam dunk in a sentence though, he STATED for the record it was a SLAM DUNK that the intel on Saddam was right.



Hey, I;ve taken the time to actually quote Bush rather than cry like a bitch while accusing someone of a false claim.  Why don't you take your stupidity up with his actual words instead of wasting my time with your worthless pre-applesauce ranting and laughably litigious attempt to save face?  Why?  Because you are an intellectual pinhead with more partisan vitriol than brains.  


You are going to find out in 08 why the only people who cling to your desperate fantasy are the same dumb asses still scratching their heads wondering why your 04 posterboy didn't turn out as promised.  Though, I'm sure you'll have figured out by then which liberal to blame for the IMPOTENCE (you hear that word a lot, don't you?) of your own party.


----------



## Shogun

RetiredGySgt said:


> And once again dumbshit, it is not a lie if you believe it to be true. What someone believes IS the entire point. If Bush believed what he said he was NOT attempting to deceive anyone. Deception requires knowledge that what you say is NOT true. If you believe what you say IS true, no lie.
> 
> So remind me again how you know what Bush was told, what he beleived and what he thought was true.



YEA!  it WAS NOT A LIE when people believed that the EARTH WAS FLAT!

Hell, THE PHAROES WHO WERE GODS WE AT LEAST NOT TELLING A LIE!

Hell, I'll sell you ocean front property in ARIZONA as long as I BELIEVE the gulf  comes that far inland!

you are, hands down, one of the dumbest bastards I've ever has the pleasure of running into online, dude.


----------



## Shogun

I, for one, have NO DOUBT, that RGS lactates.

I guess it's up to him to prove otherwise.  Indeed, if I am wrong.. oh well, as long as I BELIEVE it..


doesn't this whole silly attempt at rationalization remind anyone else of the plot to The Neverending Story?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Shogun said:


> Hey, I;ve taken the time to actually quote Bush rather than cry like a bitch while accusing someone of a false claim.  Why don't you take your stupidity up with his actual words instead of wasting my time with your worthless pre-applesauce ranting and laughably litigious attempt to save face?  Why?  Because you are an intellectual pinhead with more partisan vitriol than brains.
> 
> 
> You are going to find out in 08 why the only people who cling to your desperate fantasy are the same dumb asses still scratching their heads wondering why your 04 posterboy didn't turn out as promised.  Though, I'm sure you'll have figured out by then which liberal to blame for the IMPOTENCE (you hear that word a lot, don't you?) of your own party.



Bush cant run for reelection anyway, so he was always OUT of the picture. As for the coming election, we will just wait and see how well the people appreciate the do nothing democratic Congress. As for President no one worth electing is running for either side anymore so it will be a choice of who we think won't fuck us up to much in the next 4 years.

Like I said if Obama wins nomination I will vote for ANYONE running against him, if Hillary and McCain are the nominees I will vote Hillary. Keep on thinking your party is a shoe in, that thought process worked so well in 2000, 2002 and 2004.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> The only one spinning is you.



making a statement that serves to convey a false impression is a lie.  that is "spinning" only if quoting the dictionary is spin in your book.  When team bush made statements that conveyed the false impression that there was NO DOUBT -when clearly the intelligence did contained degrees of doubt - those statements were lies.


----------



## M14 Shooter

> *RetiredGySgt*
> If Bush believed what he said he was NOT attempting to deceive anyone.


This is true.  

For you to be lying, you must be stating something you know to be false.  If you make a statement that you believe to be true, then you are not making a statement that you know to be false - and as such, you are not lying.


----------



## maineman

M14 Shooter said:


> This is true.
> 
> For you to be lying, you must be stating something you know to be false.  If you make a statement that you believe to be true, then you are not making a statement that you know to be false - and as such, you are not lying.



Bush knew that many analysts in the CIA had included caveats and qualifiers on intelligence reports concerning Iraq's WMD's.  

Therefore, to state that there was no doubt, when in fact there was, is a lie.

If Bush and his minions has said "I have no doubt", or "there is almost no doubt"...those would not have been lies.  To express the presence of absolute certainty when there was none, is a lie.

deal with it.


----------



## M14 Shooter

maineman said:


> If Bush and his minions has said "I have no doubt", or "there is almost no doubt"...those would not have been lies.


You're one of the people that have trouble with the definition of "is". 
Deal with it.


----------



## Shogun

RetiredGySgt said:


> Bush cant run for reelection anyway, so he was always OUT of the picture. As for the coming election, we will just wait and see how well the people appreciate the do nothing democratic Congress. As for President no one worth electing is running for either side anymore so it will be a choice of who we think won't fuck us up to much in the next 4 years.
> 
> Like I said if Obama wins nomination I will vote for ANYONE running against him, if Hillary and McCain are the nominees I will vote Hillary. Keep on thinking your party is a shoe in, that thought process worked so well in 2000, 2002 and 2004.



Yea, BUSH is out of the picture but your stupid fucking mental disability, as evident in your last two presidential choices, is still around to feel that 08 disappointment.

Of course you will vote for anyone republican.  That's because you are a two bit, half assed partisan dickface.  Indeed, it's not like 00 and 04 were landslides, or reflective of the POPULAR VOTE anyway so I'm not sure i'd do your stupid monkey dance just yet..

08, shithead.  You have only yourself to blame.


----------



## maineman

M14 Shooter said:


> You're one of the people that have trouble with the definition of "is".
> Deal with it.



what goes around comes around, doesn't it.  

It is pretty obvious you are whipped on this matter when you bring up the Clinton deposition!
 

_*lie  *    [lahy] 
noun, verb, lied, ly·ing. 
noun 
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 *_

tap dance all you want.

When I say that there is absolute certainty that Saddam has stockpiles of WMD's, it creates the false impression that there is absolute certainty about something that there was NEVER absolute certainty about.  

Absolute means without limitation... and there were, in fact, limitations on the degree of our certainty.

ergo:  LIE!


----------



## M14 Shooter

Shogun said:


> Indeed, it's not like 00 and 04 were landslides, or reflective of the POPULAR VOTE


Two questions:
-2004 wasn't reflective of the popular vote?
-Since when did a President need a majority popular vote to govern?


----------



## Shogun

M14 Shooter said:


> This is true.
> 
> For you to be lying, you must be stating something you know to be false.  If you make a statement that you believe to be true, then you are not making a statement that you know to be false - and as such, you are not lying.



So then the pharoes WERE gods!

The EARTH IS FLAT!

and the sun DOES get pulled across the sky by a greek god riding a chariot!


Hey, now tell me how Charles Manson is not a murderer because he BELIEVED in commune family values.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Shogun said:


> So then the pharoes WERE gods!
> The EARTH IS FLAT!
> and the sun DOES get pulled across the sky by a greek god riding a chariot!


Just remiding you of the definition of a lie, and the requirements necessary for one to exist.

I'm sorry it doesnt suit your purposes -- but that's not my problem.


----------



## Shogun

M14 Shooter said:


> Two questions:
> -2004 wasn't reflective of the popular vote?
> -Since when did a President need a majority popular vote to govern?



00 sure wasn't.  And 04 was the product of your kind whipping up the phantom WMD frenzy.  Discover why Stanley Milgram is famous and then take a gander at republican politics in 04.  Enjoy a little bit of education.


As far as the Electoral College.. yea, so much for selling democracy to third world countries then, eh?  Maybe we can start working on another Constitutional Amendment after the dems win in 08.. You know, trim the fat of an outdated republic that has proven in W Bush to be a failure.


----------



## Shogun

M14 Shooter said:


> Just remiding you of the definition of a lie, and the requirements necessary for one to exist.
> 
> I'm sorry it doesnt suit your purposes -- but that's not my problem.




We'll see if the rest of America swallows your litigious backpeddling this year, dude.  Hindsight hasn't been good to the last 8 years of your political perspective and I doubt trying split hairs about what bush meant when he said, "NO DOUBT" will save you from a laughable election season.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Shogun said:


> We'll see if the rest of America swallows your litigious backpeddling this year, dude.  Hindsight hasn't been good to the last 8 years of your political perspective and I doubt trying split hairs about what bush meant when he said, "NO DOUBT" will save you from a laughable election season.


Again:
Just remiding you of the definition of a lie, and the requirements necessary for one to exist.  You can keep arguing whatever you want, but unless you can show that Bush didnt believe what he said, you don't have squat.


----------



## Shogun

lie1      /la&#618;/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[lahy] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, lied, ly&#183;ing.
&#8211;noun
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: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.*
3.	_*an inaccurate or false statement.*_
4.	the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers.
&#8211;verb (used without object)
5.	to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.
6.	_*to express what is false; convey a false impression.*_
&#8211;verb (used with object)
7.	to bring about or affect by lying (often used reflexively): to lie oneself out of a difficulty; accustomed to lying his way out of difficulties.
&#8212;Idioms
8.	give the lie to,
a.	to accuse of lying; contradict.
b.	to prove or imply the falsity of; belie: His poor work gives the lie to his claims of experience.
9.	lie in one's throat or teeth, to lie grossly or maliciously: If she told you exactly the opposite of what she told me, she must be lying in her teeth. Also, lie through one's teeth. 


dictionary.com


hey, M14....  tell it to the exit polls, dude.  I'll stick with the actual definition rather than your "Gosh, maybe America will believe that he was just IGNORANT isntead of lying" logic.  Hell, even Fred PHelps has his dingleberry clingons so who says Bush can't have some too.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Shogun said:


> 00 sure wasn't.  And 04 was the product of your kind whipping up the phantom WMD frenzy.


So, just to be clear:
Bush -did- win the popular vote in 2004, contrary to your statement to that effect.
Right?



> As far as the Electoral College.. yea, so much for selling democracy to third world countries then, eh?


And, again, just to be clear:
A President doesn't need a majority of the popular vote to legitimately govern.
Like in 1992 and 1996.
Right?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Shogun said:


> 1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive


Yes.  And necessary to "deliberate" is that you know what you're saying is false.  If you believe what you are saying is true, then that condition cannot exist; unless you can show that Bush did not believe what he was saying, you dont have squat.



> hey, M14....  tell it to the exit polls, dude.


Its not a surprise that you think exit polls mean more than the results of the voting booth.


----------



## Shogun

YOU may not want to believe that Bush lied much like every single mother who births a child thinks that THEIR KID is smart, pretty and special but.. 


that doesn't make it true.


The rest of us wont be picking and choosing which definition best fits a party affiliation, dude.  If you have to suspend your disbelief long enough to insist that bush was merely an innocent player in pushing for a war despite every chance to hear otherwise then so be it.  Like I said, even Fred Phelps has his diehard fans.

I figured I'd suggest the exit polls since the voting booth will be turning a hard calloused shoulder to your kind this year.  Exit pollers might be the only ones interested in your political opinion that day.

LOLzz


----------



## Alucard

Shogun said:


> 00 sure wasn't.  And 04 was the product of your kind whipping up the phantom WMD frenzy.  Discover why Stanley Milgram is famous and then take a gander at republican politics in 04.  Enjoy a little bit of education.
> 
> 
> As far as the Electoral College.. yea, so much for selling democracy to third world countries then, eh?  Maybe we can start working on another Constitutional Amendment after the dems win in 08.. You know, trim the fat of an outdated republic that has proven in W Bush to be a failure.



Counting your chickens before the hatch there shogun?

I have bad news... I live in new jersey, maybe the most liberal democratic state in the country... 90 &#37; of my friends are card carrying liberal democrats... I would say 70% of them have already made it clear they will not vote for Hillary or Obama if they win the nomination...They will cross party lines and vote for McCain however if he wins the republican nomination because they see him as a moderate liberal...and he is...

Your right in the fact that it was a no brainer cakewalk for the dimwit dems this marking period... but due to their total incompetence... they blew it already...

The way things look now...Unless by some miracle and Edwards wins the nomination.... I wouldnt bet the house on the dems next year... Or you'll be sleeping in van down by the river....


----------



## Shogun

hehehe.. 

Certainly you have every right to wave whatever pennant you prefere but i'll believe that liberal dems are looking to vote for Mccain over Obama when I see it....   and I'll go ahead and stick to predicting that Brit Hume is going to have another early election night than believe this nation is ready for another round of republican silliness.

but, since you are from new jersey.. can you explain what the hell is going on with this?

New Jersey Freakshows
http://www.barstoolsports.com/article/new_jersey_freakshows/1958/


----------



## maineman

M14 Shooter said:


> Again:
> Just remiding you of the definition of a lie, and the requirements necessary for one to exist.  You can keep arguing whatever you want, but unless you can show that Bush didnt believe what he said, you don't have squat.




it doesn't matter what he BELIEVED about whether or not Saddam had weapons...it matters if there was or was not absolute certainty about them.

If I say, that there is absolute certainty about the fact that M14Shooter has a civilian variant M14K in his gun case, that is a LIE... even if, in fact, you have one.  It is not the weapon or the lack thereof that makes it a lie...it is the statement of certitude when certitude was not present.  If CIA analysts deliver intelligence to the president that contains caveats and qualifiers...he cannot then turn around and claim absolute certainty about that intelligence.  the claim is a lie regardless of whether or not there are any WMD's.

Learn to speak and comprehend the English language at a level above Dick and Jane  and you'll do better in these forums.


----------



## Alpha1

An October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate warned that Iraq was pursuing weapons of mass destruction, had reconstituted its nuclear weapon program and had biological and chemical weapons.

The Bush administration used those conclusions as part of its argument for the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.
----------------------------------------------------------------------




  Congressional Record: July 21, 2003 (Extensions)
    Page E1545-E1546



                                 KEY JUDGMENTS

                                     ______


                               HON. PETER T. KING

                                  of new york

                        in the house of representatives

                             Monday, July 21, 2003

      Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, in light of the incessant barrage 
    of attacks of inaccurate and baseless charges being made against 
    President Bush by his political opponents and their allies in the 
    media, I thought it important to include in the Record the declassified 
    portions of the National Intelligence Estimate released by the White 
    House this past Friday. *This NIE clearly states the consensus view of 
    our intelligence agencies that Saddam Hussein was attempting to 
    reconstitute his nuclear capacity.* The first half of these documents 
    are being submitted today and the second half tomorrow. I commend these 
    documents to all willing to approach this vital issue with an open 
    mind.

                            [From October 2002 NIE]

           Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction

* We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass 
         destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and 
         restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as 
         well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if 
         left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during 
         this decade. (See INR alternative view at the end of these 
         Key Judgments.)
           We judge that we are seeing only a portion of Iraq's WMD 
         efforts, owing to Baghdad's vigorous denial and deception 
         efforts. Revelations after the Gulf war starkly demonstrate 
         the extensive efforts undertaken by Iraq to deny information. 
         We lack specific information on many key aspects of Iraq's 
         WJMD programs.
           Since inspections ended in 1998, Iraq has maintained its 
         chemical weapons effort, energized its missile program, and 
         invested more heavily in biological weapons; in the view of 
         most agencies, Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear weapons 
         program.
           Iraq's growing ability to sell oil illicitly increases 
         Baghdad's capabilities to finance WMD programs; annual 
         earnings in cash and goods have more than quadrupled, from 
         $580 million in 1998 to about $3 billion this year.
           Iraq has largely rebuilt missile and biological weapons 
         facilities damaged during
*
    [[Page E1546]]

         Operation Desert Fox and has expanded its chemical and 
         biological infrastructure under the cover of civilian 
         production.
           Baghdad has exceeded UN range limits of 150 km with its 
         ballistic missiles and is working with unmanned aerial 
         vehicles (UAVs), which allow for a more lethal means to 
         deliver biological and, less likely, chemical warfare agents.
           Although we assess that Saddam does not yet have nuclear 
         weapons or sufficient material to make any, he remains intent 
         on acquiring them. Most agencies assess that Baghdad started 
         reconstituting its nuclear program about the time that UNSCOM 
         inspectors departed--December 1998.
           How quickly Iraq will obtain its first nuclear weapon 
         depends on when it acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile 
         material.
           If Baghdad acquires sufficient fissile material from abroad 
         it could make a nuclear weapon within several months to a 
         year.
           Without such material from abroad, Iraq probably would not 
         be able to make a weapon until 2007 to 2009, owing to 
         inexperience in building and operating centrifuge facilities 
         to produce highly enriched uranium and challenges in 
         procuring the necessary equipment and expertise.
           Most agencies believe that Saddam's personal interest in 
         and Iraq's aggressive attempts to obtain high-strength 
         aluminum tubes for centrifuge rotors--as well as Iraq's 
         attempts to acquire magnets, high-speed balancing machines, 
         and machine tools--provide compelling evidence that Saddam is 
         reconstituting a uranium enrichment effort for Baghdad's 
         nuclear weapons program. (DOE agrees that reconstitution of 
         the nuclear program is underway but assesses that the tubes 
         probably are not part of the program.)
           Iraq's efforts to re-establish and enhance its cadre of 
         weapons personnel as well as activities at several suspect 
         nuclear sites further indicate that reconstitution is 
         underway.
           All agencies agree that about 25,000 centrifuges based on 
         tubes of the size Iraq is trying to acquire would be capable 
         of producing approximately two weapons' worth of highly 
         enriched uranium per year.
           In a much less likely scenario, Bagbdad could make enough 
         fissile material for a nuclear weapon by 2005 to 2007 if it 
         obtains suitable centrifuge tubes this year and has all the 
         other materials and technological expertise necessary to 
         build production-scale uranium enrichment facilities.
           We assess that Baghdad has begun renewed production of 
         mustard, sarin, GF (cyclosari), and VX; its capability 
         probably is more limited now than it was at the time of the 
         Gulf war, although VX production and agent storage life 
         probably have been improved.
           An array of clandestine reporting reveals that Baghdad has 
         procured covertly the types and quantities of chemicals and 
         equipment sufficient to allow limited CW agent production 
         hidden within Iraq's legitimate chemical industry.
           Although we have little specific information on Iraq's CW 
         stockpile, Saddam probably has stocked at least 100 metric 
         tons (MT) and possibly as much as 500 MT of CW agents--much 
         of it added in the last year.
           The Iraqis have experience in manufacturing CW bombs, 
         artillery rockets, and projectiles. We assess that they 
         possess CW bulk fills for SRBM warheads, including for a 
         limited number of covertly stored Scuds, possibly a few with 
         extended ranges.
           We judge that all key aspects--R&D, production, and 
         weaponization--of Iraq's offensive BW program are active and 
         that most elements are larger and more advanced than they 
         were before the Gulf war.
           We judge Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating BW agents 
         and is capable of quickly producing and weaponizing a variety 
         of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery by bombs, 
         missiles, aerial sprayers, and covert operatives.
           Chances are even that smallpox is part of Iraq's offensive 
         BW program.
           Baghdad probably has developed genetically engineered BW 
         agents.
           Bagbdad has established a large-scale, redundant, and 
         concealed BW agent production capability.
           Baghdad has mobile facilities for producing bacterial and 
         toxin BW agents; these facilities can evade detection and are 
         highly survivable. Within three to six months* these units 
         probably could produce an amount of agent equal to the total 
         that Iraq produced in the years prior to the Gulf war.
           Iraq maintains a small missile force and several 
         development programs, including for a UAV probably intended 
         to deliver biological warfare agent.
           Gaps in Iraqi accounting to UNSCOM suggest that Saddam 
         retains a covert force of up to a few dozen Scud-variant 
         SRBMs with ranges of 650 to 900 km.
           lraq is deploying its new al-Samoud and Ababi-100 SRBMs, 
         which are capable of flying beyond the UN-authorized 150-km 
         range limit; Iraq has tested an al-Samoud variant beyond 150 
         km--perhaps as far as 300 km,
           Baghdad's UAVs could threaten Iraq's neighbors, U.S. forces 
         in the Persian Gulf, and if brought close to, or into, the 
         United States, the U.S. Homeland.
           An Iraqi UAV procurement network attempted to procure 
         commercially available route planning software and an 
         associated topographic database that would be able to support 
         targeting of the United States, according to analysis of 
         special intelligence.
           The Director, Intelligence, Surveillance, and 
         Reconnaissance, U.S. Air Force, does not agree that Iraq is 
         developing UAVs primarily intended to be delivery platforms 
         for chemical and biological warfare (CBW) agents. The small 
         size of Iraq's new UAV strongly suggests a primary role of 
         reconnaissance, although CBW delivery is an inherent 
         capability.
           Iraq is developing medium-range ballistic missile 
         capabilities, largely through foreign assistance in building 
         specialized facilities, including a test stand for engines 
         more powerful than those in its current missile force.
           We have low confidence in our ability to assess when Saddam 
         would use WMD.
           Saddam could decide to use chemical and biological warfare 
         (CBW) preemptively against U.S. forces, friends, and allies 
         in the region in an attempt to disrupt U.S. war preparations 
         and undermine the political will of the Coalition.
           [Corrected per Errata sheet issued in October 2002]
           Saddam might use CBW after an initial advance into Iraqi 
         territory, but early use of WMD could foreclose diplomatic 
         options for stalling the US advance.
           He probably would use CBW when be perceived he 
         irretrievably had lost control of the military and security 
         situation, but we are unlikely to know when Saddam reaches 
         that point.
           We judge that Saddam would be more likely to use chemical 
         weapons than biological weapons on the battlefield.
           Saddam historically has maintained tight control over the 
         use of WMD; however, he probably has provided contingency 
         instructions to his commanders to use CBW in specific 
         circumstances.
           Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of 
         conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW against 
         the United States, fearing that exposure of Iraqi involvement 
         would provide Washington a stronger cause for making war.
           Iraq probably would attempt clandestine attacks against the 
         U.S. Homeland if Baghdad feared an attack that threatened the 
         survival of the regime were imminent or unavoidable, or 
         possibly for revenge. Such attacks--more likely with 
         biological than chemical agents--probably would be carried 
         out by special forces or intelligence operatives.
           The Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) probably has been 
         directed to conduct clandestine attacks against US and Allied 
         interests in the Middle East in the event the United States 
         takes action against Iraq. The US probably would be the 
         primary means by which Iraq would attempt to conduct any CBW 
         attacks on the US Homeland, although we have no specific 
         intelligence information that Saddam's regime has directed 
         attacks against US territory.
           Saddam, if sufficiently desperate, might decide that only 
         an organization such as al-Qaida--with worldwide reach and 
         extensive terrorist infrastructure, and already engaged in a 
         life-or-death struggle against the United States--could 
         perpetrate the type of terrorist attack that be would hope to 
         conduct.
           In such circumstances, he might decide that the extreme 
         step of assisting the Islamist terrorists in conducting a CBW 
         attack against the United States would be his last chance to 
         exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him.

                              ____________________



    Congressional Record: July 23, 2003 (Extensions)
    Page E1567                    




          DECLASSIFIED PORTIONS OF THE NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE ESTIMATE

                                     ______


                               HON. PETER T. KING

                                  of new york

                        in the house of representatives

                             Tuesday, July 22, 2003

      Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, as I stated yesterday, President 
    Bush's adversaries--both in the political arena and the media--have 
    chosen to ignore or distort the facts regarding Iraq's pursuit of a 
    nuclear weapons program. To counter the numerous inaccuracies created 
    by too many people who should know better, I am including in the Record 
    the second half of the declassified portions of the National 
    Intelligence Estimate released by the White House this past Friday.

                           State/INR Alternative View

           . . . acquire nuclear weapons. Iraq may be doing so, but 
         INR considers the available evidence inadequate to support 
         such a judgment. Lacking persuasive evidence that Baghdad has 
         launched a coherent effort to reconstitute its nuclear 
         weapons program, INR is unwilling to speculate that such an 
         effort began soon after the departure of UN inspectors or to 
         project a timeline for the completion of activities it does 
         not now see happening. As a result, INR is unable to predict 
         when Iraq could acquire a nuclear device or weapon.
           In INR's view Iraq's efforts to acquire aluminum tubes is 
         central to the argument that Baghdad is reconstituting its 
         nuclear weapons program, but INR is not persuaded that the 
         tubes in question are intended for use as centrifuge rotors. 
         INR accepts the judgment of technical experts at the U.S. 
         Department of Energy (DOE) who have concluded that the tubes 
         lraq seeks to acquire are poorly suited for use in gas 
         centrifuges to be used for uranium enrichment and finds 
         unpersuasive the arguments advanced by others to make the 
         case that they are intended for that purpose. INR considers 
         it far more likely that the tubes are intended for another 
         purpose, most likely the production of artillery rockets. The 
         very large quantities being sought, the way the tubes were 
         tested by the Iraqis, and the atypical lack of attention to 
         operational security in the procurement efforts are among the 
         factors, in addition to the DOE assessment, that lead INR to 
         conclude that the tubes are not intended for use in Iraq's 
         nuclear weapon program.

         Confidence Levels for Selected Key Judgments in This Estimate


                                High Confidence

           Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding its 
         chemical, biological, nuclear and missile programs contrary 
         to UN resolutions.
           We are not detecting portions of these weapons programs.
           Iraq possesses proscribed chemical and biological weapons 
         and missiles.
           Iraq could make a nuclear weapon in months to a year once 
         it acquires sufficient weapons grade fissile material.


                              moderate confidence

           Iraq does not yet have a nuclear weapon or sufficient 
         material to make one but is likely to have a weapon by 2007 
         to 2009.


                                 Low Confidence

           When Saddam would use weapons of mass-destruction.
           Whether Saddam would engage in clandestine attacks against 
         the U.S. Homeland.
           Whether in desperation Saddam would share chemical or 
         biological weapons with al-Qa'ida.
                                     ______

           Uranium Acquisition. Iraq retains approximately two-and-a-
         half tons of 2.5 percent enriched uranium oxide, which the 
         IAEA permits. This low-enriched material could be used as 
         feed material to produce enough HEU for about two nuclear 
         weapons. The use of enriched feed material also would reduce 
         the initial number of centrifuges that Baghdad would need by 
         about half, Iraq could divert this material--the IAEA 
         inspects it only once a year--and enrich it to weapons grade 
         before a subsequent inspection discovered it was missing. The 
         IAEA last inspected this material in late January 2002.
           Iraq has about 550 metric tons of yellowcake and low-
         enriched uranium at Tuwaitha, which is inspected annually by 
         the IAEA, Iraq also began vigorously trying to procure 
         uranium ore and yellowcake; acquiring either would shorten 
         the time Baghdad needs to produce nuclear weapons.
           A foreign government service reported that as of early 
         2001, Niger planned to send several tons of ``pure uranium'' 
         (probably yellowcake) to Iraq. As of early 2001, Niger and 
         Iraq reportedly were still working out arrangements for this 
         deal, which could be for up to 500 tons of yellowcake. We do 
         not know the status of this arrangement.
           Reports indicate Iraq also has sought uranium ore from 
         Somalia and possibly the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
           We cannot confirm whether Iraq succeeded in acquiring 
         uranium ore and/or yellowcake from these sources. Reports 
         suggest Iraq is shifting from domestic mining and milling of 
         uranium to foreign acquisition. Iraq possesses significant 
         phosphate deposits, from which uranium had been chemically 
         extracted before Operation Desert Storm. Intelligence 
         information on whether nuclear-related phosphate mining and/
         or processing has been reestablished is inconclusive, 
         however.

               Annex A--Iraq's Attempts To Acquire Aluminum Tubes

           Some of the specialized but dual-use items being sought 
         are, by all indications, bound for Iraq's missile program. 
         Other cases are ambiguous, such as that of a planned magnet-
         production line whose suitability for centrifuge operations 
         remains unknown. Some efforts involve noncontrolled 
         industrial material and equipment--including a variety of 
         machine tools--and are troubling because they would help 
         establish the infrastructure for a renewed nuclear program. 
         But such efforts (which began well before the inspectors 
         departed) are not clearly linked to a nuclear end-use. 
         Finally, the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in 
         Africa are, in INR's assessment, highly dubious.-

                              ____________________


----------



## maineman

so what?? I don't see a total absence of doubt in any of that. I don't see any statements of absolute certainty in that.  what is your point?  are you going to bring out the democrat's quotes again while you are at it?

the fact remains.  "THERE IS NO DOUBT"  "THERE IS ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY" are phrases that have precise meanings.  Team Bush's use of those phrases were lies simply because they served to convey a false impression. 

deal with it and quit spamming.


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> so what?? I don't see a total absence of doubt in any of that. I don't see any statements of absolute certainty in that.  what is your point?  are you going to bring out the democrat's quotes again while you are at it?
> 
> the fact remains.  "THERE IS NO DOUBT"  "THERE IS ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY" are phrases that have precise meanings.  Team Bush's use of those phrases were lies simply because they served to convey a false impression.
> 
> deal with it and quit spamming.



Your the one that keeps harping on what Bush was or was not told by the intell. agencys....so now you can fuckin' read exactly what he was told.....

The only relevant fact is WHAT Bush believed....and HE had no doubt and was expressing HIS CERTAINTY.......ergo....no lies.....

 ITS irrelevant what others believed or what they expressed or how they expressed their beliefs.....IRRELEVANT !!!

How the fuck you ever passed middle school is a mystery.....you can't understand simple declarative statements.....


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> so what?? I don't see a total absence of doubt in any of that. I don't see any statements of absolute certainty in that.  what is your point?  are you going to bring out the democrat's quotes again while you are at it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That IS the freekin' point....it doesn't matter if the NIE said THEY WERE CERTAIN OR NOT......ITS WHAT BUSH BELIEVED THAT IS RELEVANT!, NOT WHAT THE INTELL. BELIEVED, YOU MORON....
> 
> 
> the fact remains.  "THERE IS NO DOUBT"  "THERE IS ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY" are phrases that have precise meanings.  Team Bush's use of those phrases were lies simply because they served to convey a false impression.
> 
> deal with it and quit spamming.



----


----------



## maineman

If Bush had said that he personally did not have doubts, that would have been perfectly acceptable.  the statement "there is no doubt that Saddam has stockpiles of WMD's" is NOT a statement of his belief, but an inaccurate statement of "fact" which serves to convey a false impression.  ergo:  lie.

If I were to say "there is no racism IN MY HEART", that would be a correct statement.

If I said "there is no racism", that would not be correct.

the same with "there is no doubt in my mind" versus "there is no doubt"


----------



## Alucard

Shogun said:


> hehehe..
> 
> Certainly you have every right to wave whatever pennant you prefere but i'll believe that liberal dems are looking to vote for Mccain over Obama when I see it....   and I'll go ahead and stick to predicting that Brit Hume is going to have another early election night than believe this nation is ready for another round of republican silliness.
> 
> but, since you are from new jersey.. can you explain what the hell is going on with this?
> 
> New Jersey Freakshows
> http://www.barstoolsports.com/article/new_jersey_freakshows/1958/



Absolutely... I'd be glad to help...Looks like you have come across some shots from the Obama fundraiser held by Don King in Newark NJ... 


The impact he has had on the white youth in the NYC suburbs is incredible!!!!...


----------



## M14 Shooter

Shogun said:


> YOU may not want to believe that Bush lied much like every single mother who births a child thinks that THEIR KID is smart, pretty and special but..
> that doesn't make it true.


You're right.
What makes it true is the fact that what he did/said does not fit the definition of a lie.

Unless, of course, you can show that he did not believe what he was saying.


----------



## maineman

M14 Shooter said:


> You're right.
> What makes it true is the fact that what he did/said does not fit the definition of a lie.
> 
> Unless, of course, you can show that he did not believe what he was saying.



how could he think that nobody else had any doubts about Iraq's WMD's when the intelligence reports contained doubts?


----------



## Shogun

Alucard said:


> Absolutely... I'd be glad to help...Looks like you have come across some shots from the Obama fundraiser held by Don King in Newark NJ...
> 
> 
> The impact he has had on the white youth in the NYC suburbs is incredible!!!!...



Im not sure if that's an Obama thing or a New Jersey thing...  I'd be willing to bet on the latter.  Then again, I've always heard that NJ is the armpit of America so who knows.  I mean, you've got bon jovi, right?


----------



## Shogun

M14 Shooter said:


> You're right.
> What makes it true is the fact that what he did/said does not fit the definition of a lie.
> 
> Unless, of course, you can show that he did not believe what he was saying.



In fact, I'm the one who quoed the mans very own words and highlighted exactly what was a lie.  I guess you can scroll up to see it or sit there and bleed.. your call.  I'm betting that you wouldn't let a used car dealer sell you the same caliber of lie as Bush did in the run up to the war but... as long as he's wearing your team jersey you are kinda obligated to insist that Bush was some poor misguided dude who didn't know any better.  Is that what "NO DOUBT" means to you?  It sure as hell falls in line with the definitions of LIE that I've posted.

See you at the polls, sucker.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Shogun said:


> In fact, I'm the one who quoed the mans very own words and highlighted exactly what was a lie.


Did you show that GWB did not believe what he was saying?
No?
Then you did nothing, other than illustrate your bigotry.

Knowing that you are making a false statement is a necessary condition for a lie to exist.  No matter how often you ignore this, it will always be true.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Shogun said:


> 00 sure wasn't.  And 04 was the product of your kind whipping up the phantom WMD frenzy


So, just to be clear:
Bush -did- win the popular vote in 2004, contrary to your statement to that effect.
Right?

And, again, just to be clear:
A President doesn't need a majority of the popular vote to legitimately govern.
Like in 1992 and 1996.
Right?


----------



## maineman

M14 Shooter said:


> Did you show that GWB did not believe what he was saying?
> No?
> Then you did nothing, other than illustrate your bigotry.
> 
> Knowing that you are making a false statement is a necessary condition for a lie to exist.  No matter how often you ignore this, it will always be true.



and no matter how often you ignore THIS, when all the intelligence comes laden with caveats and qualifiers, that means that there IS doubt.... so to say that there IS NO doubt, is a lie.


----------



## Shogun

M14 Shooter said:


> Did you show that GWB did not believe what he was saying?
> No?
> Then you did nothing, other than illustrate your bigotry.
> 
> Knowing that you are making a false statement is a necessary condition for a lie to exist.  No matter how often you ignore this, it will always be true.



BELIEF is no more a backdoor out of a Lie than claiming to be a God in Egypt in order to facilitate power was merely an innocent half-truth when slaves were building pyrimids.  If you can't come to grasp with that in this hindsight election then so be it.  Hell, it won't be the first time you've fooled yourself for the sake of a political party.

Indeed, considering how far you will go to pretend that bush wasn't lying about having "NO DOUBT" about phantom WMDs it's pretty humorous that you claim to know anything about truth.  Hell, HITLER didn't KNOW that jews weren't inferior to aryans either... but I get the feeling that your bend-over-backward attempt to rationalize your presidential pony only applies to GOP nominees.

he could have been objective to criticism..  Was he?  DID he take the chance to consider that he was wrong?  nope.  Valarie Plame got to bite that bullet.  But do keep insisting that what one "BELIEVES" makes a small white fib out of the giant lie of "NO DOUBT", dude.  I never get tired of reminding people like you about aluminium tubes and yellow cake from niger.


----------



## Shogun

M14 Shooter said:


> So, just to be clear:
> Bush -did- win the popular vote in 2004, contrary to your statement to that effect.
> Right?
> 
> And, again, just to be clear:
> A President doesn't need a majority of the popular vote to legitimately govern.
> Like in 1992 and 1996.
> Right?




Indeed, there was that 04 MANDATE, want there *snicker snicker*

And just to be clear

92                  Clinton            Daddy Bush      Perot
Popular vote 	44,909,806 	39,104,550 	19,743,821
Percentage 	43.0% 	37.4% 	18.9%



96                  Clinton              Dole
Popular vote 	47,400,125 	39,198,755
Percentage 	49.2% 	40.7%


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1996
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1992


----------



## M14 Shooter

Shogun said:


> Indeed, there was that 04 MANDATE, want there *snicker snicker*


I'll take that as you admitting you were wrong re: 2004.



> And just to be clear
> 92                  Clinton            Daddy Bush      Perot
> Popular vote 	44,909,806 	39,104,550 	19,743,821
> Percentage 	43.0&#37; 	37.4% 	18.9%
> 96                  Clinton              Dole
> Popular vote 	47,400,125 	39,198,755
> Percentage 	49.2% 	40.7%


So...  in 1992 and 1996, the majority of people did not vote for Clinton; Bill Clinton was not elected with a majority of the popular vote in either year.

What's your point?
I mean, other than you apparently agree that a President doesn't need a majority of the popular vote to legitimately govern.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Shogun said:


> BELIEF is no more a backdoor out of a Lie...


KNOWING that you are saying something wrong is a -necessary- condition to a lie.  You have to KNOW that what you're telling someone is wrong.  If someone believes what they say to be correct, then it is impossible to argue that they know it wrong -- and therefore there can be no lie.

If you can't come to grasp with that...  well... I was going to say you're a bigger bigot than I thought --- but that's not possible.


----------



## nibor

Trying to prove actual individual lies, with the levels of totally inept, confessed incompetent and criminal behavior displayed for as long as I can remember in this gubment on both sides of the aisle.................... is like trying to isolate a snowflake in a blizzard.................


----------



## Shogun

Do yu want to rescan those numbers or would you rather wait for me to do the monkey dance while laughing at you?



04 was to Bush what joe goebles was to the nazi party.  Had there been no, get this, reason to insist that there were PHANTOM WMDs in IRAQ then Bush wold have lost.  But, I'll give you 04 anyway.  Yes, he won even if it was due to a giant LIE.  Congrats on winning that conceded point.


Now, back to those numbers...  maybe of you follow the linky-linky


----------



## maineman

"I have no doubt in my mind that Saddam has WMD's" 
supposedly TRUE
"There is no doubt that Saddam has WMD's"  
LIE


"There is no racism in my heart"  
TRUE
"There is no racism."  
LIE


----------



## Shogun

M14 Shooter said:


> KNOWING that you are saying something wrong is a -necessary- condition to a lie.  You have to KNOW that what you're telling someone is wrong.  If someone believes what they say to be correct, then it is impossible to argue that they know it wrong -- and therefore there can be no lie.
> 
> If you can't come to grasp with that...  well... I was going to say you're a bigger bigot than I thought --- but that's not possible.



Not true at all.  IM the guy who posted an actual definition of the word LIE remember?  Calling me a bunch of names only indicates that you know that me, and the rest of America not trying to save political face, are making an obvious deduction considering Bush's own words and motivations.  Try reading the actual definition instead of trying to cherry pick.

Hell, am I lying if I tell you that I'm the son of god?  I believe it, you know.  You should send me money because I am your saviour.  You can't prove otherwise nor can you prove what I do or don't believe.  Hence, I must not being lying.

 


Hey, I don't KNOW that the capitol of New Zealand isn't being raided by a co-mingled force of DEMONS and ALIENS so please allow me to not lie to you while I tell you that I have NO DOUBT that the anti-christ is upon our southern hemisphere!


----------



## mattskramer

maineman said:


> "I have no doubt in my mind that Saddam has WMD's"
> supposedly TRUE
> "There is no doubt that Saddam has WMD's"
> LIE
> 
> 
> "There is no racism in my heart"
> TRUE
> "There is no racism."
> LIE



I know what you mean but some people just dont grasp the subtle differences.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Shogun said:


> Not true at all.  IM the guy who posted an actual definition of the word LIE remember?


Yes... and if you'll recall, i adressed that.



> Calling me a bunch of names...


I called youone name -- a bigot -- because it applies:
No matter how much the truth says otherwise, you refuse to see it


----------



## nibor

Was Cheney's promise of the fucking Iraqi rendition of the tournament of roses parade a lie..............................because shit I've been standing here waiting with my flippin' handicam waiting for the floats..............


----------



## M14 Shooter

Shogun said:


> Do yu want to rescan those numbers or would you rather wait for me to do the monkey dance while laughing at you?


Neither set of numbers indicate that Clinton won with a majority of the popular vote.

1992: 43.0% <- not a majority
1996: 49.2% <- not a majority

So, again:
What's your point?
I mean, other than you apparently agree that a President doesn't need a majority of the popular vote to legitimately govern.



> Congrats on winning that conceded point.


Congrats on having the honesty to admit you were wrong.
I didn't think you had it in you.


----------



## maineman

mattskramer said:


> I know what you mean but some people just dont grasp the subtle differences.



just because the difference between lying and telling the truth might be subtle, does not change the fact that a lie is a lie.

Shooter would rather ignore that fact than admit it.


----------



## nibor

Does anyone actually listen to a cheerleader and what she's saying at a football game.....................or just look at her ass..................maybe we should stop electing cheerleaders!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> just because the difference between lying and telling the truth might be subtle, does not change the fact that a lie is a lie.
> 
> Shooter would rather ignore that fact than admit it.



Ohh we get the subtlety , your attempts to lie are obvious. Then you make every excuse for anyone with a D behind their name. Durbin, Waters, Pelosi, Reid , Kennedy, Murtha, they are just "mistaken" . We absolutely get it from you guys.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ohh we get the subtlety , your attempts to lie are obvious. Then you make every excuse for anyone with a D behind their name. Durbin, Waters, Pelosi, Reid , Kennedy, Murtha, they are just "mistaken" . We absolutely get it from you guys.



the thread topic is Bush's LIES.... if you would like to talk about them, then do so.  I point out the difference between  Bush stating that there IS NO DOUBT and stating that He has no doubt.  Do you care to ignore that like you always do, or will you admit that there IS a substantive difference...and the former is a lie while the latter might have been the truth.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> the thread topic is Bush's LIES.... if you would like to talk about them, then do so.  I point out the difference between  Bush stating that there IS NO DOUBT and stating that He has no doubt.  Do you care to ignore that like you always do, or will you admit that there IS a substantive difference...and the former is a lie while the latter might have been the truth.



No, my point is Bush NEITHER LIED nor MISLED and you can not, no matter how hard you twist prove he did AND that all your twisting WHILE making excuses for YOUR party are patently obvious and perfect examples of YOUR bias and Subtlety.


----------



## Shogun

*YAWN*



I see Captain Tryptophan has arrived to cheer on the Bush admit through thick and thin.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Shogun said:


> *YAWN*
> 
> 
> 
> I see Captain Tryptophan has arrived to cheer on the Bush admit through thick and thin.



Ohh look the troll that almost never posts anything related to the thread at it again, where is a moderator when you need one?


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> No, my point is Bush NEITHER LIED nor MISLED and you can not, no matter how hard you twist prove he did AND that all your twisting WHILE making excuses for YOUR party are patently obvious and perfect examples of YOUR bias and Subtlety.




of course I can.  There WAS doubt.  Many analysts have come forward saying that they had doubts and that their doubts were contained in the intelligence that Bush received.  Just because he BELIEVED that their doubts were nothing he cared to put much stock in, does NOT mean that those doubts of theirs did not exist.  Bush did NOT say that "I have no doubt", he said that "There is no doubt".  The former is a statement of his belief.  The latter is a statement of fact that is incorrect... and he clearly knew about the presence of doubts in others whether or not there was any in his mind or not.

And again...if you wish to discuss the statements of democrats, make a thread and we'll talk about it.  This thread is about Bush's lies and I have laid out my case clearly.  you cannot refute it except by mistakenly talking about what Bush believed to be true... he misspoke if he had meant to discuss his beliefs.  His actual words were a statement of fact.  

I have no doubts that RGS has miller lite cans in his trash.

There is no doubt that RGS has miller lite cans in his trash.

one a statement of personal belief..the other a statement of fact.


----------



## nibor

We all seem to be sitting here trying to make nitwits of eachother...............WHEN THE ACTUAL UNDENIABLE NITWITS ARE HORRIBLY SELFEVIDENT.............................THE WORLD SEES IT AND CONTINUES TO SLICE AND DICE US AT WILL..................like we're a bunch of fucking retards!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Shogun

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ohh look the troll that almost never posts anything related to the thread at it again, where is a moderator when you need one?



You'd better go find one and start crying on their shoulder...  Your tampon is starting to leak!



HA!  RGS just accused me of not adding to a thread beyond tolling!  HAHAHAHAA!


Holy SHIT that's rich!

 


You must have PTSD from all the times i've scared you into a corner with a mountain of evidence, dude....  But, please, call me out again.  It's funny as shit to see you say something so stupid when anyone who can read knows I have a hairtrigger for posting evidence.


----------



## mattskramer

maineman said:


> just because the difference between lying and telling the truth might be subtle, does not change the fact that a lie is a lie.
> 
> Shooter would rather ignore that fact than admit it.



I meant tht there is a subtle difference between I have no doubt and There is no doubt.


----------



## T-Bor

You always say that to a Dem when they refute a point...You guys always say..WHERES THE LINK !!!!!  Well where are the links on your part to prove him wrong? Fact is it's all opinion. But Gunny, you are a smart person I can tell and I know you like Bush. But you can't really sit there and think that information wasn't fabricated just a little to get us into this war.  Can you really sit there with a straight face Gunny and tell us you believe the Gov't told the truth and didn't twist one fact about the reasons for going into Iraq? That they are truly on the up and up?  Do you really honestly think that?  I think all politicians are liars, dem or republican, it doesn't matter, they all have their agendas to push. 



GunnyL said:


> Unsupported supposition on your part.


----------



## maineman

mattskramer said:


> I meant tht there is a subtle difference between I have no doubt and There is no doubt.




I agree and understand...but I believe that the right is willfully ignorant of the difference.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> I agree and understand...but I believe that the right is willfully ignorant of the difference.



Yet there is NO doubt when you claim that Liberals have done the exact same thing as Bush and that they were not lying, just mistaken.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> Yet there is NO doubt when you claim that Liberals have done the exact same thing as Bush and that they were not lying, just mistaken.



Any democrat who expressed absolute certainty about Saddam's WMD's was lying.

But again...this thread is about Bush... care to explain to me how "I have no doubt" and "there is no doubt" mean the same thing?


----------



## nibor

Are all the members of our so called "intelligence" agencies either republicrats or demuplicans.......................I don't think so................BUT ALL WERE CONFESSED INEPT AND INCOMPETENT...................to say the very least............and the heads jumped ship like the rat bastard geeks that they are.....................and again the shit flows down hill and our kids pay the price..............


----------



## LuvRPgrl

maineman said:


> Any democrat who expressed absolute certainty about Saddam's WMD's was lying.
> 
> But again...this thread is about Bush... care to explain to me how "I have no doubt" and "there is no doubt" mean the same thing?



Care to explain how they arent?

If the Dems lied, by your opinion, why arent you attacking them?

You are the liar, LIAR. You have the burden of proof to show the state of mind and thought of PRESIDENT Bush and all the Dems who also believed that Saddam had WMD's, as did a vast majority of decision makers, leaders of political parties and leaders of countries, WORLD WIDE.

NOW THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU, AND YOU HAVE YET TO REACH THE LEVEL OF PROOF NEEDED TO SHOW HE  OR ANYONE ELSE LIED.

Show us the proof, "BRING IT ON !!!!!!!!"


----------



## RetiredGySgt

LuvRPgrl said:


> Care to explain how they arent?
> 
> If the Dems lied, by your opinion, why arent you attacking them?
> 
> You are the liar, LIAR. You have the burden of proof to show the state of mind and thought of PRESIDENT Bush and all the Dems who also believed that Saddam had WMD's, as did a vast majority of decision makers, leaders of political parties and leaders of countries, WORLD WIDE.
> 
> NOW THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU, AND YOU HAVE YET TO REACH THE LEVEL OF PROOF NEEDED TO SHOW HE  OR ANYONE ELSE LIED.
> 
> Show us the proof, "BRING IT ON !!!!!!!!"



You missed it, he keeps resorting to "its my opinion" when ask for legal proof. Meanwhile in between being forced to admit occasionally it is just his opinion he acts like everything he says is true and real evidence.

Lying to Congress is an Impeachable Offense. If Bush lied 900 times to Congress, why has no Impeachment been brought? Why is there in fact a Statement from the Democratic Leaders of the House that NO impeachment will be sought?

Now ask Maineman if Clinton Perjured himself and read how since he was never convicted ( but admitted it) he never actually committed perjury because that is only a criminal complaint or charge. Then reread how Bush lied ( a crime) to Congress and remind him no charge much less a conviction ever occurred. And watch the tap dancing begin.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> You missed it, he keeps resorting to "its my opinion" when ask for legal proof. Meanwhile in between being forced to admit occasionally it is just his opinion he acts like everything he says is true and real evidence.
> 
> Lying to Congress is an Impeachable Offense. If Bush lied 900 times to Congress, why has no Impeachment been brought? Why is there in fact a Statement from the Democratic Leaders of the House that NO impeachment will be sought?
> 
> Now ask Maineman if Clinton Perjured himself and read how since he was never convicted ( but admitted it) he never actually committed perjury because that is only a criminal complaint or charge. Then reread how Bush lied ( a crime) to Congress and remind him no charge much less a conviction ever occurred. And watch the tap dancing begin.



there is a fact... that fact is: there is a difference between claiming that you, personally, have no doubt about something, and claiming that there exists NO DOUBT about that same thing.

Lying is not a "crime" in and of itself.  It is merely lying.  Lying under oath is only a crime when it is proven to be material to the case involved, and prosecuted as a crime.

I have never suggested that there was any criminal offense that Bush could or should be charged with.  I have only stated that he lied.  Lots of politicians lie all the time... it is extremely infrequent when such lies lead a country into war.  Bush's have... again...nothing criminal about those lies..they weren't under oath and they weren't material to any crime... but they were lies. without question.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> there is a fact... that fact is: there is a difference between claiming that you, personally, have no doubt about something, and claiming that there exists NO DOUBT about that same thing.
> 
> Lying is not a "crime" in and of itself.  It is merely lying.  Lying under oath is only a crime when it is proven to be material to the case involved, and prosecuted as a crime.
> 
> I have never suggested that there was any criminal offense that Bush could or should be charged with.  I have only stated that he lied.  Lots of politicians lie all the time... it is extremely infrequent when such lies lead a country into war.  Bush's have... again...nothing criminal about those lies..they weren't under oath and they weren't material to any crime... but they were lies. without question.



And here is the beginning. He claims Bush purposefully mislead Congress, that he illegally impaired their ability to judge events on a vote for war. That Bush Lied and caused the Intelligence Agencies to also lie for him TO Congress. But none of that is a crime and of course none of what he claims as a lie is provable in any court under ANY stretch of the imagination. However IN the Senate it could in fact be , if true a reason to convict on Impeachment. Yet he does not claim that to be the case. WHY? Because then he would have to explain why his OWN party leaders do NOT legally agree with him. He would have to explain why every Commission ever impaneled by Congress ,Republican and Democrat, has found that IN FACT Bush did NOT lie. He would have to explain why HIS own party absolutely REFUSES to even entertain the idea. An IDEA they all ran on to get elected. A Promise they "implied" or outright stated in the 2006 election cycle.

In fact using Maineman's own definitions and excuses, every democrat that "implied" or Stated they would seek impeachment , except what? 40 of them? LIED to the American people.

Explain that Maineman?


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> And here is the beginning. He claims Bush purposefully mislead Congress, that he illegally impaired their ability to judge events on a vote for war. That Bush Lied and caused the Intelligence Agencies to also lie for him TO Congress. But none of that is a crime and of course none of what he claims as a lie is provable in any court under ANY stretch of the imagination. However IN the Senate it could in fact be , if true a reason to convict on Impeachment. Yet he does not claim that to be the case. WHY? Because then he would have to explain why his OWN party leaders do NOT legally agree with him. He would have to explain why every Commission ever impaneled by Congress ,Republican and Democrat, has found that IN FACT Bush did NOT lie. He would have to explain why HIS own party absolutely REFUSES to even entertain the idea. An IDEA they all ran on to get elected. A Promise they "implied" or outright stated in the 2006 election cycle.
> 
> In fact using Maineman's own definitions and excuses, every democrat that "implied" or Stated they would seek impeachment , except what? 40 of them? LIED to the American people.
> 
> Explain that Maineman?



I guess you cannot explain away the fact that there is a difference in the meaning of  "I have no doubt" and "there is no doubt".  why not just say so?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> I guess you cannot explain away the fact that there is a difference in the meaning of  "I have no doubt" and "there is no doubt".  why not just say so?



Don't need to, your semantics do not change the fact that unless you can show BUSH did not believe what he said he was not lying.

If I HAVE NO DOUBT, I too say there is NO DOUBT. And I am sure as a naval officer in your supposed support of your superiors when caring out an order or plan you disagreed with and asked about any doubts, you said " well ya, I have doubts, but we have to follow the order men."

And you do keep saying there is no doubt Bush lied, don't you? That in its self , by your definition means that since you can not prove your claim and in fact there is doubt, your a liar, right?

Or will you now go on record for us that You mean " You have no doubt" and that a statement " there is no doubt" is a lie?


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> Don't need to, your semantics do not change the fact that unless you can show BUSH did not believe what he said he was not lying.
> 
> If I HAVE NO DOUBT, I too say there is NO DOUBT. And I am sure as a naval officer in your supposed support of your superiors when caring out an order or plan you disagreed with and asked about any doubts, you said " well ya, I have doubts, but we have to follow the order men."
> 
> And you do keep saying there is no doubt Bush lied, don't you? That in its self , by your definition means that since you can not prove your claim and in fact there is doubt, your a liar, right?
> 
> Or will you now go on record for us that You mean " You have no doubt" and that a statement " there is no doubt" is a lie?



Are you suggesting that there were no caveats and qualifiers on any of the intelligence concerning Iraq's WMD's that was presented to the president?

And explaining how you incorrectly use the english language does not change the fact that Team Bush said what they said and that words have REAL meanings, even if YOU don't use them correctly.

Again... this is not about what Bush BELIEVED to be true.  This is about what WAS true.  There WAS doubt.  It existed.  It was documented.  Those documents were presented to him by the accounts of many analysts and NO ONE from the administration has ever stepped up and denied that fact. No one from the Bush administration has every tried to claim that the intelligence came without those caveats and qualifiers that documented the degrees of doubt.  Doubt existed.  To say it did not was a lie.


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> Are you suggesting that there were no caveats and qualifiers on any of the intelligence concerning Iraq's WMD's that was presented to the president?
> 
> ...And therein lies your lack of comprehension of even the subject of this debate.....IT IS NOT about what some particular intell agency stated with or without caveats or qualifiers......and to claim that EVERY intell. agency claimed the exact same thing is just lying to yourself....
> 
> And explaining how you incorrectly use the english language does not change the fact that Team Bush said what they said and that words have REAL meanings, even if YOU don't use them correctly.
> 
> Again... this is not about what Bush BELIEVED to be true.  This is about what WAS true.  There WAS doubt.  It existed.  It was documented.
> 
> ...Again, this is EXACTLY what its about....what Bush believed to be true...not if it was true...not what some others claimed....not what some of the documents claim.....the ONLY thing that matters is WHAT BUSH BELIEVED.
> 
> Those documents were presented to him by the accounts of many analysts and NO ONE from the administration has ever stepped up and denied that fact. No one from the Bush administration has every tried to claim that the intelligence came without those caveats and qualifiers that documented the degrees of doubt.  Doubt existed.  To say it did not was a lie.



   Its IRRELEVANT what any particular intell piece claimed (with or without caveats)....its a proven fact that all the intell. didn't agree....intell from Germany didn't agree with intell from Japan or France and none of it agreed with intell from the British or the CIA, etc....

The ONLY RELEVANT POINT IS WHAT PRESIDENT BUSH believed when he made claims....or what AL GORE believed when he claimed "we KNOW"...or Pelosi believed when she was positive of her claims....

If doubt existed between France and British claims...or CIA and German claims so what....Bush and Gore and Pelosi can only speak for what they believe, unless they specify they mean someone other than themselves....and when they don't specify they speak for others we must conclude they speak for themselves for its obvious THEY are the ones speaking....


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> Its IRRELEVANT what any particular intell piece claimed (with or without caveats)....its a proven fact that all the intell. didn't agree....intell from Germany didn't agree with intell from Japan or France and none of it agreed with intell from the British or the CIA, etc....
> 
> The ONLY RELEVANT POINT IS WHAT PRESIDENT BUSH believed when he made claims....or what AL GORE believed when he claimed "we KNOW"...or Pelosi believed when she positive of her claims....
> 
> If doubt existed between France and British claims...or CIA and German claims so what....Bush and Gore and Pelosi can only speak for what they believe, unless they specify they mean someone other than themselves....and when they don't specify they speak for others we must conclude they speak for themselves for its obvious THEY are the ones speaking....




again...if Bush had claimed that he had no doubts personally, that would be one thing.  To claim that there existed the absence of doubt makes it a lie.  There WAS doubt. How fucking numb can you possibly be?

I have no doubt in my mind
there is no doubt.

I have no racism in my heart
there is no racism.

duh


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> again...if Bush had claimed that he had no doubts personally, that would be one thing.  To claim that there existed the absence of doubt makes it a lie.  There WAS doubt. How fucking numb can you possibly be?
> 
> I have no doubt in my mind
> there is no doubt.
> 
> I have no racism in my heart
> there is no racism.
> 
> duh



if Bush had claimed that he had no doubts personally?

 THAT is the only claim he can make......he cannot make claims about what you believe unless he says that with specificity...and actually claims to know what it is YOU believe....

he is the speaker...his claims can only be about what himself, unless he clearly states his claims is about others.....
 If I say "apples taste good", how can you think I'm speaking for all of America, or my whole family......Its obvious I'm stating what I believe....I believe apples taste good......to you I would be claiming everyone in the world agrees that apples taste good....you're a moron....


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> if Bush had claimed that he had no doubts personally?
> 
> THAT is the only claim he can make......he cannot make claims about what you believe unless he says that with specificity...and actually claims to know what it is YOU believe....
> 
> he is the speaker...his claims can only be about what himself, unless he clearly states his claims is about others.....
> If I say "apples taste good", how can you think I'm speaking for all of America, or my whole family......Its obvious I'm stating what I believe....I believe apples taste good......to you I would be claiming everyone in the world agrees that apples taste good....you're a moron....



there was doubt contained in the intelligence he received.  For him to say it did not exist is a lie.  period.


----------



## rayboyusmc

> You are the liar, LIAR. You have the burden of proof to show the state of mind and thought of PRESIDENT Bush and all the Dems who also believed that Saddam had WMD's, as did a vast majority of decision makers, leaders of political parties and leaders of countries, WORLD WIDE.
> 
> NOW THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU, AND YOU HAVE YET TO REACH THE LEVEL OF PROOF NEEDED TO SHOW HE OR ANYONE ELSE LIED.



What a bunch of total frontier gibberish.  Bush had information that only a president had access to.  He fukking lied.

If anyone can actually believe that none of the 935 identified innacurate statements were not lies, you are truly living in a wet dream world.

A lie may not be a crime, but if it is part of the cause for 3900 real American Patriots death, it sure isn't just pissing in the wind.

They wanted this war and they used the information in any way they could to get the war.  Please read up on AEI.

NO ONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND, EVEN DIPWHIT GEORGE, WOULD BELIEVE THAT SADDAM HAD DRONES THAT COULD FLY ACROSS THE ATLANTIC AND ATTACK US.

And you keep up the crap about Clinton parsing the meaning of "is" and "sexual relations."

Perjury is a crime.  Murder is also a crime.


----------



## nibor

I feel a dumbassed feminist retort coming on.....................


----------



## mattskramer

Wait, MM.  It is possible that Bush did not lie and was merely mistaken, in both instances.  Pretend that bush saw the evicence  and saw evidence to  the contrary.  He then reached a conclusion.  &#8220;I have no doubt&#8230;&#8221;  Then he totally forgot about the caveats and qualifiers (the evidence to the contrary).  He might have gotten anmesia and does not recall any piece of information suggesting that there might not be WMD.  He would be wrong if he were to then say that &#8220;There is no doubt that Saddam has WMD's&#8221;.  Yet, since to lie is _ to state something one knows is false with the intention that it be taken for the truth by someone else as true_, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie) he would not technically be telling a lie. He knows that there is no doubt because after he saw doubt, he then developed amnesia about it.


----------



## Steerpike

mattskramer said:


> Wait, MM.  It is possible that Bush did not lie and was merely mistaken, in both instances.  Pretend that bush saw the evicence  and saw evidence to  the contrary.  He then reached a conclusion.  I have no doubt  Then he totally forgot about the caveats and qualifiers (the evidence to the contrary).  He might have gotten anmesia and does not recall any piece of information suggesting that there might not be WMD.  He would be wrong if he were to then say that There is no doubt that Saddam has WMD's.  Yet, since to lie is _ to state something one knows is false with the intention that it be taken for the truth by someone else as true_, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie) he would not technically be telling a lie. He knows that there is no doubt because after he saw doubt, he then developed amnesia about it.



Way off base.

Look, David Icke admits that George Bush is a Reptilian, and that he and others, including the royal family of Britain are seeking to enslave humanity.

Well, think about it - what memory features does the Reptilian brain (or R-Complex) have?  Very little.

Bush didn't develop amnesia, he's a Reptilian and couldn't remember the fact that there were doubts.

If you don't believe me ask Eots.


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> there was doubt contained in the intelligence he received.  For him to say it did not exist is a lie.  period.



 If you can prove that ALL the intell. Bush received from numerous countrys around the world and all intell. from our own sources, all contained the same caveats that would be an astounding feat.....and useless information....

 even you could prove this, it would still be irrelevant to the debate.....
The ONLY thing that would make Bush a liar is if you could prove he didn't believe his own statements, it doesn't matter if he is correct or incorrect, doesn't matter what the intell said, it doesn't even matter that Tenet waid it was a slam dunk.....all that matters is WHAT HE THOUGHT WAS THE TRUTH.....PERIOD....Get over it moron....


----------



## maineman

LuvRPgrl said:


> Care to explain how they arent?
> 
> If the Dems lied, by your opinion, why arent you attacking them?
> 
> You are the liar, LIAR. You have the burden of proof to show the state of mind and thought of PRESIDENT Bush and all the Dems who also believed that Saddam had WMD's, as did a vast majority of decision makers, leaders of political parties and leaders of countries, WORLD WIDE.
> 
> NOW THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU, AND YOU HAVE YET TO REACH THE LEVEL OF PROOF NEEDED TO SHOW HE  OR ANYONE ELSE LIED.
> 
> Show us the proof, "BRING IT ON !!!!!!!!"



there was doubt.  numerous intelligence analysts confirm repeatedly that intelligence reports delivered to Bush contained caveats and qualifiers.  There WAS, therefore, doubt.  Team Bush repeatedly said that there was no doubt.

ergo:  LIE.

It has absolutely nothing to do with "state of mind"...it has to do with the fact that doubt did, in fact, exist - within Bush's own intelligence agencies - and yet the statements were repeatedly made that there was none.


----------



## Shogun

Hey alpha... we'll give you that same advice the day after the upcoming election...


David Icke.. HA!



wiat... does David Icke's *belief* keep him from being a *LIAR* when giving speaches on Bush's reptilian background?


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> If you can prove that ALL the intell. Bush received from numerous countrys around the world and all intell. from our own sources, all contained the same caveats that would be an astounding feat.....and useless information....
> 
> even you could prove this, it would still be irrelevant to the debate.....
> The ONLY thing that would make Bush a liar is if you could prove he didn't believe his own statements, it doesn't matter if he is correct or incorrect, doesn't matter what the intell said, it doesn't even matter that Tenet waid it was a slam dunk.....all that matters is WHAT HE THOUGHT WAS THE TRUTH.....PERIOD....Get over it moron....



Who cares if all of the intelligence contained the same caveats and qualifiers...the fact some did is proof of the lack of certitude..

And again.... this has zero to do with Bush's state of mind or his "beliefs"  It has to do with whether or not the intelligence reports about Saddam's stockpiles contained degrees of uncertainty.  They did.  There WAS, therefore, doubt.  Again..if Bush had said "There is not a doubt in MY mind that Saddam has stockpiles of WMD's, that would not have been a lie.  He did not.  He said that "there IS no doubt".  There was.

There is not a doubt in my mind that Saddam has WMD's (not lie)
There is no doub that Saddam has WMD's (lie)

There is no racism in my heart (not lie)
there is no racism (lie)


----------



## maineman

again, for the feebleminded:

one definition of LIE is "a statement that serves to convey a false impression"

the false impression was that no doubt existed concerning Saddam's WMD's when every analyst who has ever come forward has stated unequivocally, that there WAS doubt and that doubt WAS conveyed to the president and his team.  To say otherwise seves to convey a false impression.  period.


----------



## Steerpike

maineman said:


> one definition of LIE is "a statement that serves to convey a false impression"



That's not a complete definition.  There also has to be some subjective element to it.  An intent to deceive.


----------



## maineman

Steerpike said:


> That's not a complete definition.  There also has to be some subjective element to it.  An intent to deceive.



_*lie  *[lahy] noun, verb, lied, ly·ing. 
noun 
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: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.  _


----------



## Steerpike

maineman said:


> _*lie  *[lahy] noun, verb, lied, ly·ing.
> noun
> 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: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.  _



Definition number 2 isn't directed toward a statement.  Definition #1 is.


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> _*lie  *[lahy] noun, verb, lied, ly·ing.
> noun
> 1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
> The fact that the speaker believes his/her statement makes that statement true in the eyes of the speaker....ergo, he or she cannot have the intent to deceive...the statement cannot be an intentional untruth, the said statement in the speakers mind true
> 
> 
> 2. *something intended or serving to convey a false impression*; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.  _



Its is IMPOSSIBLE to convey a false impression by stating what you perceive as the truth....
ex. You are led to believe there is a very tall person in a room....you see 5 people in the room, all under 5 ft. tall...so you, being 6 ft. tall state, "THEIR IS NO DOUBT I AM THE TALLEST PERSON IN THESE ROOM".....sadly you missed the other person in the room that is 7 ft. tall....did you lie.....certainly not.....

It matters not if your statement is
"I am the tallest in the room", 
"I have no doubt, I am the tallest in the room", or 
"there is no doubt, I am the tallest in the room"...... 

or any variation of it....that was YOUR belief when you made the statement..

You are mistakin' ...not lying.....


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> Its is IMPOSSIBLE to convey a false impression by stating what you perceive as the truth....
> ex. You are led to believe there is a very tall person in a room....you see 5 people in the room, all under 5 ft. tall...so you, being 6 ft. tall state, "THEIR IS NO DOUBT I AM THE TALLEST PERSON IN THESE ROOM".....sadly you missed the other person in the room that is 7 ft. tall....did you lie.....certainly not.....
> 
> It matters not if your statement is
> "I am the tallest in the room",
> "I have no doubt, I am the tallest in the room", or
> "there is no doubt, I am the tallest in the room"......
> 
> or any variation of it....that was YOUR belief when you made the statement..
> 
> You are mistakin' ...not lying.....



fortunately for the world, individuals do not get to independently recreate the rules of grammar and vocabulary.  And until they do, the phrase "I have no doubt" will always have a different meaning than the phrase "there is no doubt".

too bad for you... you should create a country called Alphaland and create your own elastic language...until then, you're stuck with English.

and how could Bush possibly "perceive" that there was no doubt when he was provided numerous statements that contained doubt?  lol


----------



## maineman

Steerpike said:


> Definition number 2 isn't directed toward a statement.  Definition #1 is.



no.  #1 is SPECIFICALLY directed towards a statement.  definition#2 can include non-verbal lies, but does not EXCLUDE verbal ones.


----------



## Steerpike

maineman said:


> no.  #1 is SPECIFICALLY directed towards a statement.  definition#2 can include non-verbal lies, but does not EXCLUDE verbal ones.



Fair enough.

But let me ask you this - when you see a Bush Lied sticker, or when someone says "Bush lied" do you think the majority of them are using definition 1 or 2?  Words, after all, are meant to convey the meaning of the speaker.  We should adopt the meaning that the speaker intends to apply.

Most of the people I hear who make the Bush lied argument believe that he subjectively knew he was lying at the time.  That's fine by me, but that requires a different level of proof than number 2.


----------



## Alpha1

Alpha1 said:


> Its is IMPOSSIBLE to convey a false impression by stating what you perceive as the truth....
> ex. You are led to believe there is a very tall person in a room....you see 5 people in the room, all under 5 ft. tall...so you, being 6 ft. tall state, "THEIR IS NO DOUBT I AM THE TALLEST PERSON IN THESE ROOM".....sadly you missed the other person in the room that is 7 ft. tall....did you lie.....certainly not.....
> 
> It matters not if your statement is
> "I am the tallest in the room",
> "I have no doubt, I am the tallest in the room", or
> "there is no doubt, I am the tallest in the room"......
> 
> or any variation of it....that was YOUR belief when you made the statement..
> 
> You are mistakin' ...not lying.....



The above explanation proves you wrong....

It matters not if your statement is
"I am the tallest in the room", 
"I have no doubt, I am the tallest in the room", or 
"there is no doubt, I am the tallest in the room"...... 

or any variation of it....that was YOUR belief when you made the statement..
ALL THESE STATEMENTS CONVEY THE SAME MEANING......
and no amount of dingbat english from Maine will change that....


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> The above explanation proves you wrong....
> 
> It matters not if your statement is
> "I am the tallest in the room",
> "I have no doubt, I am the tallest in the room", or
> "there is no doubt, I am the tallest in the room"......
> 
> or any variation of it....that was YOUR belief when you made the statement..
> ALL THESE STATEMENTS CONVEY THE SAME MEANING......
> and no amount of dingbat english from Maine will change that....




again...if someone had told you there was possibly someone taller, then your statement of "there is not doubt, I am the tallest in the room" would have been a lie.  Bush was made aware of degrees of doubt.  To then turn around and deny that doubt existed was a lie.


----------



## maineman

Steerpike said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> But let me ask you this - when you see a Bush Lied sticker, or when someone says "Bush lied" do you think the majority of them are using definition 1 or 2?  Words, after all, are meant to convey the meaning of the speaker.  We should adopt the meaning that the speaker intends to apply.
> 
> Most of the people I hear who make the Bush lied argument believe that he subjectively knew he was lying at the time.  That's fine by me, but that requires a different level of proof than number 2.



I am aware that there are wacky lefties who blame Bush for anything and everything and endow him with some form of profoundly evil genius.  I do not.  If others think he lied using definition #1, I would disagree with them.

I have always and only thought he lied using the second definition.  But I think that it was critical to gain as much public support as possible for him to make the case for Saddam's WMD stockpiles as ironclad as possible... and in so doing, he created the false impression of absolute certainty.  It worked, but it still was a lie.


----------



## Alpha1

You may be as tenacious as a pit bull.....but sadly not quite as smart as one...

The only lie here is the one you've been obsessed with for the last few days.....the average IQ of the fleet must have risen dramatically since they no longer have to include you....


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> You may be as tenacious as a pit bull.....but sadly not quite as smart as one...
> 
> The only lie here is the one you've been obsessed with for the last few days.....the average IQ of the fleet must have risen dramatically since they no longer have to include you....




and I am not smart because a fucking moron like YOU says so? 

give me a fucking break.  If someone had come up to you and said, _"Alpha, there may be someone in the room who is taller than you...we're not entirely sure...the room is crowded...there have been some reports that maybe there is a guy sitting down that, once he stands up, might be taller than you...."_ if someone had told you that and you STILL turned around and pronounced "there is no doubt that I am the tallest guy in the room", are you really saying that, given the doubts presented to you, that that statement would not be a lie?

From my perspective you are WAY too fucking dumb to even MAKE it INTO the fleet.


----------



## Shogun

Steerpike said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> But let me ask you this - when you see a Bush Lied sticker, or when someone says "Bush lied" do you think the majority of them are using definition 1 or 2?  Words, after all, are meant to convey the meaning of the speaker.  We should adopt the meaning that the speaker intends to apply.
> 
> Most of the people I hear who make the Bush lied argument believe that he subjectively knew he was lying at the time.  That's fine by me, but that requires a different level of proof than number 2.





I would say that the Plame witch hunt was pretty indicative that Bush had motive to squash anything that suggested that, in fact, Saddam may not have had WMDs.  Aluminuim tubes and yellow cake were part of the original plea for war as was insisting that Saddam had WMDs and was an immediate threat.  Plame ate the backlash of trying to convey the truth about Bush's Nigerian claims.  This conveys to me that his march to the war, on the basis of WMDs, was not only a blatant lie but indicates actual effort to brush off information that, at the VERY least, provided the kind of DOUBT that he clearly wasn't interested in.  Would i be any less guilty of Fraud if I purposefully made every effort to DISBELIEVE in the actual shoreline or Arizona when selling you beach front property?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Shogun said:


> I would say that the Plame witch hunt was pretty indicative that Bush had motive to squash anything that suggested that, in fact, Saddam may not have had WMDs.  Aluminuim tubes and yellow cake were part of the original plea for war as was insisting that Saddam had WMDs and was an immediate threat.  Plame ate the backlash of trying to convey the truth about Bush's Nigerian claims.  This conveys to me that his march to the war, on the basis of WMDs, was not only a blatant lie but indicates actual effort to brush off information that, at the VERY least, provided the kind of DOUBT that he clearly wasn't interested in.  Would i be any less guilty of Fraud if I purposefully made every effort to DISBELIEVE in the actual shoreline or Arizona when selling you beach front property?



Except for the fact Bush never claimed Iraq was an imminent or immediant threat.


----------



## ReillyT

RetiredGySgt said:


> Except for the fact Bush never claimed Iraq was an imminent or immediant threat.



Taking into account not just Bush, but also the White House in general:



> On October 2, Bush described Iraq as a threat of unique urgency (AP, 10/2/02).





> Testifying before Congress (AP, 9/18/02), Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld added urgency: No terrorist state poses a greater and more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.





> For instance, speaking to the Veterans of Foreign Wars in 2002 (Associated Press, 8/26/02; State Department, 8/26/02), Vice President Dick Cheney described Iraq as a mortal threat and as grave a threat as can be imagined. Simply stated, Cheney told the vets, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies and against us. Furthermore, Cheney warned, Many of us are convinced that Saddam will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon.



http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1173

If all one is concerned about is the specific verbiage, as if the words "imminent threat" have a talismanic, mystical quality, then I suppose you are correct.  If however, we are willing to examine statements which have the same meaning, regardless of the use of the word "imminent," then I must disagree.


----------



## nibor

It's amazing to me "that the whitehouse in general" and specifically it's behind the scenes trash advisors don't get called out for a good old time BLANKET PARTY.........................


----------



## Shogun

ReillyT said:


> Taking into account not just Bush, but also the White House in general:
> http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1173
> If all one is concerned about is the specific verbiage, as if the words "imminent threat" have a talismanic, mystical quality, then I suppose you are correct.  If however, we are willing to examine statements which have the same meaning, regardless of the use of the word "imminent," then I must disagree.



Truly, it's litigious to a degree that would make Johny Cochrane crack a smile while burning in hell.

How many times did someone attached with the Bush admin mention mushroom clouds?  Anthrax?  Chem and Bio weapons?  Mobile chem labs?

laughable.  



Then again, who the hell takes RGS serious enough to give a fuck about his eternal fanboi bush love?


----------



## nibor

Shogun said:


> Truly, it's litigious to a degree that would make Johny Cochrane crack a smile while burning in hell.
> 
> How many times did someone attached with the Bush admin mention mushroom clouds?  Anthrax?  Chem and Bio weapons?  Mobile chem labs?
> 
> laughable.
> 
> 
> 
> Then again, who the hell takes RGS serious enough to give a fuck about his eternal fanboi bush love?




I guess it's not prudent to actually say THE NAMES of those responsible (someone attached) for most if not all the bad judgement and decisions surounding all of this.....................because of the back flips it will create huh?


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> and I am not smart because a fucking moron like YOU says so?
> 
> give me a fucking break.  If someone had come up to you and said, _"Alpha, there may be someone in the room who is taller than you...we're not entirely sure...the room is crowded...there have been some reports that maybe there is a guy sitting down that, once he stands up, might be taller than you...."_
> 
> What you seem to be too stupid to grasp is, after that someone tells me
> _"Alpha, there may be someone in the room who is taller than you...we're not entirely sure...the room is crowded...there have been some reports that maybe there is a guy sitting down that, once he stands up, might be taller than you...."_...
> I personally look the place over, examine what I see, consider what this other guy said and reach my own conclusion after careful contemplation and consideration, I come to the conclusion that their is no one in the room taller than me ...and I make that belief known....."there is no doubt I am the tallest in the room".....
> I may be right, or I may be wrong....be that is my honest belief , and personal
> consideration.....
> 
> if someone had told you that and you STILL turned around and pronounced "there is no doubt that I am the tallest guy in the room", are you really saying that, given the doubts presented to you, that that statement would not be a lie?
> You are obsessed with the erroneous conclusion that I am not entitled to make my own decision on the matter, come to my own conclusions, arrive at my own belief...
> You seem to think that someone elses doubt supercedes my lack of doubt...
> Well, you are wrong on that from the get go.....If my belief clashes with your belief, tough shit....MY BELIEF takes precedence....and as I speak of that belief, it CAN'T be called a lie...wrong, yes..but not a lie..
> 
> From my perspective you are WAY too fucking dumb to even MAKE it INTO the fleet.


000


----------



## mattskramer

Im surprised that this debate has gone on for so long.  The question is so simple.

True or False:  



1.	Bush knew that somewhere, out there in the world, existed at lest a tiny bit of doubt that Saddam had WMD.
 

2.	At about the same time that he knew this, Bush said that there is no doubt that Saddam had WMD.

If the answer to each of these two statements is true, then Bush lied.

Come on, people.  It is as simple as that.


----------



## maineman

Alpha:

Of course you are entitled to come to your own conclusions.  If you do, the correct way to express that is to say:

"Others have some doubts about my height being preeminent in this room, but I personally have none."  That clearly and unambiguously presents the fact that the statement of your height being the greatest is your opinion and not necessarily held by others.

The incorrect way is to say that "there is no doubt that I am the tallest in the room."  Others who do not have the benefit of having heard the reports about possible taller men would take that statement as an unambiguous statement of fact, and not merely your opinion.  

Bush made a similar mistake and asked Americans to bet their son's lives on it.  He created a false impression of absolute certainty. That was a lie.

Whine all you want, the FACT is:  There is no doubt that Saddam has stockpiles of Weapons of Mass Destruction" is a statement of fact - grammatically.  It is different in meaning to "I personally have no doubt that Saddam has stockpiles of Weapons of Mass Destruction" which is not a statement of fact, but the expression of an opinion.

Oh, and what the fuck does 000 mean in that context?  is it your ASVAB score?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> Alpha:
> 
> Of course you are entitled to come to your own conclusions.  If you do, the correct way to express that is to say:
> 
> "Others have some doubts about my height being preeminent in this room, but I personally have none."  That clearly and unambiguously presents the fact that the statement of your height being the greatest is your opinion and not necessarily held by others.
> 
> The incorrect way is to say that "there is no doubt that I am the tallest in the room."  Others who do not have the benefit of having heard the reports about possible taller men would take that statement as an unambiguous statement of fact, and not merely your opinion.
> 
> Bush made a similar mistake and asked Americans to bet their son's lives on it.  He created a false impression of absolute certainty. That was a lie.
> 
> Whine all you want, the FACT is:  There is no doubt that Saddam has stockpiles of Weapons of Mass Destruction" is a statement of fact - grammatically.  It is different in meaning to "I personally have no doubt that Saddam has stockpiles of Weapons of Mass Destruction" which is not a statement of fact, but the expression of an opinion.
> 
> Oh, and what the fuck does 000 mean in that context?  is it your ASVAB score?



And there we have it, According to Maineman , unless someone says what HE thinks they should say, they are liars. Well unless they are democrats then Maineman has no problem deciding they were just mistaken.


----------



## Shogun

What you seem to be too stupid to grasp is, after that someone tells me
"Alpha, *there may be* someone in the room who is taller than you...*we're not entirely sure*...the room is crowded...there have been *some reports* that *maybe* there is a guy sitting down that, once he stands up, *might be* taller than you...."...
I personally look the place over, examine what I see, consider what this other guy said and reach my own conclusion after careful contemplation and consideration, I come to the conclusion that their is no one in the room taller than me ...and I make that belief known....."there is no doubt I am the tallest in the room".....
I may be right, or I may be wrong....be that is my honest belief , and personal
consideration.....


And, if the statements made by Bush reflected, in any way, every bolded MAYBE in your silly little hypothetical then perhaps you'd have a point.

Did Bush suggest that there MIGHT BE WMDs?  Did he consider that, like your stupid example, that he may not have the entire picture in order to make such a DEFINITE statement?  Did he suggest that HIS SOURCES indicated that there MIGHT BE room for error?  no.  On all counts.  He conveyed that Iraq WAS a threat and WAS capable of damage to the US and he had NO DOUBT, after having the benefit of reviewing his information no less, that there were WMDs.


By all means, have your stupid opinoin; this is America.  The rest of us will do the same regardless of how you try to writhe out from under the hindsight of those PHANTOM EMDs and your fanboi crush on Bush.


----------



## Shogun

RetiredGySgt said:


> And there we have it, According to Maineman , unless someone says what HE thinks they should say, they are liars. Well unless they are democrats then Maineman has no problem deciding they were just mistaken.




Gosh, assuming that a president of the greatest nation on earth was telling the truth by suggesting that there was NO DOUBT about WMDs in iraq..  how RIDICULOUS!



I can't even begin to describe how fun it is to watch you suckers try and yank that hook, line and sinker out of your gullet this side of the 04 election.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> And there we have it, According to Maineman , unless someone says what HE thinks they should say, they are liars. Well unless they are democrats then Maineman has no problem deciding they were just mistaken.



No.  People can say what they believe any old time they want.  When you express your belief, we assume that you are, indeed telling us the truth.  When you state something as a fact...  When you say:  "There is no doubt", and there is, in fact doubt - doubt that you yourself are aware of - then that statement serves to convey a false impression, and is, therefore, a lie.

I have stated over and over again...this thread is about Bush.  If you want to start a thread about democrats, go for it, asshole.  I will weigh in on that thread and explain - again - that I was, am and will remain furious at any democrat who ever expressed certainty about Saddam's possessing stockpiles of WMD in 2003, as well as those who voted for the use of force resolution and who have not repented for that sin.

Now here's an idea:  quit obfuscating and either explain to the world how "I have no doubt in my mind that Saddam has WMD's" and "There is no doubt that Saddam has WMD's" can be synonymous statements, or continue to whine like a fucking girlieman.


----------



## nibor

Well MM I'd say the whole thing boils down to HONOR..............how much of that has been displayed.............AT ALL...............honorable men don't have to play word and meaning games................they say what they mean AND MEAN WHAT THEY SAY........................


----------



## maineman

nibor said:


> Well MM I'd say the whole thing boils down to HONOR..............how much of that has been displayed.............AT ALL...............honorable men don't have to play word and meaning games................they say what they mean AND MEAN WHAT THEY SAY........................




and they don't lie


----------



## nibor

That should go without saying..........................because that's what HONOR IS.........................but then come the feminized that have to redefine the word is.....................


----------



## maineman

what is your point?  I would ask you to speak plainly or not at all.


----------



## nibor

Who tried to redefine the word is mm............ ?


----------



## maineman

nibor said:


> Who tried to redefine the word is mm............ ?



He didn't try to "redefine" anything.  He attempted to clarify its context...But regardless, what does that have to do with Bush?  Are you suggesting that the phrase "there is no doubt" means something other than its clear unambiguous meaning?  Are you suggesting that Team Bush did NOT try to convey the impression of absolute certainty about Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's when their own intelligence analysts had just those doubts?


----------



## nibor

I see NONE of this regime as honorable.......................how many times do they have to DEFAME themselves and others....................for it to be realized??????????? 


Doesn't anyone see............that they're divide and conquer technique has gone on so long that it is viewed as normal..........it's telling the same lies repeatedly until believable........there wouldn't have to be tightassed arguing over ambiguos nonsense and intricacies if actual honor was involved.................


----------



## Alucard

nibor said:


> Who tried to redefine the word is mm............ ?



This is the problem MM wants you to admit to him that Bush lied... Yet he refuses to admit Clinton lied, even after he was impeached for it...

In his opinion Its its no big deal for democrats ...even when proven... but he wont even admit it happened....

But when dealing with a republican circumstantial evidence is plenty...

I think it impossible to get along...

This country is in trouble...


----------



## maineman

Alucard said:


> This is the problem MM wants you to admit to him that Bush lied... Yet he refuses to admit Clinton lied, even after he was impeached for it...
> 
> In his opinion Its its no big deal for democrats ...even when proven... but he wont even admit it happened....
> 
> But when dealing with a republican circumstantial evidence is plenty...
> 
> I think it impossible to get along...
> 
> This country is in trouble...



bullshit. I have NEVER refused to admit that Clinton lied. YOu need to retract that slander.


----------



## nibor

Alucard said:


> This is the problem MM wants you to admit to him that Bush lied... Yet he refuses to admit Clinton lied, even after he was impeached for it...
> 
> In his opinion Its its no big deal for democrats ...even when proven... but he wont even admit it happened....
> 
> But when dealing with a republican circumstantial evidence is plenty...
> 
> I think it impossible to get along...
> 
> This country is in trouble...



Yes this country IS IN REAL TROUBLE..................but do not rely on ANY of our leaders for truth.....................because they're ALL pushing us into the fire of one world gubment and don't have the collective honor or guts to tell it like it is................because they know that their life expectancy would be ZERO!!!!!!!!


----------



## Alpha1

nibor said:


> Well MM I'd say the whole thing boils down to HONOR..............how much of that has been displayed.............AT ALL...............honorable men don't have to play word and meaning games................they say what they mean AND MEAN WHAT THEY SAY........................



An honest man, an honorable man, will say what he believes to be the truth....
He don't need to explain the conclusions of others...
He don't need to explain if others disagree with his conclusions....
All he needs to do say what is truthful in his eyes.....and to claim he speaks for other than himself is for fools....


----------



## nibor

Let me ask all of you something................you've all seen the call for world democracy..................where in the hell do you actually think we'd stand in that clusterfuck????????


OK if only considering numbers.......................are we better or worse off immediately.......................I personally don't want to see any kind of true world democracy, because they'd have a way to VOTE US OUT OF EXISTANCE!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Alucard

maineman said:


> bullshit. I have NEVER refused to admit that Clinton lied. YOu need to retract that slander.



If your willing to admit ... I concede to the misinterpretation.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> and they don't lie



However you, by your own definitions are a LIAR.


----------



## maineman

Alucard said:


> If your willing to admit ... I concede to the misinterpretation.



that Bill Clinton lied is not a matter of interpretation, it is a matter of fact. I have never denied it.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> However you, by your own definitions are a LIAR.




I believe that statement is entirely incorrect.  You are unable to support it... but you have a long and pathetic history of following me around this site spreading inaccuracies.  this is certainly true to form, if nothing else.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> I believe that statement is entirely incorrect.  You are unable to support it... but you have a long and pathetic history of following me around this site spreading inaccuracies.  this is certainly true to form, if nothing else.



You have stated " Bush lied" You have not stated " I believe Bush Lied", there for by your own definition, your a liar. Thanks for playing though.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> You have stated " Bush lied" You have not stated " I believe Bush Lied", there for by your own definition, your a liar. Thanks for playing though.



I have stated that the evidence shows that Bush knew about doubts yet told us there were none.  that is a lie.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> I have stated that the evidence shows that Bush knew about doubts yet told us there were none.  that is a lie.



I want it on record right now.... which statement is yours.... "Bush Lied" or " I believe Bush lied"  go ahead those are your choices.

Further you have no evidence except semantics, so that ruins all that " the evidence shows" claims. If the Evidence actually existed Bush would be Impeached. One of the investigations into his supposed lying would have actually stated he lied. You have nothing BUT your OPINION. So go ahead tell us which is it.... "Bush Lied" or " I believe Bush Lied"?


----------



## Alucard

maineman said:


> I believe that statement is entirely incorrect.  You are unable to support it... but you have a long and pathetic history of following me around this site spreading inaccuracies.  this is certainly true to form, if nothing else.



This is true.... RGS is the official usmb troll... he does the same to me and others...


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Alucard said:


> This is true.... RGS is the official usmb troll... he does the same to me and others...



There ya go Maineman, remind me how I never go against other Conservatives, you have one supporting you for no other reason then it is me. But back to the subject, which is it?


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> I want it on record right now.... which statement is yours.... "Bush Lied" or " I believe Bush lied"  go ahead those are your choices.
> 
> Further you have no evidence except semantics, so that ruins all that " the evidence shows" claims. If the Evidence actually existed Bush would be Impeached. One of the investigations into his supposed lying would have actually stated he lied. You have nothing BUT your OPINION. So go ahead tell us which is it.... "Bush Lied" or " I believe Bush Lied"?



First...my "choices" are certainly not solely determined by YOU, you fucking moron.

How about this:  I believe that Bush lied.  All the testimony I have heard or read leads me to that conclusion.  All that I have read clearly states that the intelligence reports the Bush administration received from their own intelligence agencies contained caveats and qualifiers.  If that is true, and I have not seen you bring forth one scintilla of anything to suggest it is not, then the conclusion that Bush and his administration made statements that served to convey a false impression is pretty much inescapable. Please explain how you can come to a different conclusion if you believe that all those analysts are telling the truth... or are you claiming that your hero is telling the truth and all of the analysts are liars?


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> There ya go Maineman, remind me how I never go against other Conservatives, you have one supporting you for no other reason then it is me. But back to the subject, which is it?



I have no doubt that your troll behavior annoys more than just liberals.... but it has little to do with your politics, and much to do with your annoying, dishonest personality.


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> First...my "choices" are certainly not solely determined by YOU, you fucking moron.
> 
> How about this:  I believe that Bush lied.  All the testimony I have heard or read leads me to that conclusion.  All that I have read clearly states that the intelligence reports the Bush administration received from their own intelligence agencies contained caveats and qualifiers. * If that is true, and I have not seen you bring forth one scintilla of anything to suggest it is not, then the conclusion that Bush and his administration made statements that served to convey a false impression is pretty much inescapable.* Please explain how you can come to a different conclusion if you believe that all those analysts are telling the truth... or are you claiming that your hero is telling the truth and all of the analysts are liars?




The following excerpts from an October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate 

http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/iraq-wmd.html 


Key Judgments [from October 2002 NIE]

Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction

*We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions;* if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade. (See INR alternative view at the end of these Key Judgments.)

We judge that we are seeing only a portion of Iraq's WMD efforts, owing to Baghdad's vigorous denial and deception efforts. Revelations after the Gulf war starkly demonstrate the extensive efforts undertaken by Iraq to deny information. We lack specific information on many key aspects of Iraq's WMD programs.

Since inspections ended in 1998,* Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort, energized its missile program, and invested more heavily in biological weapons; in the view of most agencies, Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.*

    * Iraq's growing ability to sell oil illicitly increases Baghdad's capabilities to finance WMD programs; annual earnings in cash and goods have more than quadrupled, from $580 million in 1998 to about $3 billion this year.

* * Iraq has largely rebuilt missile and biological weapons facilities damaged during Operation Desert Fox and has expanded its chemical and biological infrastructure* under the cover of civilian production.

* * Baghdad has exceeded UN range limits of 150 km with its ballistic missiles and is working with unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), which allow for a more lethal means to deliver biological and, less likely, chemical warfare agents.*

    * Although we assess that Saddam does not yet have nuclear weapons or sufficient material to make any, he remains intent on acquiring them. *Most agencies assess that Baghdad started reconstituting its nuclear program about the time that UNSCOM inspectors departed--December 1998.*

*We assess that Baghdad has begun renewed production of mustard, sarin, GF (cyclosarin), and VX;*its capability probably is more limited now than it was at the time of the Gulf war, although VX production and agent storage life probably have been improved.

* * An array of clandestine reporting reveals that Baghdad has procured covertly the types and quantities of chemicals and equipment sufficient to allow limited CW agent production hidden within Iraq's legitimate chemical industry.*

    * Although we have little specific information on Iraq's CW stockpile,* Saddam probably has stocked at least 100 metric tons (MT) and possibly as much as 500 MT of CW agents--much of it added in the last year.*

    * The Iraqis have experience in manufacturing CW bombs, artillery rockets, and projectiles.* We assess that they possess CW bulk fills for SRBM warheads, including for a limited number of covertly stored Scuds, possibly a few with extended ranges.*

*We judge that all key aspects--R&D, production, and weaponization--of Iraq's offensive BW program are active and that most elements are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf war.*

** We judge Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating BW agents and is capable of quickly producing and weaponizing a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery by bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers, and covert operatives.*

          o Chances are even that* smallpox is part of Iraq's offensive BW program.*

          o Baghdad* probably has developed genetically engineered BW agents.*

** Baghdad has established a large-scale, redundant, and concealed BW agent production capability.*

* o Baghdad has mobile facilities for producing bacterial and toxin BW agents; these facilities can evade detection and are highly survivable. *Within three to six months [Corrected per Errata sheet issued in October 2002] these units probably could produce an amount of agent equal to the total that Iraq produced in the years prior to the Gulf war.

This is just our NIE intell....

I believe the intell from Germany, France, Russia, England, Japan, etc. essentially agreed at this particular time....

I'll let you dig up the caveats and qualifiers....


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> I have no doubt that your troll behavior annoys more than just liberals.... but it has little to do with your politics, and much to do with your annoying, dishonest personality.



I have no doubt that your troll behavior will continue and you'll ignore most, if not all of the FACTS presented....you have little honesty or honor left....so your lies will most likely continue....


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> The following excerpts from an October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate
> 
> http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/iraq-wmd.html
> 
> 
> Key Judgments [from October 2002 NIE]
> 
> Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction
> 
> *We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions;* if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade. (See INR alternative view at the end of these Key Judgments.)
> 
> We judge that we are seeing only a portion of Iraq's WMD efforts, owing to Baghdad's vigorous denial and deception efforts. Revelations after the Gulf war starkly demonstrate the extensive efforts undertaken by Iraq to deny information. We lack specific information on many key aspects of Iraq's WMD programs.
> 
> Since inspections ended in 1998,* Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort, energized its missile program, and invested more heavily in biological weapons; in the view of most agencies, Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.*
> 
> * Iraq's growing ability to sell oil illicitly increases Baghdad's capabilities to finance WMD programs; annual earnings in cash and goods have more than quadrupled, from $580 million in 1998 to about $3 billion this year.
> 
> * * Iraq has largely rebuilt missile and biological weapons facilities damaged during Operation Desert Fox and has expanded its chemical and biological infrastructure* under the cover of civilian production.
> 
> * * Baghdad has exceeded UN range limits of 150 km with its ballistic missiles and is working with unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), which allow for a more lethal means to deliver biological and, less likely, chemical warfare agents.*
> 
> * Although we assess that Saddam does not yet have nuclear weapons or sufficient material to make any, he remains intent on acquiring them. *Most agencies assess that Baghdad started reconstituting its nuclear program about the time that UNSCOM inspectors departed--December 1998.*
> 
> *We assess that Baghdad has begun renewed production of mustard, sarin, GF (cyclosarin), and VX;*its capability probably is more limited now than it was at the time of the Gulf war, although VX production and agent storage life probably have been improved.
> 
> * * An array of clandestine reporting reveals that Baghdad has procured covertly the types and quantities of chemicals and equipment sufficient to allow limited CW agent production hidden within Iraq's legitimate chemical industry.*
> 
> * Although we have little specific information on Iraq's CW stockpile,* Saddam probably has stocked at least 100 metric tons (MT) and possibly as much as 500 MT of CW agents--much of it added in the last year.*
> 
> * The Iraqis have experience in manufacturing CW bombs, artillery rockets, and projectiles.* We assess that they possess CW bulk fills for SRBM warheads, including for a limited number of covertly stored Scuds, possibly a few with extended ranges.*
> 
> *We judge that all key aspects--R&D, production, and weaponization--of Iraq's offensive BW program are active and that most elements are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf war.*
> 
> ** We judge Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating BW agents and is capable of quickly producing and weaponizing a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery by bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers, and covert operatives.*
> 
> o Chances are even that* smallpox is part of Iraq's offensive BW program.*
> 
> o Baghdad* probably has developed genetically engineered BW agents.*
> 
> ** Baghdad has established a large-scale, redundant, and concealed BW agent production capability.*
> 
> * o Baghdad has mobile facilities for producing bacterial and toxin BW agents; these facilities can evade detection and are highly survivable. *Within three to six months [Corrected per Errata sheet issued in October 2002] these units probably could produce an amount of agent equal to the total that Iraq produced in the years prior to the Gulf war.
> 
> This is just our NIE intell....
> 
> I believe the intell from Germany, France, Russia, England, Japan, etc. essentially agreed at this particular time....
> 
> I'll let you dig up the caveats and qualifiers....



as if six "probably"s aren't enough.

Here's a clue:  "probably" and "absolute certainty" don't play well together!

and in any case, if you really think that Bush was operating off of "key judgments from the NIE" and not the actual intelligence reports themselves, you are even more stupid than I had originally thought!


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> as if six "probably"s aren't enough.
> 
> Here's a clue:  "probably" and "absolute certainty" don't play well together!
> 
> and in any case, if you really think that Bush was operating off of "key judgments from the NIE" and not the actual intelligence reports themselves, you are even more stupid than I had originally thought!



You're quite a joke.....obviously never seen an intell report before.....
Key judgments is exactly what the Pres. operates from....do you think he gets the raw intell from all 16 agency's (probably thousands of pages) and just reads through them all.   ?   ....idiot....

NIEs are considered to be *"estimative" products*, in that they present what intelligence analysts estimate may be the course of future events. FUTURE EVENTS are by definition, best guesses....(estimates)
You do understand what the word ESTIMATE means don't you....
Can your little mind grasp that because the NIE's product IS an estimate of what the intell agencys gather that the word "probably" is quite common in the *estimates*

You're making a fool of yourself over this minor issue.....take my advice, go back under your rock and let this blow over...maybe you'll be lucky and people will forget it....


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> You're quite a joke.....obviously never seen an intell report before.....
> Key judgments is exactly what the Pres. operates from....do you think he gets the raw intell from all 16 agency's (probably thousands of pages) and just reads through them all.   ?   ....idiot....
> 
> NIEs are considered to be *"estimative" products*, in that they present what intelligence analysts estimate may be the course of future events. FUTURE EVENTS are by definition, best guesses....(estimates)
> You do understand what the word ESTIMATE means don't you....
> Can your little mind grasp that because the NIE's product IS an estimate of what the intell agencys gather that the word "probably" is quite common in the *estimates*
> 
> You're making a fool of yourself over this minor issue.....take my advice, go back under your rock and let this blow over...maybe you'll be lucky and people will forget it....




and  if the excerpt from the summary of the estimates contains six "probably"'s, that does not allow an honesty determination of "no doubt". 
 You and your butt buddy RGS are the only two who are disputing that obvious fact... maybe you ought to be the one finding that rock.

anbd here is my guess:  I have seem more intelligence reports in any given six month span of my two decades of commissioned service than you have seen in your entire fucking life.  wanna bet?  As a matter of fact, I will bet that I saw more intelligence reports on one midwatch in an aircraft carrier CIC during a med deployment than you have ever seen, you fucking loser.


----------



## trobinett

maineman said:


> and  if the excerpt from the summary of the estimates contains six "probably"'s, that does not allow an honesty determination of "no doubt".
> You and your butt buddy RGS are the only two who are disputing that obvious fact... maybe you ought to be the one finding that rock.
> 
> anbd here is my guess:  I have seem more intelligence reports in any given six month span of my two decades of commissioned service than you have seen in your entire fucking life.  wanna bet?  As a matter of fact, I will bet that I saw more intelligence reports on one midwatch in an aircraft carrier CIC during a med deployment than you have ever seen, you fucking loser.



Damn if you don't have a way with words.........................


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> and  if the excerpt from the summary of the estimates contains six "probably"'s, that does not allow an honesty determination of "no doubt".
> 
> You and your butt buddy RGS are the only two who are disputing that obvious fact... maybe you ought to be the one finding that rock.
> 
> *You think because of the higher number of Bush haters on the site it makes your opinion correct....think again*
> 
> anbd here is my guess:  I have seem more intelligence reports in any given six month span of my two decades of commissioned service than you have seen in your entire fucking life.  wanna bet?  As a matter of fact, I will bet that I saw more intelligence reports on one midwatch in an aircraft carrier CIC during a med deployment than you have ever seen, you fucking loser.



*If you've seen only one you would KNOW they are "best estimates" ,... interpretations of what our agencys see, hear, photograph, etc....so you should know better than to imply the intell briefs are super duper actual 'for sure' well known facts.... they are not, they are what we THINK at any given time ...especially when trying to determine what other nations are up to.....so don't talk stupid.....*

If, *after 16 of our nations intell agencys,having analyzed all the information they have**, and they conclude (in their judgment)....

"We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions"*

 then putting our trust in them,  that is what the rest of us mortals will take as the truth, as our best analysts can determine...and if we totally trust their "expert conclusions", the expert conclusion of our 16 different intell groups, combined, having made this judgment.......then depending on how firm your trust is,  one can say, "their is no doubt, We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions etc.....
these judgments are even backed up other intell from other countrys worldwide and makes his belief even stronger....
If that is his firm belief, that is his firm belief....and Bush expressed it as such.....he speaks for himself....


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> *If you've seen only one you would KNOW they are "best estimates" ,... interpretations of what our agencys see, hear, photograph, etc....so you should know better than to imply the intell briefs are super duper actual 'for sure' well known facts.... they are not, they are what we THINK at any given time ...especially when trying to determine what other nations are up to.....so don't talk stupid.....*
> 
> If, *after 16 of our nations intell agencys,having analyzed all the information they have**, and they conclude (in their judgment)....
> 
> "We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions"*
> 
> then putting our trust in them,  that is what the rest of us mortals will take as the truth, as our best analysts can determine...and if we totally trust their "expert conclusions", the expert conclusion of our 16 different intell groups, combined, having made this judgment.......then depending on how firm your trust is,  one can say, "their is no doubt, We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions etc.....




best estimates are not absolute certainty.

No one can honestly say "there is NO doubt" when some of their own advisors are expressing doubt.


----------



## Alpha1

If you were advised, "It would be better for you to do so and so".....

and you tell your wife "It would be best if I did so an so".....

are you now a liar.?...using your fucked up, convoluted, nit pickin' , childish logic, you would be a liar....


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> best estimates are not absolute certainty.
> 
> No one can honestly say "there is NO doubt" when some of their own advisors are expressing doubt.



They certainly can if they are expressing a personal belief.....and not trying to express the advisors beliefs


----------



## RetiredGySgt

I do not believe your ignorant rantings Maineman, the brief he provided does not GUESS or say Saddam May have WMD's it says HE has them. That he Retains the ability to make more. READ th highlighted parts retard. There are no probablies in those "estimates, they are difinative statements of what the Briefers believed.

The only POSSIBLE was Nucs and that was because they did not know when he would have them, not because they did not think he was trying. 

You are so obsessed you can not even read plain english and want to play games by pretending some part of a brief that has NOTHING to do with another part implies doubt. There is NO DOUBT in that report.


----------



## Alpha1

*probably* will have a nuclear weapon during this decade.
its capability* probably* is more limited now than it was at the time of the Gulf war
storage life* probably* have been improved.
Saddam* probably *has stocked at least 100 metric tons (MT) and possibly as much as 500 MT of CW agents--much of it added in the last year.
Baghdad *probably* has developed genetically engineered BW agents
these units *probably *could produce an amount of agent equal to the total that Iraq produced in the years prior to the Gulf war.

I knew I should have looked at this before...

The six uses of the word "probably" in the NIE report that MM was so concerned about.....what crap.....
No where do these statements cast doubt on the belief that Saddam posessed WMD.....

MM lack of reading comp? Or just his dishonest spin at work ?

Either way...hes schooled again...


----------



## RetiredGySgt

> We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade. (See INR alternative view at the end of these Key Judgments.)



Go ahead parse the above and tell me they express doubt that Saddam Has Chemical and Biological weapons. Then tell me they express doubt he WANTS nuclear weapons.




> We judge that we are seeing only a portion of Iraq's WMD efforts, owing to Baghdad's vigorous denial and deception efforts. Revelations after the Gulf war starkly demonstrate the extensive efforts undertaken by Iraq to deny information. We lack specific information on many key aspects of Iraq's WMD programs



Go ahead and tell us how this implies any doubt or has a maybe in it. The doubt is that we do NOT know everything he has, not that he HAS WMD's as expressed in the previous paragraph.



> Since inspections ended in 1998, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort, energized its missile program, and invested more heavily in biological weapons; in the view of most agencies, Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.



This one clearly states Iraq has Chemical weapons programs and that everyone believes he is also working on Nuclear weapons. Ohh and by the way, Bush never said Saddam HAD Nuclear weapons, just that he was working on getting them. Go ahead parse this for a maybe or some doubt.



> * Iraq's growing ability to sell oil illicitly increases Baghdad's capabilities to finance WMD programs; annual earnings in cash and goods have more than quadrupled, from $580 million in 1998 to about $3 billion this year.



Another statement of fact, no doubt, no maybe. The brief clearly states Iraq has the money and will increasingly have MORE money to build WMD's, go ahead sho me the maybe or the doubt.




> * Iraq has largely rebuilt missile and biological weapons facilities damaged during Operation Desert Fox and has expanded its chemical and biological infrastructure under the cover of civilian production.



Another STATEMENT of fact, show me where the maybe or we think is in this sentence.



> * Baghdad has exceeded UN range limits of 150 km with its ballistic missiles and is working with unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), which allow for a more lethal means to deliver biological and, less likely, chemical warfare agents.
> 
> {/quote}
> 
> Ok where is the maybe or the we think here? The statement says the missiles can deliver biological weapons, which they earlier STATED were being made, but that not likely chemical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * Although we assess that Saddam does not yet have nuclear weapons or sufficient material to make any, he remains intent on acquiring them. Most agencies assess that Baghdad started reconstituting its nuclear program about the time that UNSCOM inspectors departed--December 1998.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look another STATEMENT. The only doubt is WHEN he will have them, not that he wants them or is working on them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We assess that Baghdad has begun renewed production of mustard, sarin, GF (cyclosarin), and VX;its capability probably is more limited now than it was at the time of the Gulf war, although VX production and agent storage life probably have been improved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ohh look another STATEMENT. Go ahead parse this and give us the maybe or the we think part of it. The only cavet is that VX is more limited, not that it is not being made. And then they state that VX can last longer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * An array of clandestine reporting reveals that Baghdad has procured covertly the types and quantities of chemicals and equipment sufficient to allow limited CW agent production hidden within Iraq's legitimate chemical industry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go ahead parse this one for us and tell us where the maybe is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although we have little specific information on Iraq's CW stockpile, Saddam probably has stocked at least 100 metric tons (MT) and possibly as much as 500 MT of CW agents--much of it added in the last year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ohh look finally a non definative statement, however the BEST estimate is pretty damn BIG.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * The Iraqis have experience in manufacturing CW bombs, artillery rockets, and projectiles. We assess that they possess CW bulk fills for SRBM warheads, including for a limited number of covertly stored Scuds, possibly a few with extended ranges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ohh look another positive STATEMENT. The only time possible is used is in refrence to LONG range munitions, not in regards possession of weapons. Go ahead parse this one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We judge that all key aspects--R&D, production, and weaponization--of Iraq's offensive BW program are active and that most elements are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet another clear STATEMENT, no maybe, no we think. The only caveat being that MOST elements of the program are LARGER and more advanced then before the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * We judge Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating BW agents and is capable of quickly producing and weaponizing a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery by bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers, and covert operatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damn another definative STATEMENT. No maybe, no possibly. Go ahead explain this away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> o Chances are even that smallpox is part of Iraq's offensive BW program.
> 
> [/quote}
> 
> Ahh one of those maybes and then the prediction is even odds it is true. Which has nothing to do with previous statements of fact that WMD's exist and are being made by Saddam and that he is working on Nuclear weapons. So far all you have is the "maybe" about ONE type of WMD.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> o Baghdad probably has developed genetically engineered BW agents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahh another probably, which does not change the fact that the report has STATED repeatedly he has weapons, is producing more and is working on Nukes, none of THOSE statements are maybes, or shall I requote them for you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * Baghdad has established a large-scale, redundant, and concealed BW agent production capability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OHH no another STATEMENT of fact. No maybe, no we think. Go ahead explain this one also.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> o Baghdad has mobile facilities for producing bacterial and toxin BW agents; these facilities can evade detection and are highly survivable. Within three to six months [Corrected per Errata sheet issued in October 2002] these units probably could produce an amount of agent equal to the total that Iraq produced in the years prior to the Gulf war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes there is a probably in this Statement, but it is not about him HAVING the labs it is about how MUCH MORE agent he can produce with labs the intel is POSITIVE he has.
> 
> 
> 
> So much for all your maybes and possiblies and NO statements of fact.
> 
> You have not got a leg to stand on. THIS single report, one of many, is FULL of POSITIVE absolutes. Statements that convey no doubt, no caveat.
> 
> Your entire house of cards comes crashing down. This report alone negates EVERY one of your previous insistances that Bush could not have been positive because no one told him anything with out if's and or buts.
> 
> Here let me add the source for you....
> 
> http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/iraq-wmd.html
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## maineman

are you saying there is NO doubt in any of that?


----------



## Alpha1

Go ahead mm....give the NIE report a shot....one issue at a time.....


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> Go ahead mm....give the NIE report a shot....one issue at a time.....



are you suggesting that the word probably and absolute certainty go together?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> are you saying there is NO doubt in any of that?



Look, you keep claiming no one ever told Bush any thing without caveats. That report has NO doubts about WMDs, no Doubts about Nuclear research. The only "doubts" are when some things will be done or how much will be made.

Your entire claim depends on NO ONE ever saying "Iraq has WMD's". That report alone says it over and over. Further it STATES that Mobile labs exist. It states that civilian production facilities are making weapons. It states Saddam has more and more money and that he is using it to make his WMD programs bigger and better.

Those are not maybes, they are not we think, they are statements of certainty.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> Look, you keep claiming no one ever told Bush any thing without caveats. That report has NO doubts about WMDs, no Doubts about Nuclear research. The only "doubts" are when some things will be done or how much will be made.
> 
> Your entire claim depends on NO ONE ever saying "Iraq has WMD's". That report alone says it over and over. Further it STATES that Mobile labs exist. It states that civilian production facilities are making weapons. It states Saddam has more and more money and that he is using it to make his WMD programs bigger and better.
> 
> Those are not maybes, they are not we think, they are statements of certainty.




the snippet of the report has the word "probably" six different times.


My entire claim is that Bush claimed that there was NO DOUBT that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's.  YOU tell ME how "probably" and "NO DOUBT" fit together.

I'll wait

and again...my claim is that not that no one ever told Bush anything about WMD's WITHOUT caveats....your claim relies on the erroneous presumption that no one ever told him anything WITH caveats.  Only then could he say that there was NO DOUBT.  His own intelligence analysts had degrees of doubt...there WAS doubt... so...when he and his minions repeatedly claimed that there was NO DOUBT, that was a lie.


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> the snippet of the report has the word "probably" six different times.
> 
> 
> My entire claim is that Bush claimed that there was NO DOUBT that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's.  YOU tell ME how "probably" and "NO DOUBT" fit together.
> 
> I'll wait



You keep saying Bush lied and repeat the words "no doubt"......
I remember Cheney using those words....show me where Bush used that particular phase.....NO DOUBT about Iraqs WMD

Now to you question....the word probably is used concerning issues not relevant to Saddam having WMD.....so its an irrelevant  moot point...

but do show me where Bush spoke about no doubt Saddam has WMD...


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> You keep saying Bush lied and repeat the words "no doubt"......
> I remember Cheney using those words....show me where Bush used that particular phase.....NO DOUBT about Iraqs WMD
> 
> Now to you question....the word probably is used concerning issues not relevant to Saddam having WMD.....so its an irrelevant  mute point...
> 
> but do show me where Bush spoke about no doubt Saddam has WMD...




mute?  mute?  what does that mean?

Team Bush repeatedly stated that there was NO doubt that Saddam had stockpiles.

_*"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."*_
George Bush March 18, 2003


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> mute?  mute?  what does that mean?
> 
> Team Bush repeatedly stated that there was NO doubt that Saddam had stockpiles.



Ha ....what...???


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> mute?  mute?  what does that mean?
> 
> Team Bush repeatedly stated that there was NO doubt that Saddam had stockpiles.



So now its 'team Bush'......????  we won't hear any more of BUSH LIED.....?

You want to go with "TEAM BUSH LIED"....?   

Does that work better......?


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> Ha ....what...???



are you deaf as well as "mute"?


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> So now its 'team Bush'......????  we won't hear any more of BUSH LIED.....?
> 
> You want to go with "TEAM BUSH LIED"....?
> 
> Does that work better......?



No..I'll stick with "Bush lied"...will you now agree?


----------



## maineman

::crickets chirping::


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> mute?  mute?  what does that mean?
> 
> Team Bush repeatedly stated that there was NO doubt that Saddam had stockpiles.
> 
> _*"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."*_
> George Bush March 18, 2003



OK ...thats fair enough.....
And thats what the NIE report of October, 2002 said.....no caveats.
NO ifs and or buts......only a few unsures about irrelevant issues....


----------



## Alpha1

The report is there....show me caveats....


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> OK ...thats fair enough.....
> And thats what the NIE report of October, 2002 said.....no caveats.
> NO ifs and or buts......only a few unsures about irrelevant issues....



and as I have repeated over and over again... there have been numerous analysts who have come forward and stated that there were caveats and qualifiers in the intelligence reports that Bush received.  AGAIN...to state that there was absolute certainty about Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's in the face of those intelligence reports that contained degrees of doubt was to convey a false impression.  ergo:  lie

absolute certainty....no doubt...do not go hand in hand with "probably".  period.


----------



## maineman

There is *no doubt *that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.

Gen. Tommy Franks March 22, 2003

"We know for a *fact* that there are weapons there."

Ari Fleischer January 9, 2003

*LIES*


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> and as I have repeated over and over again... there have been numerous analysts who have come forward and stated that there were caveats and qualifiers in the intelligence reports that Bush received.  AGAIN...to state that there was absolute certainty about Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's in the face of those intelligence reports that contained degrees of doubt was to convey a false impression.  ergo:  lie
> 
> absolute certainty....no doubt...do not go hand in hand with "probably".  period.




If you weren't  a nitwit, you would relalize the use of the word "probably" should at the very least, have been used concerning the relative issue...i.e....that Saddam "probably" did not have WMD.....
YOU gonna show me that?
-------------------------------------------------------

NIE report 4 months before the war.....

The FIRST CONCLUSION of NIE report...Oct, 2002........

We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions.* Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons* as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade.

That is the NIE we went to war with....Any and all reports later that 3/2003 are MOOT.....
No caveats.....no IFs....NOTE the words ...."Baghdad HAS"......

That was the beliefs of Dems, Repubs, and most, it not all of the intell. agencys through out the world......

Your rebuttle...? I'll wait....


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> the snippet of the report has the word "probably" six different times.
> 
> 
> My entire claim is that Bush claimed that there was NO DOUBT that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's.  YOU tell ME how "probably" and "NO DOUBT" fit together.
> 
> I'll wait
> 
> and again...my claim is that not that no one ever told Bush anything about WMD's WITHOUT caveats....your claim relies on the erroneous presumption that no one ever told him anything WITH caveats.  Only then could he say that there was NO DOUBT.  His own intelligence analysts had degrees of doubt...there WAS doubt... so...when he and his minions repeatedly claimed that there was NO DOUBT, that was a lie.



Your going to claim this.... here let me requote for you, shall I?



> We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade. (See INR alternative view at the end of these Key Judgments.)



Go ahead TELL us where the maybe, probably or doubt is IN this statement....




> Since inspections ended in 1998, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort, energized its missile program, and invested more heavily in biological weapons; in the view of most agencies, Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.



And here, explain where the probably is... the maybe, the doubt...




> * Iraq has largely rebuilt missile and biological weapons facilities damaged during Operation Desert Fox and has expanded its chemical and biological infrastructure under the cover of civilian production.



Show me the maybe, or the probably here....




> * Baghdad has exceeded UN range limits of 150 km with its ballistic missiles and is working with unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), which allow for a more lethal means to deliver biological and, less likely, chemical warfare agents.



No maybe here. Clearly states the missiles can and will deliver WMD's. Biological type.



> We assess that Baghdad has begun renewed production of mustard, sarin, GF (cyclosarin), and VX;its capability probably is more limited now than it was at the time of the Gulf war, although VX production and agent storage life probably have been improved.



Ohh look one of your probablies, the only problem for you is it doesn't say they "probably" have weapons, it says they have them but that production is "probably" less then before and it offsets that with the fact that shelf life is improved..



> * An array of clandestine reporting reveals that Baghdad has procured covertly the types and quantities of chemicals and equipment sufficient to allow limited CW agent production hidden within Iraq's legitimate chemical industry.



No probably here, more STATEMENTS of clear straight forward fact.



> * The Iraqis have experience in manufacturing CW bombs, artillery rockets, and projectiles. We assess that they possess CW bulk fills for SRBM warheads, including for a limited number of covertly stored Scuds, possibly a few with extended ranges.



And here we have another clear statement of fact, no maybe, no probably, no could be.


I can go on if you want. 

And this is JUST one report and not even all of the report.

I can not believe you keep claiming there was doubt, this report has NONE in regards WMD's. IT STATES HE HAS THEM AND CONTINUES TO MAKE THEM. Not probably, not maybe, not we think.


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> If you weren't  a nitwit, you would relalize the use of the word "probably" should at the very least, have been used concerning the relative issue...i.e....that Saddam "probably" did not have WMD.....
> YOU gonna show me that?
> -------------------------------------------------------
> 
> NIE report 4 months before the war.....
> 
> The FIRST CONCLUSION of NIE report...Oct, 2002........
> 
> We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions.* Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons* as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade.
> 
> That is the NIE we went to war with....Any and all reports later that 3/2003 are MOOT.....
> No caveats.....no IFs....NOTE the words ...."Baghdad HAS"......
> 
> That was the beliefs of Dems, Repubs, and most, it not all of the intell. agencys through out the world......
> 
> Your rebuttle...? I'll wait....



my rebuttal is that Bush had much more intelligence than simply the few paragraphs of the NIE you have posted...and all of the analysts who have spoken since that time have stated that there were, in fact, doubts, caveats and qualifiers... Bush stated that there was no doubt, when in fact, there was.  I am not saying that there was overwhelming evidence that he did NOT have stockpiles of WMD's...only that there was NOT absolute certainty that he did.  To express absolute certainty in the absence of such is to convey a false impression.  ergo: a lie.


I'm glad you finally figured out the difference between mute and moot.

moron.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> and as I have repeated over and over again... there have been numerous analysts who have come forward and stated that there were caveats and qualifiers in the intelligence reports that Bush received.  AGAIN...to state that there was absolute certainty about Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's in the face of those intelligence reports that contained degrees of doubt was to convey a false impression.  ergo:  lie
> 
> absolute certainty....no doubt...do not go hand in hand with "probably".  period.



This report HAS NO DOUBTS. In order for you to make a point you have to prove every report had doubt. This one destroys your claim. And you know it. I do not care if every other report had doubt. THIS SINGLE report destroys your entire claim. You have stated there was absolutely doubt in every report, that Bush NEVER received a briefing with out doubt. THIS one destroys that claim.


----------



## Alpha1

You must has noticed Bush said "the Iraq regime"
while the NIE said "Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons"
and Tommy Franks said "the regime of Saddam Hussein"...

by now, you must be absolutely confused as to who the fuck it is had these weapons.....
was it the Iraq regime?
was it Baghdad?
was it the regime of Saddam Hussein?

Man...your pea-brain must be reeling.....


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Alpha1 said:


> You must has noticed Bush said "the Iraq regime"
> while the NIE said "Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons"
> and Tommy Franks said "the regime of Saddam Hussein"...
> 
> by now, you must be absolutely confused as to who the fuck it is had these weapons.....
> was it the Iraq regime?
> was it Baghdad?
> was it the regime of Saddam Hussein?
> 
> Man...your pea-brain must be reeling.....



His entire argument depends on doubt, even if ( and I doubt the if) EVERY other report stated doubt on every matter, THIS report has NO doubt.

He has argued that Bush NEVER was told by ANY intel brief that Iraq HAD weapons, only that " he probably" " He might' " we are not sure".

NONE of that is IN this report.

For him to continue to claim other wise is in fact HIM lying per HIS own definition, as I have stated.


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> my rebuttal is that Bush had much more intelligence than simply the few paragraphs of the NIE you have posted...and all of the analysts who have spoken since that time have stated that there were, in fact, doubts, caveats and qualifiers... Bush stated that there was no doubt, when in fact, there was.  I am not saying that there was overwhelming evidence that he did NOT have stockpiles of WMD's...only that there was NOT absolute certainty that he did.  To express absolute certainty in the absence of such is to convey a false impression.  ergo: a lie.
> 
> 
> I'm glad you finally figured out the difference between mute and moot.
> 
> moron.



I could care less what analysts have come up with since March, 2003.....
The only relevant issue is what Bush was told before the war.....
The NIE of 10/02 says Iraq HAD....HAD...HAD ....HAD...WMD.....]
Thats why we had a war.....
THE NIE IMPLYED WITH CERTAINLY.....thats what they presented to Bush....to Cheney...To the Congress....To Pelosi.....TO US......


----------



## Said1

Alpha1 said:


> You must has noticed Bush said "the Iraq regime"
> while the NIE said "Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons"
> and Tommy Franks said "the regime of Saddam Hussein"...
> 
> by now, you must be absolutely confused as to who the fuck it is had these weapons.....
> was it the Iraq regime?
> was it Baghdad?
> was it the regime of Saddam Hussein?
> 
> Man...your pea-brain must be reeling.....



Those aren't unusual statements. Given that you're so smart, you must have heard people refer to state capitals and not the country when reporting information to the public?


----------



## Alpha1

Said1 said:


> Those aren't unusual statements. Given that you're so smart, you must have heard people refer to state capitals and not the country when reporting information to the public?



I thought it was plain I was being facetious   ..............my bad?

YOu see MM takes every word used and analyzes the shit out of it...what is common plain English to most of us
is parse from heaven to hell by MM to make a minor, inane, and useless point.....
so watch your spelling, etc.


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> I could care less what analysts have come up with since March, 2003.....
> The only relevant issue is what Bush was told before the war.....
> The NIE of 10/02 says Iraq HAD....HAD...HAD ....HAD...WMD.....]
> Thats why we had a war.....
> THE NIE IMPLYED CERTAINLY.....thats what they presented to Bush....to Cheney...To the Congress....To Pelosi.....TO US......




analysts have stated that the case was not without doubt.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/24/AR2006062401081_pf.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-09-02-WMD-indepth_x.htm

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040209-586175-2,00.html

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-intell_chapter2.htm

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?pid=1168

http://deepblade.net/journal/2005/11/everyone-thought-saddam-had-wmd.html

I could go on...and on...but you get the gist


----------



## Said1

Alpha1 said:


> I thought it was plain I was being facetious   ..............my bad?



It was obvious. Really obvious.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> His entire argument depends on doubt, even if ( and I doubt the if) EVERY other report stated doubt on every matter, THIS report has NO doubt.
> 
> He has argued that Bush NEVER was told by ANY intel brief that Iraq HAD weapons, only that " he probably" " He might' " we are not sure".
> 
> NONE of that is IN this report.
> 
> For him to continue to claim other wise is in fact HIM lying per HIS own definition, as I have stated.



quite the contrary.  every report would have had to contain NO DOUBT for Bush to claim that there was NO DOUBT.  Doubt in any report is, in fact, the presence of doubt.  ergo, the statement that there was NO DOUBT was a lie.

If ten weathermen tell me that there is no doubt that it will be sunny tomorrow, and one weatherman tells me it will rain, I cannot turn around and say that there is NO DOUBT that it will be sunny tomorrow... 

and when it rains...


----------



## Alpha1

If I would talk about a wooden box I keep matches in, and say....

"My wooden match box is broken"....MM and I would argue for fuckin' days about  the issue of "is my wooden box broken" or if I was talking about "wooden matches".......


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> analysts have stated that the case was not without doubt.
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/24/AR2006062401081_pf.html
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-09-02-WMD-indepth_x.htm
> 
> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040209-586175-2,00.html
> 
> http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-intell_chapter2.htm
> 
> http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?pid=1168
> 
> http://deepblade.net/journal/2005/11/everyone-thought-saddam-had-wmd.html
> 
> I could go on...and on...but you get the gist



It does not matter , your entire claim has been that Bush lied because YOU said NO one ever told him Iraq had WMD's unless they included a caveat. THIS report has NONE. IT states clearly IRAQ has WMD's, that it has mobile labs, that it has missiles and that it is working on making a nuclear weapon. 

It does not even matter if every single report after this one said " we are not sure" ( and I doubt they did) THIS report STATES Iraq has WMDs. Something you have claimed never happened. You have insisted Bush lied because he never was told Iraq had WMD's with out some Caveat. THIS report HAS NONE on the sole issue of whether Iraq had WMD's. In fact the only caveats it has are on only a couple types and that is only on whether the prewar levels have been reached.

Go ahead QUOTE any statement from this report that says Iraq might not have WMD's. AND I don't mean one of a bunch. BUT all WMDs.

The report STARTS with the STATEMENT IRAQ has WMD's. Not maybe, not could have, not any doubt.


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> I thought it was plain I was being facetious   ..............my bad?
> 
> YOu see MM takes every word used and analyzes the shit out of it...what is common plain English to most of us
> is parse from heaven to hell by MM to make a minor, inane, and useless point.....
> so watch your spelling, etc.




the words "no doubt" have meaning.  If you use them incorrectly, you convey a false impression.  that is not parsing, it is simple english grammar.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> It does not matter , your entire claim has been that Bush lied because YOU said NO one ever told him Iraq had WMD's unless they included a caveat. THIS report has NONE. IT states clearly IRAQ has WMD's, that it has mobile labs, that it has missiles and that it is working on making a nuclear weapon.
> 
> It does not even matter if every single report after this one said " we are not sure" ( and I doubt they did) THIS report STATES Iraq has WMDs. Something you have claimed never happened. You have insisted Bush lied because he never was told Iraq had WMD's with out some Caveat. THIS report HAS NONE on the sole issue of whether Iraq had WMD's. In fact the only caveats it has are on only a couple types and that is only on whether the prewar levels have been reached.
> 
> Go ahead QUOTE any statement from this report that says Iraq might not have WMD's. AND I don't mean one of a bunch. BUT all WMDs.
> 
> The report STARTS with the STATEMENT IRAQ has WMD's. Not maybe, not could have, not any doubt.



no.  I have never said that NO one ever told him Iraq had WMD's unless they included a caveat.  Doubt does not have to be universal to exist.  He was told of SOME doubts, he stated that there were none.  that was a lie.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> quite the contrary.  every report would have had to contain NO DOUBT for Bush to claim that there was NO DOUBT.  Doubt in any report is, in fact, the presence of doubt.  ergo, the statement that there was NO DOUBT was a lie.
> 
> If ten weathermen tell me that there is no doubt that it will be sunny tomorrow, and one weatherman tells me it will rain, I cannot turn around and say that there is NO DOUBT that it will be sunny tomorrow...
> 
> and when it rains...



WRONG and you know it. YOU have stated NO one ever told him Iraq had WMD's with out a caveat. YOUR entire claim depends on him never having been told the weapons existed with out a doubt. You know it and I know it and everyone else knows it.

Now once again we are back to, since BUSH was told Iraq had WMD's you have to show he did not believe that to be true. Or else he did not lie. Your entire claim is based on him never having been told for sure Iraq had WMD's.

Once again if 10 guys tell me something and an 11th guy tells me the opposite, if I believe the 11th guy, I am not lying if I state I believe him. I am not lying if I state with NO uncertainty what he said.


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> If I would talk about a wooden box I keep matches in, and say....
> 
> "My wooden match box is broken"....MM and I would argue for fuckin' days about  the issue of "is my wooden box broken" or if I was talking about "wooden matches".......



obfuscation.

again...if ten weathermen predicted sun and one predicted rain, if I were to say that there were no doubt that it would be sunny tomorrow, that would not be true.

especially when it rained!


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> no.  I have never said that NO one ever told him Iraq had WMD's unless they included a caveat.  Doubt does not have to be universal to exist.  He was told of SOME doubts, he stated that there were none.  that was a lie.



You are a liar by your own definition.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> You are a liar by your own definition.



no.  I am not.  I have not tried to convey a false impression.

answer the question:  if ten weathermen said it would be sunny and one said it would rain, would I be truthful if I stated that there was no doubt that it would be sunny tomorrow?  yes or no?

doubt does not need to be universal for there to be doubt.  On the other hand, the absence of doubt DOES need to be universal for someone to claim that "there is NO doubt".  No one is saying that every single intelligence agency around the globe doubted Saddam's WMD stockpile.... I am saying that some doubt did exist...and therefore, to claim that it did not, was a lie.


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> no.  I am not.  I have not tried to convey a false impression.
> 
> answer the question:  if ten weathermen said it would be sunny and one said it would rain, would I be truthful if I stated that there was no doubt that it would be sunny tomorrow?  yes or no?
> 
> doubt does not need to be universal for there to be doubt.  On the other hand, the absence of doubt DOES need to be universal for someone to claim that "there is NO doubt".  No one is saying that every single intelligence agency around the globe doubted Saddam's WMD stockpile.... I am saying that some doubt did exist...and therefore, to claim that it did not, was a lie.



The better question would be ....if ten weatherman claimed it would rain in DipShit, Maine tomorrow and it doesn't .....ARE THEY LIARS?   

That is the question......are they?


Of course not...they are mistaken.....they made an inaccurate claim....they were wrong.....

They truely believed it would rain in DipShit, Maine but it didn't.....big fuckin' whooop!


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> no.  I am not.  I have not tried to convey a false impression.
> 
> answer the question:  if ten weathermen said it would be sunny and one said it would rain, would I be truthful if I stated that there was no doubt that it would be sunny tomorrow?  yes or no?
> 
> doubt does not need to be universal for there to be doubt.  On the other hand, the absence of doubt DOES need to be universal for someone to claim that "there is NO doubt".  No one is saying that every single intelligence agency around the globe doubted Saddam's WMD stockpile.... I am saying that some doubt did exist...and therefore, to claim that it did not, was a lie.



And you know your wrong, Bush was told they had weapons. Bush believed they had weapons. It does not matter what 10 guys say if I do not believe them. If I believe what I am saying is true then I am not lying. You have to show he KNEW it was not true. Not that someone had some doubts, not that you had doubts. Not that Some other Country had doubts ( and based on this report I am betting most of those other Countries had no doubts either. And I am betting all the reports from the CIA all said he had weapons, we even have the head of the CIA STATING it was a slam Dunk when ask if Saddam had weapons.

Now the ball is in your court, YOU have made the claim he lied, provide us with evidence, something that actually proves he lied. Not the nefarious "someone may have told him there was doubt" How hard can it be? Ohh wait I already know, it is impossible, that would be WHY no congressional panel has ever AGREED with you.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> And you know your wrong, Bush was told they had weapons. Bush believed they had weapons. It does not matter what 10 guys say if I do not believe them. If I believe what I am saying is true then I am not lying. You have to show he KNEW it was not true. Not that someone had some doubts, not that you had doubts. Not that Some other Country had doubts ( and based on this report I am betting most of those other Countries had no doubts either. And I am betting all the reports from the CIA all said he had weapons, we even have the head of the CIA STATING it was a slam Dunk when ask if Saddam had weapons.
> 
> Now the ball is in your court, YOU have made the claim he lied, provide us with evidence, something that actually proves he lied. Not the nefarious "someone may have told him there was doubt" How hard can it be? Ohh wait I already know, it is impossible, that would be WHY no congressional panel has ever AGREED with you.




again.  we are not talking about what Bush believed, but what he was told.  You have claimed that the statement "there is no doubt" is a statement of belief.  I disagree, and think, instead, that it is a statement of fact.  As long as you see his statements as ones of personal belief, then we will always be talking about two different things.  In the english language I was taught from gradeschool on, the phrase "there is no doubt" means something different than ""I personally have no doubts"  YOu keep claiming he said - or meant to say - the latter, when in fact, he said the former.  And, given the clear presence of doubt in intelligence the reporting that was presented to him, the former is a lie.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> again.  we are not talking about what Bush believed, but what he was told.  You have claimed that the statement "there is no doubt" is a statement of belief.  I disagree, and think, instead, that it is a statement of fact.  As long as you see his statements as ones of personal belief, then we will always be talking about two different things.  In the english language I was taught from gradeschool on, the phrase "there is no doubt" means something different than ""I personally have no doubts"  YOu keep claiming he said - or meant to say - the latter, when in fact, he said the former.  And, given the clear presence of doubt in intelligence the reporting that was presented to him, the former is a lie.



And your wrong. WE have a report that CLEARLY states NO DOUBT. It does not say Saddam may have had WMD's, It does not say Saddam COULD have had them, there are NO caveats at all on the statement he had WMDs, your entire argument depends on no report ever existing that STATES NO DOUBT.

Further I am betting that before the fall of Baghdad all or most of the actual reports Bush got ARE the same. You keep claiming nefarious others put Caveats, prove it, provide us with these reports. Your claim that because Fred has doubts means I must have doubts is ignorant at best. Fred is not ME. What Fred believes is not important to what I believe.

And yes if only ONE weather man states there will be no rain tomorrow and I BELIEVE him, I can say THERE is NO DOUBT. Because for me, THERE IS NO DOUBT. What I believe DOES matter.


----------



## mattskramer

RetiredGySgt said:


> And your wrong. WE have a report that CLEARLY states NO DOUBT. It does not say Saddam may have had WMD's, It does not say Saddam COULD have had them, there are NO caveats at all on the statement he had WMDs, your entire argument depends on no report ever existing that STATES NO DOUBT.



Wouldnt the president have reviewed more than one report before deciding to have soldiers invade Iraq?  Did he ever hear doubt from anyone at all? Did he ever ask for a second opinion?  Geee.  I guess that he went with the first report that he had and, coincidentally, it stated no doubt.  That seems to be rather reckless to me. 



> And yes if only ONE weather man states there will be no rain tomorrow and I BELIEVE him, I can say THERE is NO DOUBT. Because for me, THERE IS NO DOUBT. What I believe DOES matter.



Based on my experience with watching predictive weather reports and the rate at which they are wrong, if I were planning an important outdoors event, I would ask for a second opinion  just to be more confident.  If you were going to experience a major, expensive, life-threatening surgical operation based on your first doctors opinion, wouldnt you look for a second or even a third opinion before deciding to do under the knife?  I sure would.  

By the way, with respect to the weather report, just because you do not see a newscast say that there will be no rain, does not mean that there exists no doubt among some meteorologists that there will be rain.  It just means that you decided to go with the first weather report that you saw.  You might have no doubt but you did not check out opinions from other weathermen.   That does not mean that, nowhere in the world is there doubt.    Do weathermen ever disagree on what the weather is going to do?  I think so.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

mattskramer said:


> Wouldnt the president have reviewed more than one report before deciding to have soldiers invade Iraq?  Did he ever hear doubt from anyone at all? Did he ever ask for a second opinion?  Geee.  I guess that he went with the first report that he had and, coincidentally, it stated no doubt.  That seems to be rather reckless to me.
> 
> 
> 
> Based on my experience with watching predictive weather reports and the rate at which they are wrong, if I were planning an important outdoors event, I would ask for a second opinion  just to be more confident.  If you were going to experience a major, expensive, life-threatening surgical operation based on your first doctors opinion, wouldnt you look for a second or even a third opinion before deciding to do under the knife?  I sure would.
> 
> By the way, with respect to the weather report, just because you do not see a newscast say that there will be no rain, does not mean that there exists no doubt among some meteorologists that there will be rain.  It just means that you decided to go with the first weather report that you saw.  You might have no doubt but you did not check out opinions from other weathermen.   That does not mean that, nowhere in the world is there doubt.    Do weathermen ever disagree on what the weather is going to do?  I think so.



None of which has anything to do with this conversation.


----------



## mattskramer

RetiredGySgt said:


> None of which has anything to do with this conversation.



I&#8217;m simply having fun and showing where you are wrong in your comments.  &#8220;There is no doubt&#8221; and &#8220;For me, there is no doubt&#8221; are not synonymous.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

mattskramer said:


> Im simply having fun and showing where you are wrong in your comments.



I am not wrong, It does not matter how much doubt OTHERS see, it only matters that the person that makes a statement believes.


----------



## mattskramer

RetiredGySgt said:


> I am not wrong, It does not matter how much doubt OTHERS see, it only matters that the person that makes a statement believes.



Ill try to explain the fallacy in this as easily as I can:

If I see a weather report and I am told that it will not rain tomorrow, I may agree and conclude that (1.) I have not doubt and (2.) there is no doubt.  

If I see a second weather report given by someone else and I am told that it will rain tomorrow, I may then disagree with the second person.  I can still maintain that (1.) I have no doubt (2.) but I can no longer claim that there is no doubt.  

This is because I learned that the second weather man does have doubts.  There is a difference between saying that I have no doubt and saying that there is no doubt.  In the first instance, you are speaking for yourself.  In the second instance you practically claim that no one anywhere has presented you with a different opinion. 

It is as simple as that.


----------



## Steerpike

mattskramer said:


> Ill try to explain the fallacy in this as easily as I can:
> 
> If I see a weather report and I am told that it will not rain tomorrow, I may agree and conclude that (1.) I have not doubt and (2.) there is no doubt.
> 
> If I see a second weather report given by someone else and I am told that it will rain tomorrow, I may then disagree with the second person.  I can still maintain that (1.) I have no doubt (2.) but I can no longer claim that there is no doubt.
> 
> This is because I learned that the second weather man does have doubts.  There is a difference between saying that I have no doubt and saying that there is no doubt.  In the first instance, you are speaking for yourself.  In the second instance you practically claim that no one anywhere has presented you with a different opinion.
> 
> It is as simple as that.



Kind of like when Al Gore claims there is not doubt that global warming is anthropogenic.


----------



## mattskramer

RetiredGySgt said:


> *It does not matter how much doubt OTHERS see*



*That is the key!!!*  It does matter what other people think - and say.  If someone disagrees with you and tells you so, then you cant cay that there is no doubt.  You can only say that you disagree with him and that you still have no doubt.


----------



## mattskramer

Steerpike said:


> Kind of like when Al Gore claims there is not doubt that global warming is anthropogenic.



Exactly! Bingo!  Al might have no doubt but I'm confident that he has been told that doubt exists in other people.


----------



## Steerpike

mattskramer said:


> Exactly! Bingo!  Al might have no doubt but I'm confident that he has been told that doubt exists in other people.



I agree.  

I think most of the Bush-lied crowd would not support the conclusion that Gore lies about global warming, but it looks you are consistent in your definition.


----------



## mattskramer

Steerpike said:


> I agree.
> 
> I think most of the Bush-lied crowd would not support the conclusion that Gore lies about global warming, but it looks you are consistent in your definition.



Thanks.  I try to be intellectually honest and consistent. I don&#8217;t follow any particular party.


----------



## Steerpike

mattskramer said:


> Thanks.  I try to be intellectually honest and consistent. I dont follow any particular party.



Me either.  I think blind party-adherence is one of the biggest problems we have in U.S. politics.


----------



## Shogun

I wonder if a former politician like Gore, whose "lie" has yet to kill a single human being, should by put on par with a standing president, whose lie clearly carried lethal consequences.


----------



## maineman

mattskramer said:


> *That is the key!!!*  It does matter what other people think - and say.  If someone disagrees with you and tells you so, then you cant cay that there is no doubt.  You can only say that you disagree with him and that you still have no doubt.




thasnk you Matts for effectively shutting up RGS while I was at church!

well done.


----------



## mattskramer

maineman said:


> thasnk you Matts for effectively shutting up RGS while I was at church!
> 
> well done.



You are welcome.  It was not too difficult.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Steerpike said:


> I agree.
> 
> I think most of the Bush-lied crowd would not support the conclusion that Gore lies about global warming, but it looks you are consistent in your definition.



So Maineman is Gore a liar?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

mattskramer said:


> You are welcome.  It was not too difficult.



As for you two, Because I chose to not be present on the board 24 hours a day to instantly respond to what ever you post does not equate to you shut me up, you proved me wrong or any of the other claims you make. In fact such trite claims are the refuge of losers that know they have no chance of winning EXCEPT to play these little games in the hope they get in the last word.


----------



## nibor

I think the brand of "liar" that Gore either is or isn't depending ON PROOF............SHOULD ACTUALLY DETERMINE HIS CRITIQUE!!!!!!!!!


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> So Maineman is Gore a liar?



About the certainty of manmade caused global warming?  yes

so...will you NOW finally admit that Bush lied about the certainty of Saddam's WMD's?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> About the certainty of manmade caused global warming?  yes
> 
> so...will you NOW finally admit that Bush lied about the certainty of Saddam's WMD's?



No. But thanks for admitting Gore is a liar.

You have taken his statements and blown them out of proportion in order to conduct a political partisan witch hunt. You are playing semantic games and can not even be honest about them.

It really is simple, you insist that Clinton did not commit perjury because no Judge convicted him. Yet Bush lied to Congress numerous times to you, openly, easily proven, yet no impeachment. You can not even play fair in your claims. If Clinton did not do what he CLEARLY did, even admitted to doing because of semantics on your part, why should anyone believe your gymnastics semantics in the witch hunt to accuse Bush?


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> No. But thanks for admitting Gore is a liar.
> 
> You have taken his statements and blown them out of proportion in order to conduct a political partisan witch hunt. You are playing semantic games and can not even be honest about them.
> 
> It really is simple, you insist that Clinton did not commit perjury because no Judge convicted him. Yet Bush lied to Congress numerous times to you, openly, easily proven, yet no impeachment. You can not even play fair in your claims. If Clinton did not do what he CLEARLY did, even admitted to doing because of semantics on your part, why should anyone believe your gymnastics semantics in the witch hunt to accuse Bush?




then I take it back...if you can't admit that Bush lied by stating certainty about Saddam's WMD's, then clearly Gore did not similarly lie about the certainty of global warming.

Clinton lied.  I have never denied it.  I only said that he was not guilty of perjury.

You, on the the other hand, have your nose so far up Bush's ass, you can't admit he did ANYTHING wrong.


----------



## mattskramer

RetiredGySgt said:


> As for you two, Because I chose to not be present on the board 24 hours a day to instantly respond to what ever you post does not equate to you shut me up, you proved me wrong or any of the other claims you make. In fact such trite claims are the refuge of losers that know they have no chance of winning EXCEPT to play these little games in the hope they get in the last word.



Please try being logical more often.  I know that your being away from the computer proves noting.  It, by itself, does not prove that I proved you wrong or right.  Still, I think that you should wake up and accept the facts.  I am far from being a loser.  I have proven you to be logically and factually wrong on different occasions.


----------



## mattskramer

maineman said:


> then I take it back...if you can't admit that Bush lied by stating certainty about Saddam's WMD's, then clearly Gore did not similarly lie about the certainty of global warming.
> 
> Clinton lied.  I have never denied it.  I only said that he was not guilty of perjury.
> 
> You, on the the other hand, have your nose so far up Bush's ass, you can't admit he did ANYTHING wrong.



He just jumps all over the board, doesnt he  mixing up perjury with telling lies.  Confusing I have no doubt with there is no doubt?  Oh well.  Same old same old.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> then I take it back...if you can't admit that Bush lied by stating certainty about Saddam's WMD's, then clearly Gore did not similarly lie about the certainty of global warming.
> 
> Clinton lied.  I have never denied it.  I only said that he was not guilty of perjury.
> 
> You, on the the other hand, have your nose so far up Bush's ass, you can't admit he did ANYTHING wrong.



So you agree there is no real proof Bush lied, thank you.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

mattskramer said:


> He just jumps all over the board, doesn&#8217;t he &#8211; mixing up perjury with telling lies.  Confusing &#8220;I have no doubt&#8221; with &#8220;there is no doubt&#8221;?  Oh well.  Same old same old.



Clinton DID commit Perjury. Read what it is. Here let me help.


http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/white_collar_crimes/perjury.htm



> Perjury is the "willful and corrupt taking of a false oath in regard to a material matter in a judicial proceeding". It is sometimes called "lying under oath"; that is, deliberately telling a lie in a courtroom proceeding after having taken an oath to tell the truth. It is important that the false statement be material to the case at hand&#8212;that it Could affect the outcome of the case.



There is NO requirement that one be convicted to have committed Perjury. And since Clinton ADMITTED he lied under oath on a material matter before the Court, with the intent to deceive and effect the ruling ......


Go ahead Mr. Maineman explain that one away. Now if you want to state he was never convicted of Perjury thats ok, but you can not claim he did not commit Perjury.

Further you can not claim he was never charged, the main charge in the Impeachment was that he "LIED under Oath" and the vote on that was 55 to 45.


And the LEGAL definition of Perjury.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p032.htm

Note carefully that one does not have to be found guilty to have met the standard of having committed Perjury.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> So you agree there is no real proof Bush lied, thank you.



No...I firmly believed that Bush lied by creating the false impression of absolute certainty regarding Saddam's WMD's.  That is one of the definitions of the word "lie" and he certainly stated that there was no doubt when doubt did, in fact, exist.

You refusal to just acknowledge that is really pretty funny at this point....funny, in a pathetic sort of way.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> No...I firmly believed that Bush lied by creating the false impression of absolute certainty regarding Saddam's WMD's.  That is one of the definitions of the word "lie" and he certainly stated that there was no doubt when doubt did, in fact, exist.
> 
> You refusal to just acknowledge that is really pretty funny at this point....funny, in a pathetic sort of way.



The only pathetic thing or person here is the deluded one, the one so full of partisan rancor that they can not see straight. And that would be YOU.

SO pathetic that admitting the truth is not possible, You can not have it both ways, either you can not prove Bush lied or Gore is a liar. By YOUR definition. You do not get to pick and chose cause your mad at me. MY refusal to do as you want does not let you get to ignore your own "rules" and declare Gore is not a liar. My belief has nothing to do with YOUR position on what is or is not a lie.


----------



## maineman

http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/white_collar_crimes/perjury.htm

and please note the that the very link you provide is about CRIMES.  In American jurisprudence, we have the standard that all men are innocent of a crime until proven guilty.  Clinton was never proven guilty of the crime of perjury.

_"Perjury is the "willful and corrupt taking of a false oath in regard to a material matter in a judicial proceeding". It is sometimes called "lying under oath"; that is, deliberately telling a lie in a courtroom proceeding after having taken an oath to tell the truth. *It is important that the false statement be material to the case at hand&#8212;that it Could affect the outcome of the case.* It is not considered perjury, for example, to lie about your age, unless your age is a key factor in proving the case.

Perjury can be used as a threat. Although it is a very serious crime under state and Federal laws, and while prosecutors often threaten prosecution, the number of actual prosecutions for perjury is tiny.

Perjury prosecutions stemming from civil lawsuits are particularly rare. This is because it is difficult to prove that someone is intentionally misstating a material fact, rather than simply testifying honestly from faulty memory."_



http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p032.htm

RGS: "Note carefully that one does not have to be found guilty to have met the standard of having committed Perjury."  
maineman: *Bullshit!*

and from this link:

*"In order for a person to be found guilty of perjury the government must prove: the person testified under oath before [e.g., the grand jury]; at least one particular statement was false; and the person knew at the time the testimony was false."*

again...Clinton was NEVER found guilty of the crime of perjury.

Did he lie?  of course.  Was he ever found guilty of the crime of perjury?  no.

Bush has not been charged with a crime.  But he certainly lied... he lied by making a statement that served to create a false impression... and that false impression was that there existed no doubt about the presence of Saddam's WMD's.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> The only pathetic thing or person here is the deluded one, the one so full of partisan rancor that they can not see straight. And that would be YOU.
> 
> SO pathetic that admitting the truth is not possible, You can not have it both ways, either you can not prove Bush lied or Gore is a liar. By YOUR definition. You do not get to pick and chose cause your mad at me. MY refusal to do as you want does not let you get to ignore your own "rules" and declare Gore is not a liar. My belief has nothing to do with YOUR position on what is or is not a lie.



Gore lied about the certainty of human caused global warming in exactly the same way Bush lied about the certainty of Saddam's WMD's.  Your inability to acknowledge that is pathetic.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/white_collar_crimes/perjury.htm
> 
> and please note the that the very link you provide is about CRIMES.  In American jurisprudence, we have the standard that all men are innocent of a crime until proven guilty.  Clinton was never proven guilty of the crime of perjury.
> 
> _"Perjury is the "willful and corrupt taking of a false oath in regard to a material matter in a judicial proceeding". It is sometimes called "lying under oath"; that is, deliberately telling a lie in a courtroom proceeding after having taken an oath to tell the truth. *It is important that the false statement be material to the case at handthat it Could affect the outcome of the case.* It is not considered perjury, for example, to lie about your age, unless your age is a key factor in proving the case.
> 
> Perjury can be used as a threat. Although it is a very serious crime under state and Federal laws, and while prosecutors often threaten prosecution, the number of actual prosecutions for perjury is tiny.
> 
> Perjury prosecutions stemming from civil lawsuits are particularly rare. This is because it is difficult to prove that someone is intentionally misstating a material fact, rather than simply testifying honestly from faulty memory."_
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p032.htm
> 
> RGS: "Note carefully that one does not have to be found guilty to have met the standard of having committed Perjury."
> maineman: *Bullshit!*
> 
> and from this link:
> 
> *"In order for a person to be found guilty of perjury the government must prove: the person testified under oath before [e.g., the grand jury]; at least one particular statement was false; and the person knew at the time the testimony was false."*
> 
> again...Clinton was NEVER found guilty of the crime of perjury.
> 
> Did he lie?  of course.  Was he ever found guilty of the crime of perjury?  no.
> 
> Bush has not been charged with a crime.  But he certainly lied... he lied by making a statement that served to create a false impression... and that false impression was that there existed no doubt about the presence of Saddam's WMD's.



The definition of Perjury and the legal definition do NOT stipulate one must be found guilty to have committed Perjury. Perhaps you should learn how to comprehend what you read? You are going to parse what Bush said in order to make a partisan claim BUT defend Clinton with unproven semantics.

I will admit Bush COULD have lied. Anything is possible. But you can not prove he did so. What you claim as proof is anything but.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> The definition of Perjury and the legal definition do NOT stipulate one must be found guilty to have committed Perjury. Perhaps you should learn how to comprehend what you read? You are going to parse what Bush said in order to make a partisan claim BUT defend Clinton with unproven semantics.
> 
> I will admit Bush COULD have lied. Anything is possible. But you can not prove he did so. What you claim as proof is anything but.




of course they do.... they are definitions of crimes.  all citizens are innocent of crimes until proven guilty in a court of law.

the definition of the crime is merely that.... any crime must be proven.


----------



## maineman

Clinton lied...but is not guilty of the crime of perjury.

It is not a crime to make statements that serve to convey a false impressoin.... but it is a lie.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> of course they do.... they are definitions of crimes.  all citizens are innocent of crimes until proven guilty in a court of law.
> 
> the definition of the crime is merely that.... any crime must be proven.



Wrong, read the definition ans show me where it states in order to have committed a crime one must be convicted.

One can break the law and never be convicted. One can commit any crime and not be convicted. The conviction is simply the punishment for the crime. Committing the crime does not depend on a conviction.

If you speed , even if never caught, you broke the law and you committed the crime of speeding. If you murder someone, you broke the law, a conviction is not needed to break the law.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> Wrong, read the definition ans show me where it states in order to have committed a crime one must be convicted.
> 
> One can break the law and never be convicted. One can commit any crime and not be convicted. The conviction is simply the punishment for the crime. Committing the crime does not depend on a conviction.
> 
> If you speed , even if never caught, you broke the law and you committed the crime of speeding. If you murder someone, you broke the law, a conviction is not needed to break the law.




innnocence of all crimes is presumed.  did you miss that part?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> innnocence of all crimes is presumed.  did you miss that part?



That is not part of the definition of a crime. It just determines whether you pay a price or not. 

PLEASE provide the part of the definition of any crime that states you must be convicted in order to have committed the crime. I provided the LEGAL definition of Perjury, go ahead show me in there where it states a conviction is required to have committed the crime.

You want to play semantics on what is and is not a lie but then want to IGNORE the stated definition of what is Perjury.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> That is not part of the definition of a crime. It just determines whether you pay a price or not.
> 
> PLEASE provide the part of the definition of any crime that states you must be convicted in order to have committed the crime. I provided the LEGAL definition of Perjury, go ahead show me in there where it states a conviction is required to have committed the crime.
> 
> You want to play semantics on what is and is not a lie but then want to IGNORE the stated definition of what is Perjury.




definitions of crimes are just that.  Please show me where "innocent until proven guilty" has been thrown out of our legal system.

Like I said....Clinton lied, but is guilty of no crime.

Bush lied, and similarly is quilty of no crime


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> definitions of crimes are just that.  Please show me where "innocent until proven guilty" has been thrown out of our legal system.
> 
> Like I said....Clinton lied, but is guilty of no crime.
> 
> Bush lied, and similarly is quilty of no crime



Again provide me a quote from the legal definition of perjury that requires one to be convicted to have committed the crime. It is an easy question.

And I ask again if you go 45 in 35 have you broken the law, whether caught convicted or not?


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> Again provide me a quote from the legal definition of perjury that requires one to be convicted to have committed the crime. It is an easy question.
> 
> And I ask again if you go 45 in 35 have you broken the law, whether caught convicted or not?




I ask YOU again, are we ALL not presumed innocent until proven guilty? Therefore, isn't Clinton innocent of the crime of perjury?

THAT is a profoundly easy question.

And again... I have NOT suggested that Bush's statements about the certainty of Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's were a crime.  I have only stated that they WERE lies, in that they served to convey a false impression.


----------



## mattskramer

RetiredGySgt said:


> Again provide me a quote from the legal definition of perjury that requires one to be convicted to have committed the crime. It is an easy question.
> 
> And I ask again if you go 45 in 35 have you broken the law, whether caught convicted or not?



I agree with you on this one.  I can go with it.  Okay.  I think that Bush lied to the people in that I think that he knew that there was doubt in the world.  Some sources: letters, people, etc. suspected that Saddam did not have WMD.   Yet, Bush was not going to take this into consideration or acknowledge it before the American people.  Instead, he said not only that he had no doubt but also that there was no doubt.  

Now, concerning Clinton, I think that he committed perjury.  Yet, he was never convicted of it.  Years ago, I shoplifted an empty soda bottle from inside a store so that I could return the bottle for a nickel.  I was never detained.  Did I commit a crime &#8211; yes. Was I convicted of it &#8211; no. It reminds me of what by brother once said about committing crime:  It is only illegal if you get caught. 

 Still, I wonder what the worse crime was: the &#8220;lie&#8221; or the perjury. (You know me. I believe in relativity.) So I look at the consequences. Bush&#8217;s lie &#8211; which he succeeded in telling - supported the rationale to send thousands of our soldiers to their deaths too soon and unnecessarily.  Clinton&#8217;s lie &#8211; which failed - just delayed his getting publicly ridiculed and possibly thrown out of the presidency.  You be the judge (pun unintended).


----------



## Alpha1

One can break the law and never be convicted. One can commit any crime and not be convicted. The conviction is simply the punishment for the crime. Committing the crime does not depend on a conviction.
-------------------------------------------------
You really gotta be extra special stupid to not understand the difference between committing a crime and being found guilty of committing a crime....

MM...is getting to be a laughing stock on this board.....maybe its the mushrooms in Maine....turning his brain into a pile of shit....


----------



## mattskramer

Alpha1 said:


> One can break the law and never be convicted. One can commit any crime and not be convicted. The conviction is simply the punishment for the crime. Committing the crime does not depend on a conviction.
> -------------------------------------------------
> You really gotta be extra special stupid to not understand the difference between committing a crime and being found guilty of committing a crime....
> 
> MM...is getting to be a laughing stock on this board.....maybe its the mushrooms in Maine....turning his brain into a pile of shit....



Oh lighten up.   He is not a laughing stock.  He is one of the more insightful, knowledgeable and sound thinking people here.  While I dont agree with it, I see and understand MMs perspective too.  Perjury is a legal term (used extensively in law).  Therefore, it would seem reasonable to think that a judge must declare an action to be perjury for there to be perjury.  That is not unreasonable. We just disagree on the precise definition of perjury.  I dont think that it is limited to what a judge decides.  People can commit such crimes as perjury while not being convicted of such crimes.


----------



## Alpha1

mattskramer said:


> Oh lighten up.   He is not a laughing stock.  He is one of the more insightful, knowledgeable and sound thinking people here.  While I don&#8217;t agree with it, I see and understand MM&#8217;s perspective too.  Perjury is a legal term (used extensively in law).  Therefore, it would seem reasonable to think that a judge must declare an action to be perjury for there to be perjury.  That is not unreasonable. We just disagree on the precise definition of perjury.  I don&#8217;t think that it is limited to what a judge decides.  People can commit such crimes as perjury while not being convicted of such crimes.



Please spare me....insightful my ass.....]
He argues about the most inane and insignificant crap and when he gets schooled he just digs in harder....

The simple fact is that you don't need to get convicted of a crime to be guilty of committing that crime.....THATS A FACT

Notwithstanding what the meaning of is is.....
--------------------------------


----------



## Alpha1

Play MM's silly game of "Parsing The Words" .....have fun....

(lets not add or omit from the actual quotes, play fair)
====
NIE REPORT.....

"We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. *Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons *  as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade."

Bush statement under debate......

"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."
George Bush March 18, 2003
----------------------------------------------
Bush talks about only "lethal weapons".....nothing specific there....

So Bush claims intell gathered by this nation leaves no doubt about Iraq having "lethal weapons"...AS POSITIVELY STATED IN THE NIE

And Bush claims intell gathered by other governments leaves no doubt about Iraq and "lethal weapons"......
---------------------------------------------
Well ...there is no doubt that the NIE report states without question that *Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons * the report uses words that are definite and show certainty.........so Bush is right

But I can't vouch for intell from other governments or which governments he means....so I don't know about that one way or the other.....
---------------------------------------------

Lets hear the spin from the idiot....go MM.....


----------



## Steerpike

I think we're using both the legal definition of "guilty" and the more common definition of the word, and that is the source of the confusion.

In a legal sense, you are not "guilty" of a crime unless you are convicted of it in court.  And during the court process you are presumed innocent.  If I commit a crime and no one ever finds out, then I'm not "guilty" in the strict legal sense of the word.  Likewise, if I go to court and am acquitted, I am not "guilty" in the legal sense even if I really did it and the jury made the wrong decision.

As that word is used in every day parlance, though, if you did something criminal, then you are guilty of having done it.


----------



## mattskramer

Alpha1 said:


> Please spare me....insightful my ass.....]
> He argues about the most inane and insignificant crap and when he gets schooled he just digs in harder....
> 
> The simple fact that you don't need to get convicted of a crime to be guilty of committing that crime.....THATS A FACT
> 
> Notwithstanding what the meaning of is is.....
> --------------------------------



Ive debated him.  At least he has the class to admit when he has been proven wrong or when he goes over the top - which is a lot more than I can say for many people here.


----------



## Alpha1

Steerpike said:


> I think we're using both the legal definition of "guilty" and the more common definition of the word, and that is the source of the confusion.
> 
> In a legal sense, you are not "guilty" of a crime unless you are convicted of it in court.  And during the court process you are presumed innocent.  If I commit a crime and no one ever finds out, then I'm not "guilty" in the strict legal sense of the word.  Likewise, if I go to court and am acquitted, I am not "guilty" in the legal sense even if I really did it and the jury made the wrong decision.
> 
> As that word is used in every day parlance, though, if you did something criminal, then you are guilty of having done it.



Being guilty
Being charged
Being convicted

These are all different .......

You've heard of innocent people being charged and convicted of crimes?


----------



## mattskramer

Steerpike said:


> In a legal sense, you are not "guilty" of a crime unless you are convicted of it in court.  And during the court process you are presumed innocent.  If I commit a crime and no one ever finds out, then I'm not "guilty" in the strict legal sense of the word.  Likewise, if I go to court and am acquitted, I am not "guilty" in the legal sense even if I really did it and the jury made the wrong decision.



If you commit a crime, you commit a crime.


----------



## Steerpike

mattskramer said:


> If you commit a crime, you commit a crime.



Yeah, I think that's fairly obvious.  Doesn't change any of what I posted, however.


----------



## Alpha1

mattskramer said:


> Ive debated him.  At least he has the class to admit when he has been proven wrong or when he goes over the top - which is a lot more than I can say for many people here.



Hes been proven wrong right here....wheres the class.....

You don't need to be convicted of a crime to be guilty of a crime.....

and a matter of fact...you don't have to guilty of a crime to be convicted of the crime.....

surely you understand that...
-------------------

Likewise...its impossible to lie stating something you truely believe....
You may be wrong, but being wrong is not lying....


----------



## Alpha1

mattskramer said:


> If you commit a crime, you commit a crime.


 Absolutely right

Now we quote MM...

"and please note the that the very link you provide is about CRIMES. In American jurisprudence, we have the standard that all men are innocent of a crime until proven guilty. Clinton was never proven guilty of the crime of perjury."

--------
So,...you're innocent until proven guilty ?
(Actually you may be innocent even after you're judged to be guilty)

AND

"Clinton was never proven guilty of the crime of perjury."
(Thats true. But what does that have to do with his guilt or innocence of perjury?....NOTHING)
-------------------

See........We can all play his silly word games....


----------



## mattskramer

Alpha1 said:


> Hes been proven wrong right here....wheres the class.....



Yes, of course you must show where they are wrong.  It is okay to be wrong.  That is not my point.  My point is that from what I&#8217;ve seen, when MM is finally proven to be wrong, he will (sometimes) admit to what has become obvious.  That shows class in my book.  Some people never seem to admit that they are ever wrong, even when you clearly show that they made a technical error.



> You don't need to be convicted of a crime to be guilty of a crime.....
> 
> and a matter of fact...you don't have to guilty of a crime to be convicted of the crime.....
> 
> surely you understand that...



*We agree.*
-------------------



> Likewise...its impossible to lie stating something you truely believe....
> You may be wrong, but being wrong is not lying....



Yes, I see your point but until we have mind readers, we must make judgment calls.  I made a judgment call about Bush.  I think that he read or heard, from at least one person, doubt that Saddam had WMD.  I think that he remembered such information and said that there is no doubt that Saddam had WMD.  I&#8217;m not a mind reader.  It is possible that I am wrong, but I doubt it. 

Even if we had video showing Bush hearing doubt, Bush can still claim that he forgot about hearing such doubt when he made his statement saying that there is no doubt.  So, I see your point. To tell a lie, one must know that what he is saying is not true. 

I guess that without absolute proof to convict you of telling a lie, the best defense that you have is to claim forgetfulness and ignorance.


----------



## mattskramer

Alpha1 said:


> Absolutely right
> 
> Now we quote MM...
> 
> "and please note the that the very link you provide is about CRIMES. In American jurisprudence, we have the standard that all men are innocent of a crime until proven guilty. Clinton was never proven guilty of the crime of perjury."
> 
> --------
> So,...you're innocent until proven guilty ?
> (Actually you may be innocent even after you're judged to be guilty)
> 
> AND
> 
> "Clinton was never proven guilty of the crime of perjury."
> (Thats true. But what does that have to do with his guilt or innocence of perjury?....NOTHING)
> -------------------
> 
> See........We can all play his silly word games....



I dont think that you are hearing me.  *I disagree with MM in his definition of perjury* but I still think that he shows class.


----------



## Alpha1

mattskramer said:


> Yes, of course you must show where they are wrong.  It is okay to be wrong.  That is not my point.  My point is that from what Ive seen, when MM is finally proven to be wrong, he will (sometimes) admit to what has become obvious.  That shows class in my book.  Some people never seem to admit that they are ever wrong, even when you clearly show that they made a technical error.
> 
> 
> 
> *We agree.*
> -------------------
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I see your point but until we have mind readers, we must make judgment calls.  I made a judgment call about Bush.  I think that he read or heard, from at least one person, doubt that Saddam had WMD.  I think that he remembered such information and said that there is no doubt that Saddam had WMD.  Im not a mind reader.  It is possible that I am wrong, but I doubt it.
> 
> Even if we had video showing Bush hearing doubt, Bush can still claim that he forgot about hearing such doubt when he made his statement saying that there is no doubt.  So, I see your point. To tell a lie, one must know that what he is saying is not true.
> 
> I guess that without absolute proof to convict you of telling a lie, the best defense that you have is to claim forgetfulness and ignorance.



We can discuss Bush....
Re-read Post 359......Bush qualified his belief to the intell he was getting ....

There is no doubt about what the 10/2002 NIE said.....

We can talk about what it was Bush actually said, instead of what MM thinks Bush actually said.....we shouldn't put words into anyones mouth to manufacture a biased belief.....

None of us a mindreaders, for sure....


----------



## Alpha1

mattskramer said:


> I dont think that you are hearing me.  *I disagree with MM in his definition of perjury* but I still think that he shows class.



Oh I "hear" ya Matts.....

It was only a few days ago MM was claiming Clinton was never charged or tryed on the perjury charges....after schooling him on that, he never admitted being wrong....(so you're mistaken on the class, he has little to none)

And its not his definition of perjury thats in question...its his attempt to muddy the issue with his underhanded crap about

being guilty or not quilty of a crime, 
proven to being quilty or not guilty of a crime, 
innocent until proven guilty of crime, 
etc....
All superfluous crap to disguise issues he is clearly losing on and will never give in to.....


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> I ask YOU again, are we ALL not presumed innocent until proven guilty? Therefore, isn't Clinton innocent of the crime of perjury?
> 
> THAT is a profoundly easy question.
> 
> And again... I have NOT suggested that Bush's statements about the certainty of Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's were a crime.  I have only stated that they WERE lies, in that they served to convey a false impression.



Clinton is not innocent because he ADMITTED he did it. He was never convicted of it, but he did it.


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> Hes been proven wrong right here....wheres the class.....
> 
> You don't need to be convicted of a crime to be guilty of a crime.....
> 
> and a matter of fact...you don't have to guilty of a crime to be convicted of the crime.....
> 
> surely you understand that...
> -------------------
> 
> Likewise...its impossible to lie stating something you truely believe....
> You may be wrong, but being wrong is not lying....




you need to be convicted of a crime to be GUILTY of a crime.

YOU do not need to be convicted of a crime to perhaps have participated in illegal or criminal behavior.

Clinton lied under oath.  No one is suggesting otherwise.  He is NOT, however, GUILTY of any crime, because, in American justice in every state except Louisiana I think, the law is based upon English common law, in which the presumption of innocence is sacrosanct. Clinton, therefore, is innocent of the crime of perjury until he is proven guilty in a court of law.

And AGAIN...just because there are some phrases in the 2002 NIE that show no doubt in Saddam's WMD stockpiles does NOT mean that there was not plenty of doubt in the intelligence community about that very thing.  And, by all accounts, Bush was privy to those reports and KNEW that there were varying levels of doubt and uncertainty about Saddam's stockpiles.  Whether he himself was sure or not, he could not honestly say that "THERE IS NO DOUBT", when, in fact, there was.   He could have said, "there is very little doubt"...or..."I personally have no doubt"... or... "I completely believe"... and those would not have been lies.  To say that "there is no doubt" when that is simply not true, is a lie.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> Clinton is not innocent because he ADMITTED he did it. He was never convicted of it, but he did it.




his "admission" is irrelevant.  He was never found guilty of the crime, ergo he is innocent of it in the eyes of the law.


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> Oh I "hear" ya Matts.....
> 
> It was only a few days ago MM was claiming Clinton was never charged or tryed on the perjury charges....after schooling him on that, he never admitted being wrong....(so you're mistaken on the class, he has little to none)
> 
> And its not his definition of perjury thats in question...its his attempt to muddy the issue with his underhanded crap about
> 
> being guilty or not quilty of a crime,
> proven to being quilty or not guilty of a crime,
> innocent until proven guilty of crime,
> etc....
> All superfluous crap to disguise issues he is clearly losing on and will never give in to.....



I still do not accept the fact that the Impeachment proceedings in the Senate was any sort of a criminal trial.  If they had impeached him, he would not have become a felon, or convicted of any crime...he would have merely been removed from office in a non-judicial legislative proceeding.

And the point is not about Clinton's lies, it is about Bush's....any mention of Clinton in this discussion is clearly obfuscation.


----------



## Steerpike

maineman said:


> I still do not accept the fact that the Impeachment proceedings in the Senate was any sort of a criminal trial.



Impeachment proceedings are often said to be quasi-criminal in nature.  The trial isn't really a civil or criminal trial.  It has some characteristics of criminal trials, I suppose, but it has some important differences as well:

1. The impeached official does not have a right to trial by Jury, which the Constitution guarantees in criminal cases;

2.  The Presidential pardon power does not extend to impeachments, though it does extend to any "criminal" offense;

3.  The Federal Rules of Evidence don't apply in an Impeachment trial;

4.  Conviction in an impeachment trial does not require a unanimous decision.

So it's not really a criminal trial.  It is its own sort of trial - separate from either criminal or civil trials.


----------



## maineman

Steerpike said:


> Impeachment proceedings are often said to be quasi-criminal in nature.  The trial isn't really a civil or criminal trial.  It has some characteristics of criminal trials, I suppose, but it has some important differences as well:
> 
> 1. The impeached official does not have a right to trial by Jury, which the Constitution guarantees in criminal cases;
> 
> 2.  The Presidential pardon power does not extend to impeachments, though it does extend to any "criminal" offense;
> 
> 3.  The Federal Rules of Evidence don't apply in an Impeachment trial;
> 
> 4.  Conviction in an impeachment trial does not require a unanimous decision.
> 
> So it's not really a criminal trial.  It is its own sort of trial - separate from either criminal or civil trials.



I concur


----------



## Shogun

I invite all the "Bush didn't lie about phantom WMDs" people to wear that on their shit while voting in the primaries tomorrow.  


You can wear your "Blame Clinton" long johns right underneath.


----------



## Alpha1

So lets play the MainemanSillyGame.....


MAINEMAN......."his "admission" is irrelevant. He was never found guilty of the crime, ergo he is innocent of it in the eyes of the law."

What super spin.....Notice...NO ONE ever claimed Clinton was found guilty of a crime...or that he was guilty in the eyes of the law in the first place.......
So MM comes off as telling us ....well, nothing we didn't know before.....

Because Clinton wasn't 'found guilty' has absolutely nothing to do with him being guilty.....HE IS GUILTY, HE SAID HE LIED, lying under oath is a crime, being tried or convicted is irrelevant.......He admitted his lying, ergo his guilt....
To claim under oath in a sworn deposition that "I was never alone with Ms. Lowinsky" is plainly a lie, his guilt is undeniable.......

MAINEMAN....."I still do not accept the fact that the Impeachment proceedings in the Senate was any sort of a criminal trial. If they had impeached him, he would not have become a felon, or convicted of any crime.."

...And here we go again...NO ONE claimed that impeachment proceedings are any sort of "criminal" trail.....but it is a trial nonetheless....and one of the charges was perjury.....So MM comes off as telling us ....well, nothing we didn't know before.....Clinton was charged and tried....

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush's exact words....................

"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."

And thats EXACTLY what the US intell said , as PROVEN by the conclusions of the 16 intell groups that make up the NIE report .....
No doubts in this report, just clear, plain, and simple words that define certainty....the word HAS....

The belief that Bush heard, or was made privy to doubts, ideas, etc.  presented by others, including, but not limited to, Huey, Dewy and Louie....Tinkerbell and Ted Kennedy, Larry, Moe and Hillary, or anyone else is irrelevant.....

What matters is what he said.....Our intelligence and the intelligence from numerous others nations... led Bush to conclude, and re-enforce his belief that Iraq possessed "some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."....

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt .... no doubt to whom, you ask....

He didn't say "leaves no doubt anywhere in the world"
He didn't say "leaves no doubt to Americans"
He didn't say "leaves no doubt to Democrats"

So lacking a specific entity or identifying any particular group.......Bush would have to be speaking for himself.....simply because HE is the speaker... 
Those lacking common sense might disagree....but that just makes them wrong.


----------



## mattskramer

Alpha1 said:


> Bush's exact words....................
> 
> "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."
> 
> And thats EXACTLY what the US intell said , as PROVEN by the conclusions of the 16 intell groups that make up the NIE report .....
> No doubts in this report, just clear, plain, and simple words that define certainty....the word HAS....
> 
> The belief that Bush heard, or was made privy to doubts, ideas, etc.  presented by others, including, but not limited to, Huey, Dewy and Louie....Tinkerbell and Ted Kennedy, Larry, Moe and Hillary, or anyone else is irrelevant.....
> 
> What matters is what he said.....Our intelligence and the intelligence from numerous others nations... led Bush to conclude, and re-enforce his belief that Iraq possessed "some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."....
> 
> "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt .... no doubt to whom, you ask....
> 
> He didn't say "leaves no doubt anywhere in the world"
> He didn't say "leaves no doubt to Americans"
> He didn't say "leaves no doubt to Democrats"
> 
> So lacking a specific entity or identifying any particular group.......Bush would have to be speaking for himself.....simply because HE is the speaker...
> Those lacking common sense might disagree....but that just makes them wrong.



I disagree with your interpretation of Bushs statement.  Without there being a modifier, no doubt is to be taken globally.  It is as if he were saying that there is no doubt with anyone anywhere.


----------



## Alpha1

mattskramer said:


> I disagree with your interpretation of Bush&#8217;s statement.  Without there being a modifier, &#8220;no doubt&#8221; is to be taken globally.  It is as if he were saying that there is no doubt with anyone anywhere.


I don't like the global aspect just because the intell wasn't available globally....but was available to him....
I'll not disagree with your interpretation, if its your position not to allow the speaker some leeway in parsing the quote, thats within your rights .....so lets look closer, at the exact words and parse away........

Bush's exact words....................

"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."

So what is Bush saying here....? Is it really WHO has or has not doubt....
What leaves no doubt?.....the intelligence gathered ?

The NIE report shows just that....but it doesn't speak to other governments.....Bush is saying that our intell leaves no doubt and the NIE report says Iraq HAS....not might have, could have or will have....

So why not take his words exactly as stated.....

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt.....

Read the NIE report and that is true..the report doesn't have qualifers or caveats......that covers our intell...
Neither of us can know what 'other governments' intell said, or how their conclusions were worded......ergo....Bush is not lying....

He makes no claims about others having doubt, he speaks about the intell he was given ...... not about what other individuals claimed.....


----------



## mattskramer

Alpha1 said:


> I'll not disagree with your interpretation, if its your position not to allow the speaker some leeway in parsing the quote, thats within your rights .....so lets look closer, at the exact words and parse away........
> 
> Bush's exact words....................
> 
> "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."
> 
> So what is Bush saying here....? Is it really WHO has or has not doubt....
> What leaves no doubt?.....the intelligence gathered ?
> 
> The NIE report shows just that....but it doesn't speak to other governments.....Bush is saying that our intell leaves no doubt and the NIE report says Iraq HAS....not might have, could have or will have....
> 
> So why not take his words exactly as stated.....
> 
> "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt.....
> 
> Read the NIE report and that is true..the report doesn't have qualifers or caveats......that covers our intell...
> Neither of us can know what 'other governments' intell said, or how their conclusions were worded......ergo....Bush is not lying....



Okay.  Has Bush read or heard nothing else concerning the allegations of WMD?  I would think that before someone makes such a conclusive global statement, he would have asked for and received second opinions.  Is the summary of the NIE the only thing that intelligence agencies have presented to Bush?  Was everyone in all intelligence branches in complete agreement?  Has Bush read anything else that intelligence from this or other governments had available? 

Okay.  Perhaps Bush was lazy and foolish enough to only read a summary statement &#8211; one page of one report &#8211; and base his superlative statement on that.  Okay.  In that case, he was lazy and foolish but I can&#8217;t say that he lied.  Still, I doubt that Bush relied just on one paper.  I think that he did hear or read from other people in the intelligence communities and ignored them &#8211; but I have no proof of it. 

Of course we know the conclusions reached by intelligence from other nations.  They conclude that there were, without a doubt, WMD. Otherwise, Bush would have lied, for he said &#8220;Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt&#8221;


----------



## Alpha1

mattskramer said:


> Okay.  Has Bush read or heard nothing else concerning the allegations of WMD?  I would think that before someone makes such a conclusive global statement, he would have asked for and received second opinions.
> I don't think its a global statement at all...he says 'our intell leaves no doubt' and intell from other governments...and that NIE report proves that..and we aren't privy to what other nations intell he might mean....
> 
> 
> Is the summary of the NIE the only thing that intelligence agencies have presented to Bush?
> He mentions intell from other governments...so obviously no
> Was everyone in all intelligence branches in complete agreement?  Has Bush read anything else that intelligence from this or other governments had available?
> The NIE is made up of 16 different agencys and they as a group agree to the conclusions
> Okay.  Perhaps Bush was lazy and foolish enough to only read a summary statement  one page of one report  and base his superlative statement on that.
> Really now...do you expect he or any president would read the thousands of pages that 16 groups have compiled?
> Okay.  In that case, he was lazy and foolish but I cant say that he lied.  Still, I doubt that Bush relied just on one paper.  I think that he did hear or read from other people in the intelligence communities and ignored them  but I have no proof of it.
> 
> Of course we know the conclusions reached by intelligence from other nations.  They conclude that there were, without a doubt, WMD. Otherwise, Bush would have lied, for he said Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt



Actually...not knowing what the other nations intell provided or how their conclusions were presented....that is the one thing where Bush could have been lying.. what other governments provided him before the war...

Maybe we've all been reading this Bush quote in the wrong light....


----------



## Alpha1

Thanks for a civil discussion.....later


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> Actually...not knowing what the other nations intell provided or how their conclusions were presented....that is the one thing where Bush could have been lying.. what other governments provided him before the war...
> 
> Maybe we've all been reading this Bush quote in the wrong light....



so..you are saying that, in none of the intelligence from US intelligence agencies, they were any caveats and qualifiers that provided ANY doubt about Saddam's WMD stockpiles?


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> so..you are saying that, in none of the intelligence from US intelligence agencies, they were any caveats and qualifiers that provided ANY doubt about Saddam's WMD stockpiles?



Thats obviously not what I'm saying....assuming you mean me...

The NIE conclusions,( based on the intell from 16 different US agencys,)has no caveats.....when it concludes---------- 

"We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade."

That conclusion alone provides certainty from at least the combined resources of the 16 agencys that co-operate to produce the NIE report, they are certain and have reported that certainty to Bush.....
-----------------------------------------

And Bush is not claiming....that everyone expressed no doubt ...or that no doubt existed in the entire world.... he is plainly expressing that some specific intell gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt....as is plainly stated by the NIE report and its 16 intell agencys.....

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt 

..... Bush didn't identify the NIE report by name nor exactly what other governments lead him to say what he said....

If in fact doubt did exist somewhere ?   So what...? Bush is not making that claim in the first place....as you insist he was....


----------



## Alpha1

And you can go a step further.....

Even IF there were other intell reports that expressed doubt....so what again...

Bush's exact words....................

"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."

The NIE report of 10/02 in particular, confirms this as fact, at lease about intell gathered by this government......THIS intell leaves no doubt.....so at the very least...this NIE report proves Bush correct....


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> And you can go a step further.....
> 
> Even IF there were other intell reports that expressed doubt....so what again...
> 
> Bush's exact words....................
> 
> "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."
> 
> The NIE report of 10/02 in particular, confirms this as fact, at lease about intell gathered by this government......THIS intell leaves no doubt.....so at the very least...this NIE report proves Bush correct....



He does not refer specifically to the 10/02 NIE.... He had access to and was briefed on much more detailed intelligence than was contained in one estimate.  As I have said.... many analysts have come forward and all relate similar stories: that the Bush administration was provided with a great deal of intelligence that contained doubt...contained uncertainty... and Bush chose to ignore it...but beyond that, he chose to convey the false impression to the American people that it did not even exist. And this wasn't just one statement by Bush, but a cacaphony of false impressions by Rummy and Condi and Shooter and Hadley and Feith.... over and over again... no doubt...absolute certainty...not only did we KNOW he had them, we even knew where they were.... over and over....
combined with the directly implied 9/11 and AQ connections.... all part of the rush to war.  misleading America into a war that did not need to be fought but which Bush wanted to fight.


----------



## mattskramer

Alpha1 said:


> And you can go a step further.....
> 
> Even IF there were other intell reports that expressed doubt....so what again...
> 
> Bush's exact words....................
> 
> "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."
> 
> The NIE report of 10/02 in particular, confirms this as fact, at lease about intell gathered by this government......THIS intell leaves no doubt.....so at the very least...this NIE report proves Bush correct....



Im walking away from this debate.  If you want to declare yourself the winner, so be it.  Interpret Bushs message as you see fit.  I cant prove that he lied.  There is mo way to know if he saw other information and ignored it when he made his statement.  I still contend that he either lied or was foolish to not look at a wide variety of resources.  There are certainly some items to support the notion that there might not have been WMD.  If Bush looked around and saw things from different perspectives, then he would have seen them.   If he didnt consider the other side, but just grabbed what he had and pushed us into war, then it is just another example of his being a unilateral cowboy with an itchy trigger finger.


----------



## maineman

mattskramer said:


> Im walking away from this debate.  If you want to declare yourself the winner, so be it.  Interpret Bushs message as you see fit.  I cant prove that he lied.  There is mo way to know if he saw other information and ignored it when he made his statement.  I still contend that he either lied or was foolish to not look at a wide variety of resources.  There are certainly some items to support the notion that there might not have been WMD.  If Bush looked around and saw things from different perspectives, then he would have seen them.   If he didnt consider the other side, but just grabbed what he had and pushed us into war, then it is just another example of his being a unilateral cowboy with an itchy trigger finger.



I agree Matt.  Discussions with Alpha have always been circular in nature.  I'm out too.... 

I believe Bush knew of doubt...I believe he portrayed an absence of doubt...I believe he and his team attempted to connect Saddam and AQ and implied that connection existed prior to 9/11.  History will judge him.  I, for one, only hope that I outlive him so that I can go piss on his grave.  I have no need to convince Bush lovers...they will never admit their boy did anything wrong.


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> He does not refer specifically to the 10/02 NIE.... He had access to and was briefed on much more detailed intelligence than was contained in one estimate.  As I have said.... many analysts have come forward and all relate similar stories: that the Bush administration was provided with a great deal of intelligence that contained doubt...contained uncertainty... and Bush chose to ignore it...but beyond that, he chose to convey the false impression to the American people that it did not even exist. And this wasn't just one statement by Bush, but a cacaphony of false impressions by Rummy and Condi and Shooter and Hadley and Feith.... over and over again... no doubt...absolute certainty...not only did we KNOW he had them, we even knew where they were.... over and over....
> combined with the directly implied 9/11 and AQ connections.... all part of the rush to war.  misleading America into a war that did not need to be fought but which Bush wanted to fight.



And I contend, its irrelevant what individual analysts have said.....or even if one or two agencys expressed reservations about Saddam.....
The NIE consists of 16 different agencys that pool their intell...analyze the shit out of it as a group and arrived at a consensus....
The Pres. doesn't get 16 different conclusions...he gets the result of stiring together all 16 with a best estimate.....and this particular NIE conclusion of 10/02 makes his claim true and correct..... 

I QUOTE:
"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."

Now, is the 10/02 NIE report, intelligence gathered by this government?  YES
Does this report clearly state that Saddam HAS WMD..?   YES
Can we debate what other governments revealed to Bush with any accuracy.....NO
Can we believe that at least some other governments agreed with the NIE.? YES
Does it matter even if some governments expressed doubt ?  NO


ergo.....BUSH DID NOT LIE.....

Bush's quote is limited in scope....it makes a specific claim....



This is not about Rummy and Condi and Shooter and Hadley and Feith.....its about Bush.....


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Alpha1 said:


> And I contend, its irrelevant what individual analysts have said.....or even if one or two agencys expressed reservations about Saddam.....
> The NIE consists of 16 different agencys that pool their intell...analyze the shit out of it as a group and arrived at a consensus....
> The Pres. doesn't get 16 different conclusions...he gets the result of stiring together all 16 with a best estimate.....and this particular NIE conclusion of 10/02 makes his claim true and correct.....
> 
> I QUOTE:
> "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."
> 
> Now, is the 10/02 NIE report, intelligence gathered by this government?  YES
> Does this report clearly state that Saddam HAS WMD..?   YES
> Can we debate what other governments revealed to Bush with any accuracy.....NO
> Can we believe that at least some other governments agreed with the NIE.? YES
> Does it matter even if some governments expressed doubt ?  NO
> 
> 
> ergo.....BUSH DID NOT LIE.....
> 
> Bush's quote is limited in scope....it makes a specific claim....



Except idealogics like maineman do NOT care about facts or reality, it is all about political back biting because Clinton was impeached. Mainemena keeps making a claim that is patently false and stating he knows with out EVER providing a single actual link to some source.

Further he insists even though Bush qualified his Statement that it is global and all encompassing of every living person that may have had a doubt some where in the world.

You nor I will ever get him to admit he is wrong. But his own criteria make his statement a lie.


----------



## mattskramer

maineman said:


> I agree Matt.  Discussions with Alpha have always been circular in nature.  I'm out too....
> 
> I believe Bush knew of doubt...I believe he portrayed an absence of doubt...I believe he and his team attempted to connect Saddam and AQ and implied that connection existed prior to 9/11.  History will judge him.  I, for one, only hope that I outlive him so that I can go piss on his grave.  I have no need to convince Bush lovers...they will never admit their boy did anything wrong.



Im not a fan of cruel hyperbole  as you may have gathered from my comments criticizing Ann Coulter.  Anyway, I think that I can sense your bitterness but I wouldnt go that far.  Dont let your anger toward him damage your health while you wait for a day that might not arrive.


----------



## DeadCanDance

maineman said:


> I agree Matt.  Discussions with Alpha have always been circular in nature.  I'm out too....
> 
> I believe Bush knew of doubt...I believe he portrayed an absence of doubt...I believe he and his team attempted to connect Saddam and AQ and implied that connection existed prior to 9/11.  History will judge him.  I, for one, only hope that I outlive him so that I can go piss on his grave.  *I have no need to convince Bush lovers...they will never admit their boy did anything wrong.*



Amen. 

PS:  Cheney was saying there was "no doubt" well before the NIE was even put together.   So, the laying the blame on the NIE is a diversion.


----------



## maineman

mattskramer said:


> Im not a fan of cruel hyperbole  as you may have gathered from my comments criticizing Ann Coulter.  Anyway, I think that I can sense your bitterness but I wouldnt go that far.  Dont let your anger toward him damage your health while you wait for a day that might not arrive.



Thanks for the good advice...I tell you what:  I won't make a special trip to find his final resting place...but if I ever happen to be in the area, and have a full bladder, I know where I'm heading.  fair enough?


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> Except idealogics like maineman do NOT care about facts or reality, it is all about political back biting because Clinton was impeached. Mainemena keeps making a claim that is patently false and stating he knows with out EVER providing a single actual link to some source.
> 
> Further he insists even though Bush qualified his Statement that it is global and all encompassing of every living person that may have had a doubt some where in the world.
> 
> You nor I will ever get him to admit he is wrong. But his own criteria make his statement a lie.




It has nothing to do with Clinton's impeachment - for me anyway.... and my claim is not patently false.... it is merely one you don't chose to entertain.  ANd I have never insisted that the doubt involved needed to include every living person.... simply the skilled analysts of his own intelligence agencies.

And your finaly statement is, of course, inaccurate.  I have not made any statements that were served to convey a false impression.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> It has nothing to do with Clinton's impeachment - for me anyway.... and my claim is not patently false.... it is merely one you don't chose to entertain.  ANd I have never insisted that the doubt involved needed to include every living person.... simply the skilled analysts of his own intelligence agencies.
> 
> And your finaly statement is, of course, inaccurate.  I have not made any statements that were served to convey a false impression.



Yes you have, we HAVE the NIE, the very document that briefs the President on JUST this and what does it say? Provide that doubt you keep claiming. THERE IS NONE IN THAT REPORT. Further he did not say every Government agreed with him, he just said that other givernments agreed, no statement of all or even a majority.

Every Agency works together to produce the report we have that STATES Iraq has WMD's, NO DOUBT, NO Caveats. NONE.


----------



## Alpha1

DeadCanDance said:


> Amen.
> 
> PS:  Cheney was saying there was "no doubt" well before the NIE was even put together.   So, the laying the blame on the NIE is a diversion.



Well...if the debate was about Cheney, it would be a different ball game....but alas....its not about Cheney...its about the unproveable claim that BUSH LIED...
and reading the Bush quote should make that plain.....


----------



## DeadCanDance

Alpha1 said:


> Well...if the debate was about Cheney, it would be a different ball game....but alas....its not about Cheney...its about the unproveable claim that BUSH LIED...
> and reading the Bush quote should make that plain.....



Cheney speaks for Bush.   He's not some rogue, independent politician.


----------



## jillian

Alpha1 said:


> Well...if the debate was about Cheney, it would be a different ball game....but alas....its not about Cheney...its about the unproveable claim that BUSH LIED...
> and reading the Bush quote should make that plain.....



Cheney was his pitbull. And I'm actually not sure that he wasn't cheney's puppet. But do you think for a second that Cheney spoke unauthorized?


----------



## DeadCanDance

jillian said:


> Cheney was his pitbull. And I'm actually not sure that he wasn't cheney's puppet. But do you think for a second that Cheney spoke unauthorized?





COLIN POWELL, February 2002: there is *no doubt* that Iraq is pursuing a nuclear weapons program. 

COLIN POWELL, September 2002:  *there's no question* that he has these (WMD) weapons, but even more importantly, he is striving to do even more, to get even more.

DICK CHENEY, August 2002:  "Simply stated, there is* no doubt* that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is *no doubt* that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against *us*.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/Search/Default.aspx


These are all *BEFORE the NIE was even put together. * And they're lies.


----------



## Alpha1

DeadCanDance said:


> Cheney speaks for Bush.   He's not some rogue, independent politician.



Thats like claiming when Cheney takes a crap, Bush gets a dirty ass....

Sorry, it just ain't so.....

Cool off and reconsider that....you know you're wrong....


----------



## RetiredGySgt

DeadCanDance said:


> COLIN POWELL, February 2002: there is *no doubt* that Iraq is pursuing a nuclear weapons program.
> 
> COLIN POWELL, September 2002:  *there's no question* that he has these (WMD) weapons, but even more importantly, he is striving to do even more, to get even more.
> 
> DICK CHENEY, August 2002:  "Simply stated, there is* no doubt* that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is *no doubt* that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against *us*.
> 
> http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/Search/Default.aspx
> 
> 
> These are all *BEFORE the NIE was even put together. * And they're lies.



NO they are not. The NIE did not just pop up on the date it was released. And intel work is YEAR round. These men were briefed BY the agencies that created the NIE. Unless it is your contention that ONLY on the date of the NIE did all those agency slap themselves on the forehead and go "damn" Saddam has WMD's would you even remotely be right.


----------



## DeadCanDance

RetiredGySgt said:


> NO they are not. The NIE did not just pop up on the date it was released. And intel work is YEAR round. These men were briefed BY the agencies that created the NIE. Unless it is your contention that ONLY on the date of the NIE did all those agency slap themselves on the forehead and go "damn" Saddam has WMD's would you even remotely be right.



The NIE was done in a few weeks, in October.  Highly irregular.  NIE's usually take up to a year to compelete. 

They are the consensus view of ALL the intelligence agencies.  Of course, year round, each agency has a running tally of bits and pieces of information.  The reason they do an NIE is to ascertain the COLLECTIVE judgement of the intelligence agencies, and therefore the consensus LEVEL OF CERTAINTY of america's intelligence. 

Powell, Cheney, and BushCo at large were saying there was NO DOUBT before the collective judgement of the intelligence communities *had even been pooled together*


----------



## Alpha1

DeadCanDance said:


> COLIN POWELL, February 2002: there is *no doubt* that Iraq is pursuing a nuclear weapons program.
> 
> COLIN POWELL, September 2002:  *there's no question* that he has these (WMD) weapons, but even more importantly, he is striving to do even more, to get even more.
> 
> DICK CHENEY, August 2002:  "Simply stated, there is* no doubt* that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is *no doubt* that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against *us*.
> 
> http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/Search/Default.aspx
> 
> 
> These are all *BEFORE the NIE was even put together. * And they're lies.



We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.  Al Gore, Sept. 23, 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


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

Do you have a point to make, beside the fact that so many were WRONG.???


----------



## DeadCanDance

Alpha1 said:


> Thats like claiming when Cheney takes a crap, Bush gets a dirty ass....
> 
> Sorry, it just ain't so.....
> 
> Cool off and reconsider that....you know you're wrong....



translation:  _must...defend...bush...at all....costs_


  Cheney and Powell don't give speeches that haven't been cleared by the white house. They're speaking FOR the white house, and WITH their blessing.   If you don't know this, you really shouldn't be participating on political message boards.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

DeadCanDance said:


> The NIE was done in a few weeks, in October.  Highly irregular.  NIE's usually take up to a year to compelete.
> 
> They are the consensus view of ALL the intelligence agencies.  Of course, year round, each agency has a running tally of bits and pieces of information.  The reason they do an NIE is to ascertain the COLLECTIVE judgement of the intelligence agencies, and therefore the consensus LEVEL OF CERTAINTY of america's intelligence.
> 
> Powell, Cheney, and BushCo at large were saying there was NO DOUBT before the collective judgement of the intelligence communities *had even been pooled together*



WRONG again, they havd for YEARS said the Saddam Had WMD's, your twisting and lying not withstanding.

Those agencies did not just wake up in late September and go " we need to decide if Saddam has weapons". And they ALL had intel since for ever. Or I guess in 98 when Clinton and his ENTIRE admin announced Saddam Had weapons they just made it up?


----------



## Alpha1

DeadCanDance said:


> The NIE was done in a few weeks, in October.  Highly irregular.  NIE's usually take up to a year to compelete.
> 
> They are the consensus view of ALL the intelligence agencies.  Of course, year round, each agency has a running tally of bits and pieces of information.  The reason they do an NIE is to ascertain the COLLECTIVE judgement of the intelligence agencies, and therefore the consensus LEVEL OF CERTAINTY of america's intelligence.
> 
> Powell, Cheney, and BushCo at large were saying there was NO DOUBT before the collective judgement of the intelligence communities *had even been pooled together*



 Don't be silly....NIE reports came to relatively the same conclusions about Saddam since the early 1990's......Almost everyone, Democrat or Republican, were convinced Iraq had a stockpile of WMD.....
Lets not get into rewriting history to feed your irrational Bush hate....


----------



## Alpha1

DeadCanDance said:


> translation:  _must...defend...bush...at all....costs_
> 
> 
> Cheney and Powell don't give speeches that haven't been cleared by the white house. They're speaking FOR the white house, and WITH their blessing.   If you don't know this, you really shouldn't be participating on political message boards.



Thats the lefties problem....

Read and understand EXACTLY what I write...not what you IMAGINE I write...

Thats what caused MM to mis characterize EXACTLY what Bush said....
He thinks it says what he wants it to say instead of what it actually says....


----------



## DeadCanDance

Alpha1 said:


> *Well...if the debate was about Cheney, it would be a different ball game*....but alas....its not about Cheney...its about the unproveable claim that BUSH LIED...
> and reading the Bush quote should make that plain.....




Good, we appear to be 90&#37; of the way towards agreement. the BUsh _adminstration_ exaggerated and misled.  i.e., lied. 

I can't speak for anyone else, but when I say "bush lied" its shorthand, for the bush _adminstration_ lying us into war.   I think most of the exaggerations and half-truths were told by adminstration employees, not by bush himself.  People like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Powell.  I don't hold bush personally accountable for telling most of the lies, nor even the most egregious ones. 

It was his underlings that were sent out to lie.   And he most certainly knew about, and was aware of the exaggerations they were telling.   So, he is responsible, even when those lies didn't leave his lips personally


----------



## Alpha1

DeadCanDance said:


> Good, we appear to be 90&#37; of the way towards agreement. the BUsh _adminstration_ exaggerated and misled.  i.e., lied.
> 
> I can't speak for anyone else, but when I say "bush lied" its shorthand, for the bush _adminstration_ lying us into war.   I think most of the exaggerations and half-truths were told by adminstration employees, not by bush himself.  People like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Powell.  I don't hold bush personally accountable for telling most of the lies, nor even the most egregious ones.
> 
> It was his underlings that were sent out to lie.   And he most certainly knew about, and was aware of the exaggerations they were telling.   So, he is responsible, even when those lies didn't leave his lips personally



I didn't get into this to defend the Bush Administration.....
I just tryed to clear up what Bush actually said, and what others perceived he said.....
I wouldn't blame Clinton for something M. Albright  or Al Gore says.....nor will I condone blaming Bush for something Condi Rice  or Cheney says.....

The only underlings I've ever seen actually sent out to lie about something was the gathering of Democrats, nicely posed in DC..about 15 or so in all......telling the press that Clinton didn't have sexual contact with 'that women'......the fuckin' joke of thedecade......


----------



## Alpha1

DeadCanDance said:


> Good, we appear to be 90% of the way towards agreement. the BUsh _adminstration_ exaggerated and misled.  i.e., lied.
> 
> I can't speak for anyone else, but when I say "bush lied" its shorthand, for the bush _adminstration_ lying us into war.   I think most of the exaggerations and half-truths were told by adminstration employees, not by bush himself.  People like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Powell.  I don't hold bush personally accountable for telling most of the lies, nor even the most egregious ones.
> 
> It was his underlings that were sent out to lie.   And he most certainly knew about, and was aware of the exaggerations they were telling.   So, he is responsible, even when those lies didn't leave his lips personally



I can understand the "shorthand"....we all do that to a degree....and no one really complains about it, except the parcing nazi Maineman, when it suits his purpose.....to make some usually dumb and insignificant point....

You remember Cheney, Rummy, Rice, Powell and others while you conveniently ignore Gore, Rockefeller, Hillary,  Byrd, Graham, and others that have said EXACTLY.....EXACTLY the same things about Iraq.....

ironic isn't it......and if by chance some of you do not ignore these guys....you all come to the conclusion...the Dems were mislead, Repubs. lied.....thats pretty convenient too, isn't it.....


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> Yes you have, we HAVE the NIE, the very document that briefs the President on JUST this and what does it say? Provide that doubt you keep claiming. THERE IS NONE IN THAT REPORT. Further he did not say every Government agreed with him, he just said that other givernments agreed, no statement of all or even a majority.
> 
> Every Agency works together to produce the report we have that STATES Iraq has WMD's, NO DOUBT, NO Caveats. NONE.



and you continue to assert that the NIE was the ONLY piece of intelligence that Bush had ever seen about Saddam's WMD's or that it completely and totally superceded any and all of those previous reports.  And, being an ESTIMATE, it did not contain all of the supporting justifications for its assessments.


----------



## mattskramer

maineman said:


> Thanks for the good advice...I tell you what:  I won't make a special trip to find his final resting place...but if I ever happen to be in the area, and have a full bladder, I know where I'm heading.  fair enough?



    Yeah...I guess so.


----------



## Shogun

Again, today is primaries.  Put your "Bush didn't lie" lie on a tackboard and wave it around an intersection or something.  Go cry on the shoulder of an exit poller.  wear the t shirt and let everyone know who you are voting for THIS time around.


your opinions are just like gold this side of the run-up to invading iraq.


----------



## DeadCanDance

Alpha1 said:


> I can understand the "shorthand"....we all do that to a degree....and no one really complains about it, except the parcing nazi Maineman, when it suits his purpose.....to make some usually dumb and insignificant point....
> 
> You remember Cheney, Rummy, Rice, Powell and others while you conveniently ignore Gore, Rockefeller, Hillary,  Byrd, Graham, and others that have said EXACTLY.....EXACTLY the same things about Iraq.....
> 
> ironic isn't it......and if by chance some of you do not ignore these guys....you all come to the conclusion...the Dems were mislead, Repubs. lied.....thats pretty convenient too, isn't it.....




Don't make assumptions.  I've never denied that there were Democratic enablers to BushCo.'s lies and half-truths about Iraq.  That why, whenever I have a opportunity I vote for a Democrat who was against the war in the beginning (or, has at least apologized and recoginzed it for the mistake it was), I vote for them.  I've also never denied that Bill Clinton's iraq policy in the 1990s, was to a degree, built on lies and immorality.  The threat from iraq was ALWAYS over rated, to help achieve other strategic objectives. 

That said, I give BushCo. the vast, lions share of the responsiblity for lying us into a war.  Lies in the 1990s may have been immoral, but they weren't designed to lead us into a war.   Bush holds the tragic position that LBJ did.  LBJ is held mostly resonsible for the lies that got us into the vietnam war.  No one can even barely name the 98 senators that voted for the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, giving LBJ a free hand to wage a costly and unneccessary war. 

Likewise, it was BushCo. who were out there, selling this war with gusto and enthusiasm.  They were criss crossing the country selling the war with a public relations campaign.  It's their war, they wanted it, and they're the ones who pulled the trigger.  The fact that they had enablers along the way is tragic.  But, the vast lion's share of the blame for misleading america into a tragic, mistaken war, rests with BushCo.


----------



## maineman

well said, as always, DCD!


----------



## JimH52

Shogun said:


> Again, today is primaries.  Put your "Bush didn't lie" lie on a tackboard and wave it around an intersection or something.  Go cry on the shoulder of an exit poller.  wear the t shirt and let everyone know who you are voting for THIS time around.
> 
> 
> your opinions are just like gold this side of the run-up to invading iraq.



Good Idea!  Ideas for a T-Shirt

-Bush Didn't Lie
-Bush is not as dumb as He Looks
-Bush is Waterboaded by Laura Daily
-Bush's IQ is greater than One Digit


----------



## Zoomie1980

DeadCanDance said:


> Don't make assumptions.  I've never denied that there were Democratic enablers to BushCo.'s lies and half-truths about Iraq.  That why, whenever I have a opportunity I vote for a Democrat who was against the war in the beginning (or, has at least apologized and recoginzed it for the mistake it was), I vote for them.  I've also never denied that Bill Clinton's iraq policy in the 1990s, was to a degree, built on lies and immorality.  The threat from iraq was ALWAYS over rated, to help achieve other strategic objectives.
> 
> That said, I give BushCo. the vast, lions share of the responsiblity for lying us into a war.  Lies in the 1990s may have been immoral, but they weren't designed to lead us into a war.   Bush holds the tragic position that LBJ did.  LBJ is held mostly resonsible for the lies that got us into the vietnam war.  No one can even barely name the 98 senators that voted for the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, giving LBJ a free hand to wage a costly and unneccessary war.
> 
> Likewise, it was BushCo. who were out there, selling this war with gusto and enthusiasm.  They were criss crossing the country selling the war with a public relations campaign.  It's their war, they wanted it, and they're the ones who pulled the trigger.  The fact that they had enablers along the way is tragic.  But, the vast lion's share of the blame for misleading america into a tragic, mistaken war, rests with BushCo.



I have yet to figure out what is so "tragic" about Iraq?  We rid the world of a  genocidal madman and acquired some very strategic military bases to make containing, and if needed attacking Iran very easy now!  We have the mullahs surrounded on THREE SIDES now!!  Nothing tragic at all about that.  And we've lost less soldiers than we lost in 12 HOURS on Normandy or Iwo Jima.


----------



## Dr Grump

Zoomie1980 said:


> I have yet to figure out what is so "tragic" about Iraq?  We rid the world of a  genocidal madman and acquired some very strategic military bases to make containing, and if needed attacking Iran very easy now!  We have the mullahs surrounded on THREE SIDES now!!  Nothing tragic at all about that.  And we've lost less soldiers than we lost in 12 HOURS on Normandy or Iwo Jima.



And how many of your friends and family have died in Iraq? Your reasoning is not sound, nor is it acceptable. Go to war over an immediate threat by all means. If you're after genocidal maniacs keep on going - Start with N Korea, then head to Burma, Chad, Sudan, Uzbekistan, Libya (kinda), Gabon, Equitorial Guinea, Iran (again, kinda) yadda, yadda, yadda...Oh, and make sure YOUR son or YOUR daughter or even yourself have signed up....if you truly believe of course..


----------



## Alpha1

Dr Grump said:


> And how many of your friends and family have died in Iraq? Your reasoning is not sound, nor is it acceptable. Go to war over an immediate threat by all means. If you're after genocidal maniacs keep on going - Start with N Korea, then head to Burma, Chad, Sudan, Uzbekistan, Libya (kinda), Gabon, Equitorial Guinea, Iran (again, kinda) yadda, yadda, yadda...Oh, and make sure YOUR son or YOUR daughter or even yourself have signed up....if you truly believe of course..



Its your reasoning that is unacceptable and quite childish....
Like saying if I find if reasonable to catch robbers and murderers, it is only reasonable that I personally be expected to join the police force....

Or if I find it reasonable to support the fireman that put out my neighbors burning house, I need to become a fireman....

Their was absolutely no threat to Americans anywhere in the world from the Yugoslavians, when
we found it reasonable to put a stop to perceived genocide in Bosina, by bombing the infrastructure and killing the citizens of Yugoslavia....
These people weren't a threat to their neighboring countries let alone the US....
Its plain that Clinton was after the genocidal maniacs....

And you may ignore the facts of history, in that; the entire UN believed, just about the entire civilized world believed that Saddam had WMD and was a danger to almost everyone....Those are the beliefs that led to the events that followed....
So don't give us crap about 'immediate threat'.....
There was no threat to us  in Yugoslavia and only an erroneous belief in a threat from Iraq... a mistake on that one point...


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> Its your reasoning that is unacceptable and quite childish....
> Like saying if I find if reasonable to catch robbers and murderers, it is only reasonable that I personally be expected to join the police force....
> 
> Or if I find it reasonable to support the fireman that put out my neighbors burning house, I need to become a fireman....
> 
> Their was absolutely no threat to Americans anywhere in the world from the Yugoslavians, when
> we found it reasonable to put a stop to perceived genocide in Bosina, by bombing the infrastructure and killing the citizens of Yugoslavia....
> These people weren't a threat to their neighboring countries let alone the US....
> Its plain that Clinton was after the genocidal maniacs....
> 
> And you may ignore the facts of history, in that; the entire UN believed, just about the entire civilized world believed that Saddam had WMD and was a danger to almost everyone....Those are the beliefs that led to the events that followed....
> So don't give us crap about 'immediate threat'.....
> There was no threat to us  in Yugoslavia and only an erroneous belief in a threat from Iraq... mistake....



It is plain that NATO saw a threat to the stability of the entire European continent in the unraveling in the former Yugoslavia.

It was pretty plain to Bush's secretary of state months BEFORE 9/11 that Iraq was not a threat to us or even to its neighbors.  Was Colin Powell LYING?


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> It is plain that NATO saw a threat to the stability of the entire European continent in the unraveling in the former Yugoslavia.
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Their was absolutely no threat to Americans anywhere in the world from the Yugoslavians, when
> we found it reasonable to put a stop to perceived genocide in Bosina, by bombing the infrastructure and killing the citizens of Yugoslavia....
> These people weren't a threat to their neighboring countries let alone the US....
> Its plain that Clinton was after the genocidal maniacs....
> 
> By neighboring countries I mean those outside the original borders of Yugoslavia... but my point was that these people were not a threat, immediate or otherwise to the US....genocide was the main reason we claimed for being there....and that is a good and legitimate reason.....
> 
> It was pretty plain to Bush's secretary of state months BEFORE 9/11 that Iraq was not a threat to us or even to its neighbors.  Was Colin Powell LYING?


I don't think he was .....I think he expressed his belief at the time...but I don't remember exactly what your refering to

But all this is far off the point I was attempting to make to Mr. Grump...


----------



## Zoomie1980

Dr Grump said:


> And how many of your friends and family have died in Iraq? Your reasoning is not sound, nor is it acceptable. Go to war over an immediate threat by all means. If you're after genocidal maniacs keep on going - Start with N Korea, then head to Burma, Chad, Sudan, Uzbekistan, Libya (kinda), Gabon, Equitorial Guinea, Iran (again, kinda) yadda, yadda, yadda...Oh, and make sure YOUR son or YOUR daughter or even yourself have signed up....if you truly believe of course..



I know a few.  Knew a LOT more that died in Vietnam.  We lost 58,200 dead in that one.  We lost more troops in half a day in major WWII assaults than have been lost in the entire Iraqi campaign.

We'll get around to the others, eventually....if we want to, but most of those don't offer major bases to surround your next target set of thugs....

And don't ever forget, when you're the biggest dog in the hunt, you get to make all the rules...


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Alpha1 said:


> I don't think he was .....I think he expressed his belief at the time...but I don't remember exactly what your refering to
> 
> But all this is far off the point I was attempting to make to Mr. Grump...



There is little point in trying to reason with Maineman or DCD, they are idealogs , they believe what they do because they are liberal democrats and have bought into the lie that is made from that bunch. Claiming there was doubt about WMD's in Iraq before we invaded is the biggest lie of all. The only doubt was how much he had and whether he would use it or not. Even the inspectors thought he still had them, else why were they inspecting at all? Why did Blix keep reporting Saddam was thwarting his efforts? Blix didn't want us to invade yet was forced to officially concede Iraq was refusing still to meet the AGREEMENTS it made on destroying and proving they had no WMDs.

hen we have the idiotic claim by Maineman that our intel services were telling Bush we did not know if Iraq had WMD's. He totally ignores the NIE that STATES with absolutely NO DOUBT that Iraq had weapons, that Iraq was making more weapons, that Iraq was working on getting a nuclear weapon, that Iraq had hidden part of its production facilities in Civilian plants, that Iraq had mobile chemical labs.

He refuses to believe other Countries ALSO stated the same things, NO doubts, except as to how much he had and when he would have nukes.

And he can not for the life of him provide a single source document showing where ANY of our intel agencies prior to the invasion said " we do not know" or " we can not be sure" not even " we might be mistaken" or "our assements are based on limited intel"

By his own definition of what a lie is he is lying every time he insists Bush lied. He either knows it and does not care, or is beyond reasoning with.


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> I don't think he was .....I think he expressed his belief at the time...but I don't remember exactly what your refering to



_"We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. *And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."* _

Secretary Colin L. Powell
Cairo, Egypt (Ittihadiya Palace)
February 24, 2001

http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2001/933.htm

NATO went into the former Yugoslavia because there WAS a threat to the European continent.  To attempt to suggest there is any moral equivalence between the actions of NATO in Bosnia and Bush's actions in Iraq is inaccurate.


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> _"We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. *And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."* _
> 
> Secretary Colin L. Powell
> Cairo, Egypt (Ittihadiya Palace)
> February 24, 2001
> 
> http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2001/933.htm
> 
> NATO went into the former Yugoslavia because there WAS a threat to the European continent.  To attempt to suggest there is any moral equivalence between the actions of NATO in Bosnia and Bush's actions in Iraq is inaccurate.



That wasn't the point being made to Grump, but I can address the topic change....


The Bosnians, with help from the Iran Revolutionary Guard and the Mujahideen,....the Serbians....the Croations....were fighting each other ....
all claiming independant states within the original borders of Yugoslavia....
An ethnic war.....essentially a civil war within Yugoslavia....
None of them threatening others outside the original borders that I can remember.....

A hypothetical...
Assume the US leaves Iraq....will the Sunnis, the Shiites and the Kurds just hold hands and sing campfire songs together...
They will without question kill each other as they are doing now....only without any outside troops restraining them.....Is there a threat to the entire Middle East?
Would it be ok for NATO or the UN to step in to then stop the ethnic killing....
Is this not essentially moral equivalence ....

(try leaving Bush out of this Hypothetical for the moment)


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> _"We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. *And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."* _
> 
> Secretary Colin L. Powell
> Cairo, Egypt (Ittihadiya Palace)
> February 24, 2001
> 
> http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2001/933.htm
> 
> NATO went into the former Yugoslavia because there WAS a threat to the European continent.  To attempt to suggest there is any moral equivalence between the actions of NATO in Bosnia and Bush's actions in Iraq is inaccurate.



What exactly was the dire threat to the European continent that made it reasonable for the United States to bomb them.....


----------



## DeadCanDance

Alpha1 said:


> That wasn't the point being made to Grump, but I can address the topic change....
> 
> 
> The Bosnians, with help from the Iran Revolutionary Guard and the Mujahideen,....the Serbians....the Croations....were fighting each other ....
> all claiming independant states within the original borders of Yugoslavia....
> An ethnic war.....essentially a civil war within Yugoslavia....
> None of them threatening others outside the original borders that I can remember.....
> 
> A hypothetical...
> Assume the US leaves Iraq....will the Sunnis, the Shiites and the Kurds just hold hands and sing campfire songs together...
> They will without question kill each other as they are doing now....only without any outside troops restraining them.....Is there a threat to the entire Middle East?
> Would it be ok for NATO or the UN to step in to then stop the ethnic killing....
> Is this not essentially moral equivalence ....
> 
> (try leaving Bush out of this Hypothetical for the moment)





If Bosnia/Kosovo had ended up costing us one trillion dollars, 35,000 dead and wounded american soldiers, and trapped us in the midst of an ongoing and bloody civil war after 5 years, I'd say fuck 'em and bring the troops home.   It ain't worth it. 

Fortunately, Clinton handled it competently, with skillful diplomacy, minimal cost to the american taxpayer, and no loss of american troops.  So history will judge him kindly on it. 


If Bush had handled Iraq and Afghanistan as competently as Bosnia and Kosovo were handled, Bush would be a hero today with a 70&#37; approval rating.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> _"We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. *And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."* _
> 
> Secretary Colin L. Powell
> Cairo, Egypt (Ittihadiya Palace)
> February 24, 2001
> 
> http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2001/933.htm
> 
> NATO went into the former Yugoslavia because there WAS a threat to the European continent.  To attempt to suggest there is any moral equivalence between the actions of NATO in Bosnia and Bush's actions in Iraq is inaccurate.



Here we go, a source that is NOT overly supportive or friendly to the Bush administration. And prior to the 2002 NIE we have all seen.


http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1050&prog=zgp&proj=znpp




> Iraq has chemical and biological weapons that would complicate any military actions, but it is not clear that these capabilities are rapidly increasing in the absence of UN inspections. The administration-and other nations-should disclose their detailed threat assessments as soon as possible to permit an informed public debate on the threats from Iraq and their urgency.




Now this article is all about disproving the need for us to invade, BUT guess what it does? It states, the author STATES,  " Iraq has chemical and biological weapons"

No doubt, no "they might have" , " we are not sure they have" not even " we suspect they have". A clear statement that IRAQ HAS the weapons.

This guy doesn't belief they are a threat, BUT he says IRAQ HAS them. 

And all anyone has managed to parse out of the 2001 NIE ( which I still can not find) is that the intel was Iraq had no Nukes. But then, we already KNEW that.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

DeadCanDance said:


> If Bosnia/Kosovo had ended up costing us one trillion dollars, 35,000 dead and wounded american soldiers, and trapped us in the midst of an ongoing and bloody civil war after 5 years, I'd say fuck 'em and bring the troops home.   It ain't worth it.
> 
> Fortunately, Clinton handled it competently, with skillful diplomacy, minimal cost to the american taxpayer, and no loss of american troops.  So history will judge him kindly on it.
> 
> 
> If Bush had handled Iraq and Afghanistan as competently as Bosnia and Kosovo were handled, Bush would be a hero today with a 70% approval rating.



You are aware 20k troops are STILL there, with aircraft ships and all the support that goes with those missions? Still deployed in a place we were told would be a short mission that NATO would take over.


----------



## Zoomie1980

DeadCanDance said:


> If Bosnia/Kosovo had ended up costing us one trillion dollars, 35,000 dead and wounded american soldiers, and trapped us in the midst of an ongoing and bloody civil war after 5 years, I'd say fuck 'em and bring the troops home.   It ain't worth it.
> 
> Fortunately, Clinton handled it competently, with skillful diplomacy, minimal cost to the american taxpayer, and no loss of american troops.  So history will judge him kindly on it.
> 
> 
> If Bush had handled Iraq and Afghanistan as competently as Bosnia and Kosovo were handled, Bush would be a hero today with a 70&#37; approval rating.



35,000 dead and wounded??  Over five years?  That's less that the toll of gang violence on our own streets.  We lost more troops in a single DAY in the battles of WWII and in Korea at places like Chosin Res...  I still haven't figured what is "tragic" about Iraq.  It has been a comparatively CLEAN and LOW cost venture. So far actual DIRECT costs of the war in Iraq come to $280 Billion but comparison direct WWII costs in inflation adjusted dollars cost the US 4.1 TRILLION dollars over about a year less time for WWII and 1.6 TRILLION for Vietnam over about a two year longer venture

Oh, and to date we have spent almost 200 BILLION in the Balkans since 1995....and that is still going on


----------



## DeadCanDance

RetiredGySgt said:


> You are aware 20k troops are STILL there, with aircraft ships and all the support that goes with those missions? Still deployed in a place we were told would be a short mission that NATO would take over.




Why doesn't it surprise me a Bush lover would lie?

First, there were 20,000 american troops in the initial IFOR stabilization force.  There's only several thousand there NOW.  European troops are the majority of the SFOR force.  You sure you were in the military?  I'm surprised how uninformed you are on military matters. 

Second, there is no civil war in Bosnia, is there?   Nobody is shooting at our troops, and bosnians for the most part love us.  They name streets after Wes Clark and Bill Clinton. 

Compared to the incompetent, and frankly criminal way your president has bungled Afghanistan and Iraq, Bill Clinton's handling of bosnia and kosovo, in comparison, looks like a text book example of skillful diplomacy, international cooperation, and a non-violent wind down of a long running conflict.


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> What exactly was the dire threat to the European continent that made it reasonable for the United States to bomb them.....




ask NATO...it was a NATO action and not solely American.


----------



## Alpha1

DeadCanDance said:


> If Bosnia/Kosovo had ended up costing us one trillion dollars, 35,000 dead and wounded american soldiers, and trapped us in the midst of an ongoing and bloody civil war after 5 years, I'd say fuck 'em and bring the troops home.   It ain't worth it.
> 
> Fortunately, Clinton handled it competently, with skillful diplomacy, minimal cost to the american taxpayer, and no loss of american troops.  So history will judge him kindly on it.
> 
> 
> If Bush had handled Iraq and Afghanistan as competently as Bosnia and Kosovo were handled, Bush would be a hero today with a 70&#37; approval rating.



So its the cost you really object to...is that correct? Thats your opinion?
To much money....the staggering death toll.....the cost....?????

I guess there are some that would even say that about WWII.....it cost too much.....that would be their opinion....
The costs were no doubt extremely high.....

The total estimated human loss of life caused by World War II was roughly 72 million people. The civilian toll was around 47 million, including 20 million deaths due to war related famine and disease. The military toll was about 25 million, including the deaths of about 4 million prisoners of war in captivity. The Allies lost about 61 million people, and the Axis lost 11 million.

The cost in actual money ... I couldn't even begin to calculate.....

Think that was to costly to fight that war....after all, WE got into that war pretty much voluntarily at first......
Maybe the Presidents didn't do a good job?  Maybe the Generals? Maybe the troops weren't up to your standards....

DCD...you're so brain dead with Bush hate, it stunning....


----------



## Zoomie1980

DeadCanDance said:


> Why doesn't it surprise me a Bush lover would lie?
> 
> First, there were 20,000 american troops in the initial IFOR stabilization force.  There's only several thousand there NOW.  European troops are the majority of the SFOR force.  You sure you were in the military?  I'm surprised how uninformed you are on military matters.
> 
> Second, there is no civil war in Bosnia, is there?   Nobody is shooting at our troops, and bosnians for the most part love us.  They name streets after Wes Clark and Bill Clinton.
> 
> Compared to the incompetent, and frankly criminal way your president has bungled Afghanistan and Iraq, Bill Clinton's handling of bosnia and kosovo, in comparison, looks like a text book example of skillful diplomacy, international cooperation, and a non-violent wind down of a long running conflict.



Wrong, there are still roughly 20,000 US Troops still stationed in that theator, most, as usual, national guard.  Some are US units, most are as part of NATO.  We still have around 40,000 US troops stationed in Korea and another 28,000 STILL in Japan, 60 years AFTER WWII ended.  Oh yea, and still about 100,000 in Europe....  NATO is STILL a predominantly US based force.


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> ask NATO...it was a NATO action and not solely American.



Post 425....MAINEMEN SAYS
NATO went into the former Yugoslavia because there WAS a threat to the European continent. 

Your claim...so I ask you....
the threat must have been dire to start bombing  their troops, their bridges and their citizens....I'll wait....

Then you can address my hypothetical....


----------



## DeadCanDance

Alpha1 said:


> So its the cost you really object to...is that correct? Thats your opinion?
> To much money....the staggering death toll.....the cost....?????
> 
> I guess there are some that would even say that about WWII.....it cost too much.....that would be their opinion....
> The costs were no doubt extremely high.....
> 
> The total estimated human loss of life caused by World War II was roughly 72 million people. The civilian toll was around 47 million, including 20 million deaths due to war related famine and disease. The military toll was about 25 million, including the deaths of about 4 million prisoners of war in captivity. The Allies lost about 61 million people, and the Axis lost 11 million.
> 
> The cost in actual money ... I couldn't even begin to calculate.....
> 
> Think that was to costly to fight that war....after all, WE got into that war pretty much voluntarily at first......
> 
> 
> DCD...you're so brain dead with Bush hate, it stunning....



Yes, I object to the cost in blood and treasure. 

If Clinton had squandered a trillion dollars in the balkans, and gotten tens of thousands of american servicemen and women killed and wounded, I'd be among the first to say we should get out of there, and tell the serbs and bosinans to go fuck themselves. 

Fortunately, Clinton was more skillful and competent than the moron you voted for twice.  A moron who has created disasters in two countries:  afganistan and iraq.


----------



## Zoomie1980

maineman said:


> ask NATO...it was a NATO action and not solely American.



NATO==US.  The US funds over 70% of NATO and provides almost 90% of its combat power


----------



## Zoomie1980

DeadCanDance said:


> Why doesn't it surprise me a Bush lover would lie?
> 
> First, there were 20,000 american troops in the initial IFOR stabilization force.  There's only several thousand there NOW.  European troops are the majority of the SFOR force.  You sure you were in the military?  I'm surprised how uninformed you are on military matters.
> 
> Second, there is no civil war in Bosnia, is there?   Nobody is shooting at our troops, and bosnians for the most part love us.  They name streets after Wes Clark and Bill Clinton.
> 
> Compared to the incompetent, and frankly criminal way your president has bungled Afghanistan and Iraq, Bill Clinton's handling of bosnia and kosovo, in comparison, looks like a text book example of skillful diplomacy, international cooperation, and a non-violent wind down of a long running conflict.



Oh, and I detest George Bush....never have liked him.  Didn't like Clinton, either.  The last president that was even remotely worth a damn was Ronald Reagen...


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Zoomie1980 said:


> Oh, and I detest George Bush....never have liked him.  Didn't like Clinton, either.  The last president that was even remotely worth a damn was Ronald Reagen...



They don't care nor believe you, anyone that does not spit on Bush and call him a liar and a crook and claim everything he ever did is bad, well then those people love Bush.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> "They don't care nor believe you, anyone that does not spit on Bush and call him a liar and a crook and claim everything he ever did is bad, well then those people love Bush."



thus sayeth the king of flatulent, over the top hyperbolic rhetoric!


----------



## maineman

Hey...RGS.... tell me again what the "E" stands for in the acronym "NIE"?


----------



## maineman

Zoomie1980 said:


> NATO==US.  The US funds over 70% of NATO and provides almost 90% of its combat power



Does that apply to the UN as well?


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> Post 425....MAINEMEN SAYS
> NATO went into the former Yugoslavia because there WAS a threat to the European continent.
> 
> Your claim...so I ask you....
> the threat must have been dire to start bombing  their troops, their bridges and their citizens....I'll wait....
> 
> Then you can address my hypothetical....



Would the United States view a full fledged, bloody civil conflict raging in Mexico, complete with ethnic cleansing to be a threat to American security?


----------



## DeadCanDance

RetiredGySgt said:


> *You are aware 20k troops are STILL there,* with aircraft ships and all the support that goes with those missions? Still deployed in a place we were told would be a short mission that NATO would take over.



Are you ready to retract your lie about 20,000 american soldiers STILL stationed in the balkans?



> The US has about 4,000 troops in the Balkans



4,000 in 2003.  There might be less now. 

In addition, Clinton didn't trap them in the midst of a civil war, or blunder us into an insurgency.   Compared to amateur hour in the Bush Adminstration, Clinton looks like a titan of skillful diplomacy and execution.


----------



## Alpha1

DeadCanDance said:


> Yes, I object to the cost in blood and treasure.
> 
> If Clinton had squandered a trillion dollars in the balkans, and gotten tens of thousands of american servicemen and women killed and wounded, I'd be among the first to say we should get out of there, and tell the serbs and bosinans to go fuck themselves.
> 
> Fortunately, Clinton was more skillful and competent than the moron you voted for twice.  A moron who has created disasters in two countries:  afganistan and iraq.



I'll bet Clinton would have made a wonderful wartime General...with all that skill and competence....right DCD?

Well thats quite candid...3949 or so US Troops dead.....thats alot of men.......The military toll for WWII was about 25 million.....No one attacked us but we had to stick our nose in that one too, until Japan finally attacked us....

25 million.....
that must really be objectionable to you....over 6000 times more dead....I guess we could have told 15 or 20 countries in Europe to go fuck themselves back then too....we could have saved alot of money and lives....
yessirreee.....


----------



## DeadCanDance

DeadCanDance said:


> Are you ready to retract your lie about 20,000 american soldiers STILL stationed in the balkans?
> 
> 
> 
> 4,000 in 2003.  There might be less now.
> 
> In addition, Clinton didn't trap them in the midst of a civil war, or blunder us into an insurgency.   Compared to amateur hour in the Bush Adminstration, Clinton looks like a titan of skillful diplomacy and execution.




I'm almost ready to conclude that someone who claims to have had a glorious military career, and is supposedly tuned in and in touch with what's going on in the military, is naught more than an internet poseur. 

Anyone who kept abreast of the US Military and was involved with it, knew that TODAY there ISN'T a massive america commitment of 20,000 soldiers to the balkans stabiization force.   That in fact, SFOR is mostly a European Union operation now.


----------



## DeadCanDance

maineman said:


> Would the United States view a full fledged, bloody civil conflict raging in Mexico, complete with ethnic cleansing to be a threat to American security?



LOL

Yes


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> I'll bet Clinton would have made a wonderful wartime General...with all that skill and competence....right DCD?
> 
> Well thats quite candid...3949 or so US Troops dead.....thats alot of men.......The military toll for WWII was about 25 million.....No one attacked us but we had to stick our nose in that one too, until Japan finally attacked us....
> 
> 25 million.....
> that must really be objectionable to you....over 6000 times more dead....I guess we could have told 15 or 20 countries in Europe to go fuck themselves back then too....we could have saved alot of money and lives....
> yessirreee.....



are you suggesting we lost 25M americans in WWII?

and how exactly, beyond lend lease, did we stick our noses into WWII prior to 12/7/41?


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> Would the United States view a full fledged, bloody civil conflict raging in Mexico, complete with ethnic cleansing to be a threat to American security?



Personally, I wouldn't...but others might for think of some kind of threat....
like our lettuce crop might not get picked or something....not a good reason to start bombing Cancun though.... 

So ,are you trying to answer a question with a question?

What threat was there to the European continent?

Were they afraid the fighting would spread to Norway or France or Germany...?


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> Personally, I wouldn't...but others might for think of some kind of threat....
> like our lettuce crop might not get picked or something....not a good reason to start bombing Cancun though....
> 
> So ,are you trying to answer a question with a question?
> 
> What threat was there to the European continent?
> 
> Were they afraid the fighting would spread to Norway or France or Germany...?



Europe viewed an escalating, spreading ethnic based bloody conflict on their southern flank as a threat to their security.  That's a fact.  

Iraq offered no such threat to OUR security....according to Powell, not even a threat to the security of his immediate neighbors.


----------



## Zoomie1980

DeadCanDance said:


> I'm almost ready to conclude that someone who claims to have had a glorious military career, and is supposedly tuned in and in touch with what's going on in the military, is naught more than an internet poseur.
> 
> Anyone who kept abreast of the US Military and was involved with it, knew that TODAY there ISN'T a massive america commitment of 20,000 soldiers to the balkans stabiization force.   That in fact, SFOR is mostly a European Union operation now.




We have about 4500 combat troops and about 16,000 support personnel in the Balkans.  Of the 160,000 surge troops in Iraq only about 50,000 are actual combat soldiers, the rest are support troops.  That's the normal 3.5-4.0 per 1 ratio we have maintained for decades.


----------



## DeadCanDance

Alpha1 said:


> I'll bet Clinton would have made a wonderful wartime General...with all that skill and competence....right DCD?
> 
> Well thats quite candid...3949 or so US Troops dead.....thats alot of men.......The military toll for WWII was about 25 million.....No one attacked us but we had to stick our nose in that one too, until Japan finally attacked us....
> 
> 25 million.....
> that must really be objectionable to you....over 6000 times more dead....I guess we could have told 15 or 20 countries in Europe to go fuck themselves back then too....we could have saved alot of money and lives....
> yessirreee.....




Your head is so far up bush's ass, the lack of oxygen to your brain is making you think up ridiculous arguments. 

Yeah, we shouldn't have fought two nations that declared war on us, and attacked us:  Japan at pearl harbor, and Germany's declaration of war on us, and sending their U-boat fleet into the gulf of mexico and atlantic seaboard to attack our naval and merchant shipping.


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> are you suggesting we lost 25M americans in WWII?
> 
> and how exactly, beyond lend lease, did we stick our noses into WWII prior to 12/7/41?


.....Lend lease was quite enough to earn the wrath of the Axis....but running supply ships, our pilots fighting for the RAF, valuable intell for the Brits, etc....the list could be fairly long.....but its not really relevant is it..?


 If I meant that ... I would state it clearly.....
That figure includes about 50+ countries that lost troops in the war...
The US only lost about 400K....
The point is not the number ...the point is that DCD finds the cost of the Iraq too high......if it were lower or no cost at all, he might have no objection to the war....he values money and lives over principal and justice....at least hes honest....


----------



## Zoomie1980

maineman said:


> Does that apply to the UN as well?



We fund over HALF the UN Budget.  There are what, 200+ UN Members and we fund half of it?  We don't commit any troops to that worthless, corrupt, useless entity.  I would as soon withdraw and kick them out of NY.


----------



## DeadCanDance

Zoomie1980 said:


> We have about 4500 combat troops and about 16,000 support personnel in the Balkans.  Of the 160,000 surge troops in Iraq only about 50,000 are actual combat soldiers, the rest are support troops.  That's the normal 3.5-4.0 per 1 ratio we have maintained for decades.




LOL

Yeah, I'm so sure RSG was counting Halliburton and Burger King personel, and dish washing contractors  in the balkans who feed and supply our troops, as part of our 20,000 military committment in the balkans.


----------



## maineman

Zoomie1980 said:


> We fund over HALF the UN Budget.  There are what, 200+ UN Members and we fund half of it?  We don't commit any troops to that worthless, corrupt, useless entity.  I would as soon withdraw and kick them out of NY.




so...if, like NATO, our pocketbook makes them synonymous with us and our policies and initiatives, why couldn't Bush get a UN resolution authorizing his silly war in Iraq?

I suggest that NATO - and the UN - are more independent than you give them credit for.


----------



## shepherdboy

DeadCanDance said:


> Yes, I object to the cost in blood and treasure.
> 
> If Clinton had squandered a trillion dollars in the balkans, and gotten tens of thousands of american servicemen and women killed and wounded, I'd be among the first to say we should get out of there, and tell the serbs and bosinans to go fuck themselves.
> 
> Fortunately, Clinton was more skillful and competent than the moron you voted for twice.  A moron who has created disasters in two countries:  afganistan and iraq.



You won't be saying that when peak oil goes critical and its the strategic tactical advantage the U.S. has over all the other oil suiters that saves our economy while the rest of the world goes oil starved. Face the fact : If other countries had the military resources and savvy to do what the U.S. does they would. Don't fool yourself with that belief that we can all work together in peace. For you atheist out there its your Darwin's survival of the fittest.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Zoomie1980 said:


> We have about 4500 combat troops and about 16,000 support personnel in the Balkans.  Of the 160,000 surge troops in Iraq only about 50,000 are actual combat soldiers, the rest are support troops.  That's the normal 3.5-4.0 per 1 ratio we have maintained for decades.



20k like I said. But retard DCD is to stupid to understand.


----------



## Zoomie1980

shepherdboy said:


> You won't be saying that when peak oil goes critical and its the strategic tactical advantage the U.S. has over all the other oil suiters that saves our economy while the rest of the world goes oil starved. Face the fact : If other countries had the military resources and savvy to do what the U.S. does they would. Don't fool yourself with that belief that we can all work together in peace. For you atheist out there its your Darwin's survival of the fittest.



The world hasn't changed much at all in 5000+ years of recorded human history.  It is still Darwanism that rules human behavior.  Those who cannot keep what what they have; have no right to it.  Those that can take what what they need have EVERY right to it and if the rest don't like it, they can try to do something about it....which, in most cases, the can't.  And the rest of the world should bow and pray that it is the United States of America who rules the world today and not the Soviet Union.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

DeadCanDance said:


> LOL
> 
> Yeah, I'm so sure RSG was counting Halliburton and Burger King personel, and dish washing contractors  in the balkans who feed and supply our troops, as part of our 20,000 military committment in the balkans.



Hey MORON they are TROOPS. US military personnel. Now if you were not so stupid and ignorant on the military you would realize that. Further dipship even IF everyone of the 16 k were civilians ( which they are NOT) the Government through the MILITARY is paying for them.

The least you could do retard is learn facts about how the military works and operates.


----------



## jillian

shepherdboy said:


> You won't be saying that when peak oil goes critical and its the strategic tactical advantage the U.S. has over all the other oil suiters that saves our economy while the rest of the world goes oil starved. Face the fact : If other countries had the military resources and savvy to do what the U.S. does they would. Don't fool yourself with that belief that we can all work together in peace. For you atheist out there its your Darwin's survival of the fittest.



Gee.... I thought Jesus talked about taking care of the weak. I guess that's except when you want something they have.

You "good Christians" do so warm my heart.


----------



## DeadCanDance

RetiredGySgt said:


> 20k like I said. But retard DCD is to stupid to understand.




Awww, how cute.  RSG had to wait until somone else threw him a life line. 


I'm calling BS.  There's 4000 US troops in the balkans.  The only way you get to 20,000 is if you add Burger King employees, dish washing contractors, and laundry contractor service personnel the government contracts to service the troops. 

And I know you weren't including Burger King employees in your "20,000" military committment to the balkans.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

DeadCanDance said:


> Awww, how cute.  RSG had to wait until somone else threw him a life line.
> 
> 
> I'm calling BS.  There's 4000 US troops in the balkans.  The only way you get to 20,000 is if you add Burger King employees, dish washing contractors, and laundry contractor service personnel the government contracts to service the troops.
> 
> And I know you weren't including Burger King employees in your "20,000" military committment to the balkans.



You truely are a retard, keep making posts like this so we can all laugh at you. Ohh wait maybe since your such a pal of Maineman he will try and salvage your ignorant statements.


----------



## Alpha1

DeadCanDance said:


> Your head is so far up bush's ass, the lack of oxygen to your brain is making you think up ridiculous arguments.
> 
> Yeah, we shouldn't have fought two nations that declared war on us, and attacked us:  Japan at pearl harbor, and Germany's declaration of war on us, and sending their U-boat fleet into the gulf of mexico and atlantic seaboard to attack our naval and merchant shipping.


 Really....did you write your own history book fantasy?

General  William Clinton.....thats got a nice ring to it.....

Mush better than "that draft dodging bastard, Clinton"...


I think we should have fought WWII....but by your own logic, the cost must be over the top for you......we lost 400,000+ men
and you  have problem with less than 4000 ......


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> You truely are a retard, keep making posts like this so we can all laugh at you. Ohh wait maybe since your such a pal of Maineman he will SUCCEED in validating your CORRECT statements.



http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=25716

from this DoD website:

"The U.S. today has about 2,500 troops in Kosovo and around 900 in Bosnia." 


it's a few years old....but I don't think that RGS is claiming that we have redeployed 16K troops to the balkans in three years


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=25716
> 
> from this DoD website:
> 
> "The U.S. today has about 2,500 troops in Kosovo and around 900 in Bosnia."
> 
> 
> it's a few years old....but I don't think that RGS is claiming that we have redeployed 16K troops to the balkans in three years



Combat troops, or are you claiming we have NO support troops there at all?

Hey look DCD Maineman has come to your rescue. Kiss his ass now so you two can smooch and make doe eyes at each other.


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> Europe viewed an escalating, spreading ethnic based bloody conflict on their southern flank as a threat to their security.  That's a fact.
> 
> Iraq offered no such threat to OUR security
> And Yugoslavia offered no threat to OUR security
> 
> ....according to Powell, not even a threat to the security of his immediate neighbors.
> I imagine the attack on Kuwait much have shocked the shit out Powell then.....



oo


----------



## Alpha1

First its.....it was 4000....
No, you're wrong, "it was 4005"

 and then.....

Next DCD and MM will be onto the spelling and the grammar.........

And then....the real clincher....punctuation....

Well I for one can't take that kind of abuse....


----------



## jillian

RetiredGySgt said:


> Combat troops, or are you claiming we have NO support troops there at all?
> 
> Hey look DCD Maineman has come to your rescue. Kiss his ass now so you two can smooch and make doe eyes at each other.



Actually, Bosnia is a National Guard deployment since 2001 according to this chart. 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/global-deployments.htm


----------



## RetiredGySgt

jillian said:


> Actually, Bosnia is a National Guard deployment since 2001 according to this chart.
> 
> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/global-deployments.htm



National Guard when activated is ARMY. In fact after the draw down in the 90's 1/3 of the supposed strength of the Army is in fact National Guard.

Further I am not claiming all the support personnel are located in Macadonia or Bosnia, though I am sure a good chunk are. Most are probably in Italy. I know the air contingents that support the ground forces are located in Italy. Further I know that the Navy Command and any ships assigned are ported out of Italy.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> *Combat* troops, or are you claiming we have NO support troops there at all?
> 
> Hey look DCD Maineman has come to your rescue. Kiss his ass now so you two can smooch and make doe eyes at each other.




please show me the word "combat" in that DoD article quote.  I'll wait


----------



## maineman

no on suggested that Yugoslavia was a direct threat to the United States. It WAS, however, determined to be a direct threat to the members of NATO.  In case you weren't sure, that's a mutual defense treaty that we are a signatory of.  So...when there is a threat to any of the countries of NATO, there is, by definition, an agreed upon threat to US interests.  Go look on your globe and see how many NATO nations directly border the balkans.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> *Further I am not claiming all the support personnel are located in Macadonia or Bosnia, though I am sure a good chunk are*.



prove it.


----------



## DeadCanDance

maineman said:


> http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=25716
> 
> from this DoD website:
> 
> "The U.S. today has about 2,500 troops in Kosovo and around 900 in Bosnia."
> 
> 
> it's a few years old....but I don't think that RGS is claiming that we have redeployed 16K troops to the balkans in three years




Like I said, RSG either lied or pulled a number out of his ass when we said that we "still" have 20,000 troops IN bosnia/kosovo.  

LOL:  and as we can see, he's reaching out to count air force personnel in Italy, Greece, and other parts of europe, as well as counting support personnel employed by Halliburton, Burger King, and Western Union, to try to jack his number up to 20,000. 

Just admit it rsg:  you lied or pulled  a number out of your ass. 

And the point is, in the 1990s, we had a competent, diplomatically-skilled  president who didn't leave or strand american troops in the middle of a civil war in two countries, like bush has done.


----------



## Alpha1

DeadCanDance said:


> Like I said, RSG either lied or pulled a number out of his ass when we said that we "still" have 20,000 troops IN bosnia/kosovo.
> 
> LOL:  and as we can see, he's reaching out to count air force personnel in Italy, Greece, and other parts of europe, as well as counting support personnel employed by Halliburton, Burger King, and Western Union, to try to jack his number up to 20,000.
> 
> Just admit it rsg:  you lied or pulled  a number out of your ass.
> 
> And the point is, in the 1990s, we had a competent, diplomatically-skilled  president who didn't leave or strand american troops in the middle of a civil war in two countries, like bush has done.



 hahaha....American troops "left" in 2 countries?
American troops "stranded" in 2 countries?

Tell me....do the little voices in your head repeat this nonsense to you until you perceive this shit as factual....or are you influenced by little voices outside your head.....like left-wing radio or something....


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> hahaha....American troops "left" in 2 countries?
> American troops "stranded" in 2 countries?
> 
> Tell me....do the little voices in your head repeat this nonsense to you until you perceive this shit as factual....or are you influenced by little voices outside your head.....like left-wing radio or something....



did DoD lie about troop levels?


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> did DoD lie about troop levels?



What are you talking about.....?   
What did I say about the DOD and troop levels? 

If your answer is "nothing" ....thats right...


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> What are you talking about.....?
> What did I say about the DOD and troop levels?
> 
> If your answer is "nothing" ....thats right...



DCD gave troops levels in Bosnia and you and your butt buddy RGS have been arguing with him about it.  I gave the DoD page that confirms his position.


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> DCD gave troops levels in Bosnia and you and your butt buddy RGS have been arguing with him about it.  I gave the DoD page that confirms his position.



Not me sonny......todays troops levels in Bosnia are of no interest to me....


----------



## DeadCanDance

It's hilarious to revist just how badly RSG was debunked on this thread.  He was just pulling raw numbers out of his ass, and making up stuff as he went along....




> DeadCanDance:  If Bosnia/Kosovo had ended up costing us one trillion dollars, 35,000 dead and wounded american soldiers, and trapped us in the midst of an ongoing and bloody civil war after 5 years, I'd say fuck 'em and bring the troops home. It ain't worth it. Fortunately, Clinton handled it competently, with skillful diplomacy, minimal cost to the american taxpayer, and no loss of american troops. So history will judge him kindly on it.
> 
> If Bush had handled Iraq and Afghanistan as competently as *Bosnia and Kosovo* were handled, Bush would be a hero today with a 70&#37; approval rating.






> RetiredGunnySarge:  *You are aware 20k troops are STILL there,* with aircraft ships and all the support that goes with those missions? Still deployed in a place we were told would be a short mission that NATO would take over.



RSG debunked here on the number of American troops in bosnia/Kosovo&#8230;



> DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE number &#8211; from Mainman:
> 
> from this DoD website:
> 
> http://www.defenselink.mil/news/news....aspx?id=25716
> 
> "The U.S. today has about 2,500 troops in Kosovo and around 900 in Bosnia." i.e.,  Total = *3,400 american troops in Kosovo/Bosnia*






> RSG:  &#8220;Still deployed in a place we were told would be a short mission that NATO would take over.



Next, RSG is again debunked by US Government website.  Stabilization operations in Bosnia were turned over to the European Union in 2004, with a small presence of American troops remaining in the country. 



> US Government website:
> 
> &#8220;On December 2, 2004, NATO formally concluded its Stabilization Force (SFOR)
> mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina and* handed over peace stabilization duties to a European Union force (EUFOR).* The mission of the EU&#8217;s Operation Althea is to ensure continued compliance with the Dayton peace agreement and contribute to a secure
> environment and Bosnia&#8217;s efforts towards European integration. The 6,300-strong
> operation constitutes the largest EU military mission to date. NATO retains a small
> headquarters presence in Sarajevo, with approximately 220 U.S. forces , to provide
> advice on defense reforms and to support counterterrorism efforts and the apprehension
> of wanted war crimes suspects believed to be hiding in or transiting through Bosnia&#8221;.
> 
> http://italy.usembassy.gov/pdf/other/RS21774.pdf


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Ohh look pinhead is blathering again. I notice you do not call anyone else that said the same thing as having been "debunked" or is that cause your to retarded to have caught the words in their posts?


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ohh look pinhead is blathering again. I notice you do not call anyone else that said the same thing as having been "debunked" or is that cause your to retarded to have caught the words in their posts?



does not change your status in the least....you are a bullshitter and a confirmed liar.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> does not change your status in the least....you are a bullshitter and a confirmed liar.



The liar here is you, by your own standard you have lied steadily through out this thread. You keep making a claim as fact that is blatantly false. You know it is false or should by your own admitted thinking process.

Go ahead repeat the lie for us.... You know ya wanna.


----------



## DeadCanDance

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ohh look pinhead is blathering again. I notice you do not call anyone else that said the same thing as having been "debunked" or is that cause your to retarded to have caught the words in their posts?



Is it so hard for you to admit that you just made up a bunch of stuff, and was wrong?  There isn't 20,000 american troops in the balkans, and stabilization operations there have been turned over to the European union.  You were wrong on all counts.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

DeadCanDance said:


> Is it so hard for you to admit that you just made up a bunch of stuff, and was wrong?  There isn't 20,000 american troops in the balkans, and stabilization operations there have been turned over to the European union.  You were wrong on all counts.



No, I may be wrong, but not because I CHOSE to lie about something I knew wasn't true like pinheads you and Maineman. I am going by what I have read here and else where. You on the other hand and Maineman have been shown to be lying sacks of cow shit on the Bush lied claim over and over. But do keep telling us differently.


----------



## DeadCanDance

RetiredGySgt said:


> No, I may be wrong, but not because I CHOSE to lie about something I knew wasn't true like pinheads you and Maineman. I am going by what I have read here and else where. You on the other hand and Maineman have been shown to be lying sacks of cow shit on the Bush lied claim over and over. But do keep telling us differently.




Okay, I've offically concluded that your a liar, who can't be trusted to admit a mistake, or tell the truth.  In fact, I'm doubting your alleged credentials as a veteran.  Even I knew that the american military presence had been drawn down to a minimum in the balkans, and operations there were largely being run by the European Union.  I would think somebody with a military career, and allegedly still having friends in the military wouldn't just make stuff up out of whole cloth about america's military posture in the balkans. 

Internet poseur.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

DeadCanDance said:


> Okay, I've offically concluded that your a liar, who can't be trusted to admit a mistake, or tell the truth.  In fact, I'm doubting your alleged credentials as a veteran.  Even I knew that the american military presence had been drawn down to a minimum in the balkans, and operations there were largely being run by the European Union.  I would think somebody with a military career, and allegedly still having friends in the military wouldn't just make stuff up out of whole cloth about america's military posture in the balkans.
> 
> Internet poseur.



I have no one I kow in the military any more never claimed I did retard. Further I am a retired Marine, the operations in that area are Army/AirForce/Navy. But then anyone with half a functioning brain would know that. Do blather on retard. Remind us of all the service YOU have done for your country other then undermine it in a time of war and whine like a baby when you don't get what you want.

BOO HOO HOO poor abused DCD such a horrible life you have been held prisoner in a country you do not even like. Prevented from bad mouthing the Government, its troops and its veterans, BOO HOO HOO.

You wouldn't know a retired dog catcher much less a retired military person. But do keep it up retard.


----------



## Shogun

hey, DCD...    you can always pull a RGS and complain to the mods about that last post.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> The liar here is you, by your own standard you have lied steadily through out this thread. You keep making a claim as fact that is blatantly false. You know it is false or should by your own admitted thinking process.
> 
> Go ahead repeat the lie for us.... You know ya wanna.



You have not heard one lie from me.  

Tell us again about the 20K troops in Bosnia.

oh...and you never did tell me...do you know what the "E" stands for in "NIE"?


----------



## maineman

oh heck...you probably DON'T know so I'll tell you,

E S T I M A T E !!!!!

_*es·ti·mate        *
noun 
4. an *approximate judgment *or calculation, as of the value, amount, time, size, or weight of something.  
5. a judgment or *opinion*, as of the qualities of a person or thing.  
6. a statement of the approximate charge for work to be done, submitted by a person or business firm ready to undertake the work. _ 

here's a newsflash for ya:

the words "approximate", "opinion", and "judgment" do not play well together with the concept of "total absence of doubt" and "absolute certainty".  If there were absolute certainty, they would be no need to *ESTIMATE*!


----------



## DeadCanDance

RetiredGySgt said:


> I have no one I kow in the military any more never claimed I did retard. Further I am a retired Marine, the operations in that area are Army/AirForce/Navy. But then anyone with half a functioning brain would know that. Do blather on retard. Remind us of all the service YOU have done for your country other then undermine it in a time of war and whine like a baby when you don't get what you want.
> 
> BOO HOO HOO poor abused DCD such a horrible life you have been held prisoner in a country you do not even like. Prevented from bad mouthing the Government, its troops and its veterans, BOO HOO HOO.
> 
> You wouldn't know a retired dog catcher much less a retired military person. But do keep it up retard.




_RGS: "Further I am a retired *Marine*, the operations in that area are *Army/AirForce/Navy*. But then anyone with half a functioning brain would know that&#8221;_



Tsk, Tsk, Tsk.   Wrong again.  Keep digging that hole deeper.  

LOL   You, as an &#8220;alleged&#8221; ex-marine, should know that *Marines WERE involved in Kosovo peacekeeping operations&#8230;.*http://archive.seacoastonline.com/1999news/6_14_w1.htm

And that detachments of MEFs even continued operating in Kosovo , well into Bush&#8217;s term


Care to retract anything you&#8217;ve said in this thread about the Balkans, ALL of which has been wrong??


And now that your excuse that you are allegedly "ex marine"  - therefore you couldn't possibly know america's military posture in the balkans -- has been debunked, what's your next excuse?


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> oh heck...you probably DON'T know so I'll tell you,
> 
> E S T I M A T E !!!!!
> 
> _*es·ti·mate        *
> noun
> 4. an *approximate judgment *or calculation, as of the value, amount, time, size, or weight of something.
> 5. a judgment or *opinion*, as of the qualities of a person or thing.
> 6. a statement of the approximate charge for work to be done, submitted by a person or business firm ready to undertake the work. _
> 
> here's a newsflash for ya:
> 
> the words "approximate", "opinion", and "judgment" do not play well together with the concept of "total absence of doubt" and "absolute certainty".  If there were absolute certainty, they would be no need to *ESTIMATE*!



Are you still crying about getting schooled....?


NIE REPORT.....

"We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. *Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons *  as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade."

Does the word in red denote doubt ?...try a dictionary
An estimate is a judgment....and the NIE 'judgment' is......IRAQ HAS etc....
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bush statement under debate......

"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."
George Bush March 18, 2003
----------------------------------------------

Is the 10/02 NIE US intell ?....Yes....
Does it confirm Iraq HAS WMD ?  Yes...
Does any foreign intell confirm Iraq had WMD ? ....Yes....
Is the Bush quote accurate ?...YES....ergo...There is no lie...
*Does it matter if other intell had caveats ? ...Not a bit...*

MM...you are dimissed


----------



## maineman

so.... you have a hard time understanding that that was an "estimate"?  A best guess at that moment in time.... how often have the NIE's changed from year to year?  Are you being intentionally obtuse or do you really have a learning disorder?  The NIE a few years ago said that Iran was close to having nukes and the next year they say that Iran hasd suspended their programs years ago...ESTIMATE.  Go read the definition again, asshole.


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> so.... you have a hard time understanding that that was an "estimate"?  A best guess at that moment in time.... how often have the NIE's changed from year to year?  Are you being intentionally obtuse or do you really have a learning disorder?  The NIE a few years ago said that Iran was close to having nukes and the next year they say that Iran hasd suspended their programs years ago...ESTIMATE.  Go read the definition again, asshole.



I read the definition you posted..understand it perfectly....what I don't have is a reading comprehension problem, at lease not nearly as acute as you exhibit....
estimate...2.	to form an opinion of; judge.

NIE report...."We judge that Iraq" etc....

Well I'll be ....."JUDGE".... thats a perfect match......

Now what  do they judge.....We judge "Baghdad *has chemical and biological weapons*  as well as missiles " etc....
--------------------------------------------
Wow...new word for MM...HAS...does MM know what that means....seems not.....

HAS....
1.	*to possess*
*to own*
*to hold*
 for use; contain: He has property. The work has an index.
2.	*to hold, possess*, or accept in some relation, as of kindred or relative position: He wanted to marry her, but she wouldn't have him.
3.	*to get*, receive, or take: to have a part in a play;
* to have* news.

Can MM figure it out....?

"Baghdad *has chemical and biological weapons* 
"Baghdad *possesses chemical and biological weapons* 
"Baghdad *holds chemical and biological weapons* 

I know its tough Sonny....just try harder....
Is it starting to get through.....
Reading disabilities are serious, you have my pity...

And there is no doubt, thats what the intell said, plain and simple English, well for those that at least, have a valid high school education...


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> I read the definition you posted..understand it perfectly....what I don't have is a reading comprehension problem, at lease not nearly as acute as you exhibit....
> estimate...2.	to form an opinion of; judge.
> 
> NIE report...."We judge that Iraq" etc....
> 
> Well I'll be ....."JUDGE".... thats a perfect match......
> 
> Now what  do they judge.....We judge "Baghdad *has chemical and biological weapons*  as well as missiles " etc....
> --------------------------------------------
> Wow...new word for MM...HAS...does MM know what that means....seems not.....
> 
> HAS....
> 1.	*to possess*
> *to own*
> *to hold*
> for use; contain: He has property. The work has an index.
> 2.	*to hold, possess*, or accept in some relation, as of kindred or relative position: He wanted to marry her, but she wouldn't have him.
> 3.	*to get*, receive, or take: to have a part in a play;
> * to have* news.
> 
> Can MM figure it out....?
> 
> "Baghdad *has chemical and biological weapons*
> "Baghdad *possesses chemical and biological weapons*
> "Baghdad *holds chemical and biological weapons*
> 
> I know its tough Sonny....just try harder....
> Is it starting to get through.....
> Reading disabilities are serious, you have my pity...
> 
> And there is no doubt, thats what the intell said, plain and simple English, well for those that at least, have a valid high school education...



no.  judgment is not synonymous with certainty.  

When will you admit that NIE's have flip flopped from year to year on a variety of issues.... what they "judge" one year they turn around and "judge" differently the next year.  that is why it is called an ESTIMATE.  Do you understand what the entire concept of an ESTIMATE is?  Apparently not.  Gramps.  Alzheimer's kicking in early?  Didn't get your welfare on time?

_*judge:*

to form a judgment or opinion of; 
to infer, think, or hold as an opinion; conclude about or assess;
to make a careful *guess* about; *estimate*_


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> no.  judgment is not synonymous with certainty.
> 
> H A S.....is synonymous with certainty....
> 
> When will you admit that NIE's have flip flopped from year to year on a variety of issues.... what they "judge" one year they turn around and "judge" differently the next year.  that is why it is called an ESTIMATE.  Do you understand what the entire concept of an ESTIMATE is?  Apparently not.  Gramps.  Alzheimer's kicking in early?  Didn't get your welfare on time?
> 
> _*judge:*
> 
> to form a judgment or opinion of;
> to infer, think, or hold as an opinion; conclude about or assess;
> to make a careful *guess* about; *estimate*_



I would hope and expect that as the intell changes, that the judgments and conclusions of the NIE and its 16 different agencys changes...

What is firmly thought to be factual and true today might surely change as intell changes....do you find that logic over you head?

The agreed upon conclusion of 16 different intell agencys of the United States as of 10/02.......*"Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons"*



HAS....
1. to possess
to own
to hold
for use; contain: He has property. The work has an index.
2. to hold, possess, or accept in some relation, as of kindred or relative position: He wanted to marry her, but she wouldn't have him.
3. to get, receive, or take: to have a part in a play;
to have news.

"Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons
"Baghdad possesses chemical and biological weapons
"Baghdad holds chemical and biological weapons


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> I would hope and expect that as the intell changes, that the judgments and conclusions of the NIE and its 16 different agencys changes...
> 
> What is firmly thought to be factual and true today might surely change as intell changes....do you find that logic over you head?



not at all.  Which is why there is ALWAYS a degree of doubt.  If there were absolute certainty, the judgments and conclusions would not change from year to year.  For example:  Lenin is buried in his tomb in Red Square.  next year:  Lenin is buried in his tomb in Red Square.  Our intelligence agents can walk right up to the glass covered coffin and see him.  absolute certainty. If the intell changes and conclusions change, then there, by definition, could NOT have been absolute certainty...there could NOT have been the total absence of doubt.

What part of that do you have a hard time comprehending?


----------



## DeadCanDance

Shogun said:


> hey, DCD...    you can always pull a RGS and complain to the mods about that last post.



LOL

I don't run crying and whining like a little girl to the mods, over garden variety banter. 


HaHa....RGS is a pussy.  He just neg repped me for proving that everything he said about the balkans was wrong.


PS RGS:  I don't give a crap about neg reps.  Only little girls, emotional people, and posters who take message boards far too seriously give people neg reps.


----------



## maineman

DeadCanDance said:


> LOL
> 
> I don't run crying and whining like a little girl to the mods, over garden variety banter.
> 
> 
> HaHa....RGS is a pussy.  He just neg repped me for proving that everything he said about the balkans was wrong.
> 
> 
> PS RGS:  I don't give a crap about neg reps.  Only little girls, emotional people, and posters who take message boards far too seriously give people neg reps.



LOL!!!!


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> not at all.  Which is why there is ALWAYS a degree of doubt.  If there was absolute certainty, the judgments and conclusions would not change from year to year.  Lenin is buried in his tomb in Red Square.  next year:  Lenin is buried in his tomb in Red Square.  Our intelligence agents can walk right up to the glass covered coffin and see him.  absolute certainty. If the intell changes and conclusions change, then there, by definition, could NOT have been absolute certainty...there could NOT have been the total absence of doubt.
> 
> What part of that do you have a hard time comprehending?



Wrong. The "estimate" has NO doubt. IT states that all 16 Intel agency AGREE that Iraq HAS chemical and Biological weapons. It does not say " we think" nor " our best estimate is" It STATES repeatedly through out the Document that Iraq has them, that Iraq is making more, that Iraq is using mobile labs and using civilian plants. It further STATES , again with NO caveats, that Iraq is try to build longer range missiles for the purpose of delivering said weapons and that Iraq is working on making a nuclear weapon.

NO doubt, no maybe, no could be, no we think, no we estimate, no the consensus is. A straight forward statement of fact. All 16 agencies AGREED that Iraq had weapons and was making more, that it was getting better at making those weapons last on the shelf.

Yet you keep claiming that just is not true.

Now lets take a look at some more of this NIE shall we?

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/nie-iraq-wmd.html

Here a re some nice parts.



> We have low confidence in our ability to assess when Saddam would use WMD.



Why look, they DO know how to inform the reader, the President of doubts or lack of certainty after all.




>  The Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) probably has been, directed to conduct clandestine attacks against US and Allied interests in the Middle East in the event the United States takes action against Iraq. The IIS probably would be the primary means by which Iraq would attempt to conduct any CBW attacks on the US Homeland, although we have no specific intelligence information that Saddams regime has directed attacks against US territory.



NO don't look, but they actually SAY when they have no certainty, using the word probably to convey a degree of doubt.

In fact the NIE did have doubts, but NONE about the Possession of weapons. NONE about the production of weapons, NONE about the production and use of missiles.

Now here is a face saver for you Maineman.

Since Alpha did not provide the entire released portion of the NIE and this link seems to have it. You can say that there was DOUBT that Iraq would use Terrorists to attack us unless pushed. That there was doubt that Iraq would use WMDs against us on our soil or in the Middle East unless pushed.

But before you gloat to much over that, remember the simple fact that Saddam was a meglomaniac and already had a grudge against the US. He had tried several times to find common Ground with AL Quaede.

Thus the President stating that he did not feel it wise to wait until we were attacked to get rid of a KNOWN threat ( the WMDs that the intel STATED were there) does not add up to the lie you want so desperately to be true.

And this of course would explain why Congress has agreed ever since that in fact Bush did NOT lie. He was told that Iraq had weapons and that they could use them against us if they felt threatened or for revenge.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

DeadCanDance said:


> LOL
> 
> I don't run crying and whining like a little girl to the mods, over garden variety banter.
> 
> 
> HaHa....RGS is a pussy.  He just neg repped me for proving that everything he said about the balkans was wrong.
> 
> 
> PS RGS:  I don't give a crap about neg reps.  Only little girls, emotional people, and posters who take message boards far too seriously give people neg reps.



And you got it wrong as usual. You got neg repped for continuing to claim I was not a retired Marine, which is clearly stated in the neg rep. Tell ya what , your free to copy and post what I said, as long as it is all of what I said.

Go ahead retard post it.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> And you got it wrong as usual. You got neg repped for continuing to claim I was not a retired Marine, which is clearly stated in the neg rep. Tell ya what , your free to copy and post what I said, as long as it is all of what I said.
> 
> Go ahead retard post it.



I can understand your not knowing about the marines' involvment in the Balkans.  I will admit that I do not keep up with every detail of US Navy ops since my retirement.


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> not at all.  Which is why there is ALWAYS a degree of doubt.  If there were absolute certainty, the judgments and conclusions would not change from year to year.  For example:  Lenin is buried in his tomb in Red Square.  next year:  Lenin is buried in his tomb in Red Square.  Our intelligence agents can walk right up to the glass covered coffin and see him.  absolute certainty. If the intell changes and conclusions change, then there, by definition, could NOT have been absolute certainty...there could NOT have been the total absence of doubt.
> 
> What part of that do you have a hard time comprehending?



The agreed upon conclusion of 16 different intell agencys of the United States as of 10/02......."Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons"

HAS....
1. to possess
to own
to hold
for use; contain: He has property. The work has an index.
2. to hold, possess, or accept in some relation, as of kindred or relative position: He wanted to marry her, but she wouldn't have him.
3. to get, receive, or take: to have a part in a play;
to have news.

"Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons
"Baghdad possesses chemical and biological weapons
"Baghdad holds chemical and biological weapons

What part of that do you have a hard time comprehending?
I'll try smaller, less intimidating words if thats possible....

The agreed upon conclusion of 16 different intell agencys of the United States as of 10/02......."Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons"

The agreed upon conclusion of 16 different intell agencys of the United States as of 10/02......."Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons"

The agreed upon conclusion of 16 different intell agencys of the United States as of 10/02......."Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons"

The agreed upon conclusion of 16 different intell agencys of the United States as of 10/02......."Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons"

HAS, HAS, HAS, HAS,HAS


Maybe repetition will help you....try saying HAS aloud....maybe something will click in that pointy head of yours.....


----------



## maineman

do you think that all of the agencies agreed about Iran's nuclear program in 2005?  What about 2007?  Two completely different conclusions.  They may have arrived at a similar judgment, but it was, and always be an ESTIMATE.   

what part of ESTIMATE and JUDGMENT  are you willfully refusing to understand?  Try repeating Estimate over and over and over again.


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> do you think that all of the agencies agreed about Iran's nuclear program three years ago?  What about this year?  Two completely different conclusions.  They may have arrived at a similar judgment, but it was, and always be an ESTIMATE.
> 
> what part of ESTIMATE and JUDGMENT  are you willfully refusing to understand?



As the intell dictates, judgments might vary.....all 16 agencys will debate their particular intell.....
and they might CONCLUDE "Baghdad DOES NOT HAVE WMD"
or they might CONCLUDE "Baghdad H A S WMD"
Either is a definite conclusion, without reservations, caveats, or qualifiers..

Just so happens the 10/02 conclusion was ...."Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons"

Now Sonny...you can twist and turn and spin and jump and tumble and write these words in a foreign language.....
and in the end, after all is said and *NOTHING WILL FUCKIN' CHANGE THE MEANING OF THE WORDS.......""Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons"

Its just that simple.....and it don't matter 1 iota what other conclusions were arrived at at other times.....*


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> As the intell dictates, judgments might vary.....all 16 agencys will debate their particular intell.....
> and they might CONCLUDE "Baghdad DOES NOT HAVE WMD"
> or they might CONCLUDE "Baghdad H A S WMD"
> Either is a definite conclusion, without reservations, caveats, or qualifiers..
> 
> Just so happens the 10/02 conclusion was ...."Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons"
> 
> Now Sonny...you can twist and turn and spin and jump and tumble and write these words in a foreign language.....
> and in the end, after all is said and *NOTHING WILL FUCKIN' CHANGE THE MEANING OF THE WORDS.......""Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons"
> 
> Its just that simple.....and it don't matter 1 iota what other conclusions were arrived at at other times.....*


*


of course it matters.... estimates change.  judgments change. asbsolute certainties do not.  estimates that say one thing one year and another thing the next and another the year after that are estimates.... there is always doubt in estimates.  It was their best estimate that Saddam had weapons.  I don't question that...but it WAS an estimate.  

and remember:  nothing will change the meaning of the E in NIE.  The entire report is an ESTIMATE. Gramps.*


----------



## DeadCanDance

RetiredGySgt said:


> And you got it wrong as usual. You got neg repped for continuing to claim I was not a retired Marine, which is clearly stated in the neg rep. Tell ya what , your free to copy and post what I said, as long as it is all of what I said.
> 
> Go ahead retard post it.



The marine thing was a diversion for your anger.  You got angry because I proved, with official government websites, that everything you said was wrong about the balkans.  You're too emotionally invested in touting your alleged heroic warrior status.  Most of my family served in the military, and they never ran their mouths or bragged about being veterans to complete strangers.  I have no way of affirming what any poster claims they did in their private, lives, nor do I care.  I only know that for someone with an alleged  military background, you are completely uninformed about the US military posture in the balkans.  And you've yet to admit everything you said was wrong.


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> of course it matters.... estimates change.  judgments change. asbsolute certainties do not.  estimates that say one thing one year and another thing the next and another the year after that are estimates.... there is always doubt in estimates.  It was their best estimate that Saddam had weapons.  I don't question that...but it WAS an estimate.
> 
> and remember:  nothing will change the meaning of the E in NIE.  The entire report is an ESTIMATE. Gramps.



Bush statement under debate......

"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."
George Bush March 18, 2003
----------------------------------------------

Is the 10/02 NIE US intell gathered by this government.?....Yes....
Does it conclude that Iraq HAS WMD ?  Yes...
Does any foreign intell confirm Iraq had WMD ? ....Yes....
Is the Bush quote accurate ?...YES....ergo...There is no lie...
Does it matter that earlier intell had caveats ? ...Not a bit...
Does it matter that later intell had caveats ? ...Not a bit...
THIS intell, consisting of 16 independent agencys, after comparing and debating and analyzing their various findings, * concludes with certainty.....and I quote...."Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons"

Sorry sonny...thats the facts of the matter....there is no doubt!*


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> Bush statement under debate......
> 
> "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."
> George Bush March 18, 2003
> ----------------------------------------------
> 
> Is the 10/02 NIE US intell gathered by this government.?....Yes....
> Does it conclude that Iraq HAS WMD ?  Yes...
> Does any foreign intell confirm Iraq had WMD ? ....Yes....
> Is the Bush quote accurate ?...YES....ergo...There is no lie...
> Does it matter that earlier intell had caveats ? ...Not a bit...
> Does it matter that later intell had caveats ? ...Not a bit...
> THIS intell, consisting of 16 independent agencys, after comparing and debating and analyzing their various findings, * concludes with certainty.....and I quote...."Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons"
> 
> Sorry sonny...thats the facts of the matter....there is no doubt!*



an estimate is not absolute certainty.  A judgment is not absolute certainty.  Sorry gramps.  You lose.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Your entire claim that Bush lied rests on your claim that Bush was not told Iraq had WMDs , that he was told there was doubt or uncertainty they had them. The NIE is pointedly clear on that issue. NO DOUBT existed for the 16 agencies that made the report.

It is now in your ball park, provide us with a link to some evidence that Bush was told Iraq may not have weapons. Your entire claim depends on it.

I have already shown that when the intel people were not certain they in fact DID use words to convey that uncertainty. There are none on the issue of WMDs, none on missiles, none of production.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> Your entire claim that Bush lied rests on your claim that Bush was not told Iraq had WMDs , that he was told there was doubt or uncertainty they had them. The NIE is pointedly clear on that issue. NO DOUBT existed for the 16 agencies that made the report.
> 
> It is now in your ball park, provide us with a link to some evidence that Bush was told Iraq may not have weapons. Your entire claim depends on it.
> 
> I have already shown that when the intel people were not certain they in fact DID use words to convey that uncertainty. There are none on the issue of WMDs, none on missiles, none of production.



no.  my claim rests on my claim that he WAS told that there were caveats and qualifiers that limited the certainty of the intelligence.  ANd NIE's are ESTIMATES.  Did you read the definition of the word "estimate"?  

Can you explain how the 2005 NIE says that Iran is actively pursuing nuclear weapons and the 2007 NIE says that they had stopped pursuing them in 2003?  I can.... it is because they are ESTIMATES!!!!!

read this link from start to finish:

http://www.cfr.org/publication/7758/intelligence.html#2


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> no.  my claim rests on my claim that he WAS told that there were caveats and qualifiers that limited the certainty of the intelligence.  ANd NIE's are ESTIMATES.  Did you read the definition of the word "estimate"?
> 
> Can you explain how the 2005 NIE says that Iran is actively pursuing nuclear weapons and the 2007 NIE says that they had stopped pursuing them in 2003?  I can.... it is because they are ESTIMATES!!!!!
> 
> read this link from start to finish:
> 
> http://www.cfr.org/publication/7758/intelligence.html#2



You can not be serious. You do understand intel is a constant on going effort and that I sure as hell hope the 2007 NIE is not exactly the same as the 2005 one.

Come on provide us a link to one of those pre invasion briefs were Bush was told " we are not sure". You keep claiming they exist, post one. I have posted the NIE which has NO DOUBT in regards this issue, NONE, NOT a SHRED of doubt. And we have the Director of the CIA stating publicly that WMDs in Iraq was a slam dunk open and shut case.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> You can not be serious. You do understand intel is a constant on going effort and that I sure as hell hope the 2007 NIE is not exactly the same as the 2005 one.
> 
> Come on provide us a link to one of those pre invasion briefs were Bush was told " we are not sure". You keep claiming they exist, post one. I have posted the NIE which has NO DOUBT in regards this issue, NONE, NOT a SHRED of doubt. And we have the Director of the CIA stating publicly that WMDs in Iraq was a slam dunk open and shut case.



the link I provided you discussed caveats and qualifiers that were in place in the *classified* version of the NIE and not available in the *UNclassified summary-only *released to the public that you posted. 

_*ca&#183;ve&#183;at     *
a warning or caution; admonition _ 

_*qual&#183;i&#183;fi&#183;er * 
A word or phrase that qualifies, *limits,* or modifies the meaning of another word or phrase. _


And of COURSE estimates change... that is why they call them ESTIMATES.

But things in this world about which we have absolute certainty do NOT change.
1.  Lenin is buried in Red Square
2.  Stonehenge is in Salisbury
3.  There is a statue of Abraham Lincoln in the Lincoln Memorial
4.  The USS Arizona is at the bottom of Pearl Harbor
5.  The earth revolves around the sun.  
I do not need to estimate any of those things.  I can state #1-5 without doubt.

Again:  

_*es&#183;ti&#183;mate* 
noun 
an *approximate judgment* or calculation, as of the value, amount, time, size, or weight of something.  
a judgment or *opinion*, as of the qualities of a person or thing. 
_

The fact that estimates do, in fact, change over time...and, in the case of 2005 v 2007 NIE's - the latter completely contradicted the judgments of the former - is why one should NEVER ascribe absolute certainty to the judgments contained therein.  There is ALWAYS a degree of doubt...there is ALWAYS a degree of uncertainty.  IT IS A FUCKING ESTIMATE!!!!!


----------



## Alpha1

What's the process for writing an NIE?

    * An executive branch official, a member of the House or Senate, or a military commander requests an NIE.
    * The request is authorized by the director of central intelligence.
    * The NIC prepares the terms of reference, an outline of the key issues, and questions to be covered in the estimate.
    * An NIO writes the first draft of the NIE or directs another intelligence analyst or outside expert to do so.
    * The NIC staff reviews the draft, which is then sent to the U.S. government that share responsibility for compiling national intelligence on the relevant issue. Each agency's experts review the draft and prepare comments.
    * Each agency sends a representative to meet and discuss the report at an interagency coordination session. *"They go through the report line by line, paragraph by paragraph," says Michael Peters, the executive vice president of the Council on Foreign Relations and, during his Army career, a participant in the NIE-preparation process. "They discuss the quality of the information and the facts and analysis, as well as the wording and terminology."
    * In this and succeeding sessions, the analysts attempt to produce a draft that reflects the collective judgment of the intelligence community. "Once there is fundamentally a text that is as close to consensus as you can get, you either sign on or take a footnote [indicating disagreement]," Peters says. In the case of a footnote, one or more agencies will include in the report a short paragraph disputing a particular point. There can be dozens of footnotes in an NIE, Peters says.*
    * A final draft is submitted to intelligence community peers and experts for their review. In addition, the NIE often includes a summary of the opinions of experts outside the government.
    * The NIC reviews the final draft, then forwards it to the National Foreign Intelligence Board (NFIB) for approval. The NFIB is composed of senior representatives of the intelligence community and is chaired by the director of central intelligence.
    * The NFIB approves the NIE, typically on the same day it is presented.


*"They discuss the quality of the information and the facts and analysis, as well as the wording and terminology."[/u]
    * In this and succeeding sessions, the analysts attempt to produce a draft that reflects the collective judgment of the intelligence community. 

So they discuss wording and terminology used in an attempt to produce a draft that reflects the collective judgment of intelligence community......

Does MM understand that ..... and what did this produce? Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons *

So this is the wording used to reflect the collective judgment of the intell. community.....B A G H D A D    H A S.....


this collective group (all individuals of which, I would assume are much smarter that MM),

This group agrees the word HAS best reflects what their intell shows.....and present their findings 

If they had reasonable doubt, would they be smart enough to say....might,....or could, or may have, ...
I think they know what those words mean, don't you snipe ?   But what word did they agree on......H A S......


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> What's the process for writing an NIE?
> 
> * An executive branch official, a member of the House or Senate, or a military commander requests an NIE.
> * The request is authorized by the director of central intelligence.
> * The NIC prepares the terms of reference, an outline of the key issues, and questions to be covered in the estimate.
> * An NIO writes the first draft of the NIE or directs another intelligence analyst or outside expert to do so.
> * The NIC staff reviews the draft, which is then sent to the U.S. government that share responsibility for compiling national intelligence on the relevant issue. Each agency's experts review the draft and prepare comments.
> * Each agency sends a representative to meet and discuss the report at an interagency coordination session. *"They go through the report line by line, paragraph by paragraph," says Michael Peters, the executive vice president of the Council on Foreign Relations and, during his Army career, a participant in the NIE-preparation process. "They discuss the quality of the information and the facts and analysis, as well as the wording and terminology."
> * In this and succeeding sessions, the analysts attempt to produce a draft that reflects the collective judgment of the intelligence community. "Once there is fundamentally a text that is as close to consensus as you can get, you either sign on or take a footnote [indicating disagreement]," Peters says. In the case of a footnote, one or more agencies will include in the report a short paragraph disputing a particular point. There can be dozens of footnotes in an NIE, Peters says.*
> * A final draft is submitted to intelligence community peers and experts for their review. In addition, the NIE often includes a summary of the opinions of experts outside the government.
> * The NIC reviews the final draft, then forwards it to the National Foreign Intelligence Board (NFIB) for approval. The NFIB is composed of senior representatives of the intelligence community and is chaired by the director of central intelligence.
> * The NFIB approves the NIE, typically on the same day it is presented.
> 
> 
> *"They discuss the quality of the information and the facts and analysis, as well as the wording and terminology."[/u]
> * In this and succeeding sessions, the analysts attempt to produce a draft that reflects the collective judgment of the intelligence community.
> 
> So they discuss wording and terminology used in an attempt to produce a draft that reflects the collective judgment of intelligence community......
> 
> Does MM understand that ..... and what did this produce? Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons *
> 
> So this is the wording used to reflect the collective judgment of the intell. community.....B A G H D A D    H A S.....
> 
> 
> this collective group (all individuals of which, I would assume are much smarter that MM),
> 
> This group agrees the word HAS best reflects what their intell shows.....and present their findings
> 
> If they had reasonable doubt, would they be smart enough to say....might,....or could, or may have, ...
> I think they know what those words mean, don't you snipe ?   But what word did they agree on......H A S......



Do you understand what the word "judgment" means?  do you understand what the word "estimate" means?  Do you understand that judgment and estimate do not play well together with total absence of doubt and absolute certainty?  

That same collective group of individuals estimated, in 2005, that Iran was actively involved in producing a nuclear weapon.  But then...that same collective group of individuals estimated, in 2007, that Iran had abandoned their efforts to produce a nuclear weapon back in 2003. hmmmm.  I guess maybe that is why they call it a national intelligence ESTIMATE!!!!!


----------



## Taomon

RetiredGySgt said:


> You can not be serious. You do understand intel is a constant on going effort and that I sure as hell hope the 2007 NIE is not exactly the same as the 2005 one.
> 
> Come on provide us a link to one of those pre invasion briefs were Bush was told " we are not sure". You keep claiming they exist, post one. I have posted the NIE which has NO DOUBT in regards this issue, NONE, NOT a SHRED of doubt. And we have the Director of the CIA stating publicly that WMDs in Iraq was a slam dunk open and shut case.



http://downingstreetmemo.com/manningtext.html


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> Do you understand what the word "judgment" means?  do you understand what the word "estimate" means?  Do you understand that judgment and estimate do not play well together with total absence of doubt and absolute certainty?
> 
> That same collective group of individuals estimated, in 2005, that Iran was actively involved in producing a nuclear weapon.
> 
> Well Sonny, If that same collective group said, "We ESTIMATE that Iran is actively involved in producing a nuclear weapon", I would agree with 100%......so what, you want a medal or something
> 
> But then...that same collective group of individuals estimated, in 2007, that Iran had abandoned their efforts to produce a nuclear weapon back in 2003. hmmmm.
> 
> And if that same collective group said, "We ESTIMATE that Iran has abandoned their etc...." I would again agree....and again say 'so what'.....
> 
> I guess maybe that is why they call it a national intelligence ESTIMATE!!!!!




EX 1

Its when they say...., "Iran is actively involved in producing a nuclear weapon"....THAT Sonny, is quite a different statement, with a different meaning......(Reading-Grade 3)


EX 2
And then later that same learned group says, "Iran had abandoned their efforts to produce a nuclear weapon back in 2003"...that too is a different statement with a different meaning....(Reading-Grade 3)

Do I need to explain those two statements to you?.....


Example 1
that in 2005, this group stated without reservation that Iran was actively involved in producing a nuclear weapon"......
END OF EXPLANATION.....

Example 2 
that in 2007, this group stated without reservation that 
"Iran had abandoned their efforts to produce a nuclear weapon back in 2003"
END OF EXPLAINATION


You're concerned about the opposing claims?

Well, lets see....
If in fact the 2005 conclusion is true, then the 2007 claim is in error....

If in fact the 2007 conclusion is true, then the 2005 claim is in error....

Conclusions is error? Yep....Lies maybe...Nope...

 SO  WHAT ! 

You can't seem to grasp the fact that the accuracy of the NIE statements is IRRELEVANT to this debate.....while the accuracy of what Bush said is the point.....and after all the fog clears...Bush is accurate in stating what the intell said (in definite terms, ie HAS) about Iraq having chem and bio weapons--- the accuracy of the intell is irrelevant....


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> no.  my claim rests on my claim that he WAS told that there were caveats and qualifiers that limited the certainty of the intelligence.  ANd NIE's are ESTIMATES.  Did you read the definition of the word "estimate"?
> 
> Can you explain how the 2005 NIE says that Iran is actively pursuing nuclear weapons and the 2007 NIE says that they had stopped pursuing them in 2003?  I can.... it is because they are ESTIMATES!!!!!
> 
> read this link from start to finish:
> 
> http://www.cfr.org/publication/7758/intelligence.html#2




You keep saying the NIEs are estimates.....are you claiming that the NIE report cannot ever contain or conclude or make a statement of absolute fact and state it as such.....are you hinting at  such a stupid claim.....???

Are you trying to convince us that an NIE can never contain an indisputable fact and state it .......such as ....Baghdad has chem and bio weapons.....

Well...it ain't gonna happen Sonny....


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> You keep saying the NIEs are estimates.....are you claiming that the NIE report cannot ever contain or conclude or make a statement of absolute fact and state it as such.....are you hinting at  such a stupid claim.....???
> 
> Are you trying to convince us that an NIE can never contain an indisputable fact and state it .......such as ....Baghdad has chem and bio weapons.....
> 
> Well...it ain't gonna happen Sonny....



Yes...I am clearly stating that the National Intelligence ESTIMATE is, indeed, an ESTIMATE...HENCE THE FUCKING NAME!  I am saying that, in the world of intelligence, there are nearly always caveats and qualifiers that limit the certitude of the "judgments".  I am stating that the link I gave you speaks of the caveats and qualifiers in the classified portion of the NIE that you and I are not privy to.  You only quote the unclassified only summary and act as if it the fucking ten commandments handed to Moses on Mount Sinai. It is a fucking ESTIMATE...do you understand what that word means?  Do you understand that the NIE of 2005 stated that Iran HAD a viable ongoing nuclear weapons program and the 2007 NIE stated that Iran had stopped the program in 2003?  There was no "might's" or "maybe's" in 2005...and they were dead wrong.... but that's OK.. BECAUSE IT WAS A FUCKING ESTIMATE...NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE ESTIMATE...ESTIMATE...ESTIMATE.... ESTIMATE. Jesus, you are numb as a hake.

p.s.  and if "Baghdad has chem and bio weapons" is an "absolute and indisputable fact" as you claim.... WHERE THE FUCK ARE THEY???


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> You can't seem to grasp the fact that the accuracy of the NIE statements is IRRELEVANT to this debate.....while the accuracy of what Bush said is the point.....and after all the fog clears...Bush is accurate in stating what the intell said (in definite terms, ie HAS) about Iraq having chem and bio weapons--- the accuracy of the intell is irrelevant....




And if Bush had not seen the caveats and qualifiers which expressed the less than certain quality of the intelligence, you would have a point.  but he did, and you don't.


----------



## JimH52

How can I kill a thread?   AAAARRGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> And if Bush had not seen the caveats and qualifiers which expressed the less than certain quality of the intelligence, you would have a point.  but he did, and you don't.



 Baghdad has has has has has has has has chemical and biological weapons.

This NIE statement contains NO caveats or qualifiers which expressed the less than certain quality of the intelligence.....that is obvious to anyone without a reading disability....

You can't seem to grasp the fact that the accuracy of the NIE statements is IRRELEVANT to this debate.....while the accuracy of what Bush said is the point.....and after all the fog clears...Bush is accurate in stating what the intell said (in definite terms, ie HAS) that Iraq possessed chem and bio weapons--- the accuracy of the intell is irrelevant....

You're dismissed Sonny....thanks for playing....be sure to come back after you get some tutoring in reading comp.....


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> Baghdad has has has has has has has has chemical and biological weapons.
> 
> This NIE statement contains NO caveats or qualifiers which expressed the less than certain quality of the intelligence.....that is obvious to anyone without a reading disability....
> 
> You can't seem to grasp the fact that the accuracy of the NIE statements is IRRELEVANT to this debate.....while the accuracy of what Bush said is the point.....and after all the fog clears...Bush is accurate in stating what the intell said (in definite terms, ie HAS) that Iraq possessed chem and bio weapons--- the accuracy of the intell is irrelevant....
> 
> You're dismissed Sonny....thanks for playing....be sure to come back after you get some tutoring in reading comp.....



the unclassified summary that was released to the general public contains no caveats.  The link I provided clearly states that there WERE caveats in the classified complete estimate.  He knew of the doubts and yet said there were none.  ergo: lie.

go find some old broad with parkinson's to hold your shriveled dick, gramps...YOU are the one who is finished here.


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> the unclassified summary that was released to the general public contains no caveats.  The link I provided clearly states that there WERE caveats in the classified complete estimate.  He knew of the doubts and yet said there were none.  ergo: lie.
> 
> go find some old broad with parkinson's to hold your shriveled dick, gramps...YOU are the one who is finished here.



I've no problem with that ... there was qualifying language and dissenting assessments in the classified version of the NIE 

The dissenting assessments concerned....

the purpose and capabilities(range, payload, etc.) of  unmaned aircraft and aerial drones
the ability of Saddam to deliver CW or BW to US mainland
the amounts of BW in stockpiles....10 tons? 100 tons?
the amounts of CW in stockpiles....10 tons? 100 tons????
the variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery by bombs, missiles, or aerial sprayers 
the capabilities of his missiles....range, payload, etc.
his work on nuclear weapons....and equipment he might have ....

So yes, I agree the classified NIE had dissenting assenssments

There was a 511-page report to discrepancies between the two versions of the crucial October 2002 NIE, the panel laid out numerous instances in which the unclassified version omitted key dissenting opinions about Iraqi weapons capabilities, overstated U.S. knowledge about Iraq's alleged stockpiles of weapons(all concerning the quantity) and, in one case, inserted threatening language into the public document that was not contained in the classified version.

*But nowhere is there obvious dissent about Iraq possessing these weapons....except for the quantity they possessed....
and THAT IS THE POINT...the NIE makes a definitave statement ... Baghdad HAS*

Bye Bye Sonny.....


----------



## Alpha1

JimH52 said:


> How can I kill a thread?   AAAARRGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!




The thread ...... is dead !


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> The thread ...... is dead !



as is your lame argument... trying to base it all on an unclassified summary of the NIE (empahsis on the "E") as if it were the tablets from Mt Sinai was your undoing.

c'est la vie


----------



## mattskramer

maineman said:


> as is your lame argument... trying to base it all on an unclassified summary of the NIE (empahsis on the "E") as if it were the tablets from Mt Sinai was your undoing.
> 
> c'est la vie



Give it up.  I understand what you are saying.  I think that outer people here who try to think logically and soundly understand what you are saying.  Some people just wont acknowledge that they are wrong.  It is like trying to argue with a child while the child is throwing a temper tantrum.  You just cant reason with him.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

mattskramer said:


> Give it up.  I understand what you are saying.  I think that outer people here who try to think logically and soundly understand what you are saying.  Some people just wont acknowledge that they are wrong.  It is like trying to argue with a child while the child is throwing a temper tantrum.  You just cant reason with him.



Ya you, Maineman and DCD come instantly to mind on cry babies that won't admit they are wrong.

No logic exists to equate Bush lied. No legal definition equates to Bush lied. No moral test equates to Bush lied. AND last but not least there is no evidence, not one shred of it, that Bush lied. Maineman's whole argument is a house of cards that has been knocked down time and again. It is a huge game of semantics and trying to redefine meanings to suit hatred and political spite.


----------



## mattskramer

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ya you, Maineman and DCD come instantly to mind on cry babies that won't admit they are wrong.
> 
> No logic exists to equate Bush lied. No legal definition equates to Bush lied. No moral test equates to Bush lied. AND last but not least there is no evidence, not one shred of it, that Bush lied. Maineman's whole argument is a house of cards that has been knocked down time and again. It is a huge game of semantics and trying to redefine meanings to suit hatred and political spite.



1. Did Bush ever see anything anywhere that suggested less than 100 percent certainty that Saddam had WMD?  

2. After seeing such a thing, did Bush say that there is no doubt that Saddam had WMD? 

If the answer to each question is yes, then Bush lied.  It is as simple as that.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

mattskramer said:


> 1. Did Bush ever see anything anywhere that suggested less than 100 percent certainty that Saddam had WMD?
> 
> 2. After seeing such a thing, did Bush say that there is no doubt that Saddam had WMD?
> 
> If the answer to each question is yes, then Bush lied.  It is as simple as that.



Bush was told secretly and PUBLICLY that there was no DOUBT that Saddam Hussein had WMDs. The NIE shows it, the Statements of the head of the CIA shows it. The delusional claim is that in 2002 there was any doubt Iraq had those weapons.

Even those opposed to the war in the US Congress believed he had weapons, they just didn't think invading was the right way to go. Further every investigation and committee and board convened since has CONCLUDED that Bush did not lie.


----------



## mattskramer

RetiredGySgt said:


> Bush was told secretly and PUBLICLY that there was no DOUBT that Saddam Hussein had WMDs. The NIE shows it, the Statements of the head of the CIA shows it. The delusional claim is that in 2002 there was any doubt Iraq had those weapons.
> 
> Even those opposed to the war in the US Congress believed he had weapons, they just didn't think invading was the right way to go. Further every investigation and committee and board convened since has CONCLUDED that Bush did not lie.




Okay.  Then what about this 2002 letter supposedly suggesting doubt?


----------



## mattskramer

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ya you...come instantly to mind on cry babies that won't admit they are wrong.



Woah!!!!

I dont cry if and when I am wrong.  I have no qualms about being wrong.  When it dawns on me that I am wrong, I readily admit it.

http://usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=647745&postcount=4

I might be wrong.

http://usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=646325&postcount=24

Correct me if Im wrong

http://usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?p=646224&highlight=wrong#post646224

It is possible that I am wrong

http://usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=627575&postcount=5


Anyway, I might be wrong or right


----------



## maineman

No logic exists to equate Bush lied.

*it is logical to state that, if someone knows about the existence of doubt, and claims otherwise, they are not being truthful*

No legal definition equates to Bush lied. 

*I have never stated that Bush's lies constitute any legal transgression. The straightforward definition from the dictionary is all that I am using:  something intended or serving to convey a false impression And the false impression was:  that there was absolute certainty about Saddam's WMD stockpiles... and that impression, along with the implications made by the Vice President and others that Saddam had an alliance with AQ stretching back to before 9/11, served to hype the case for war* 

No moral test equates to Bush lied. 

*I don't know about you, but I think it is immoral to lie a country into war* 

AND last but not least there is no evidence, not one shred of it, that Bush lied. 

*I gave you a link that discusses the caveats and qualifiers that were contained in the classified complete version of the NIE in question.... all you can rely upon is the unclassified summary* 

Maineman's whole argument is a house of cards that has been knocked down time and again. It is a huge game of semantics and trying to redefine meanings to suit hatred and political spite. 

*not true.  All you do is claim to have debunked my arguments...you have never actually DONE so*


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> No logic exists to equate Bush lied.
> 
> *it is logical to state that, if someone knows about the existence of doubt, and claims otherwise, they are not being truthful*
> 
> No legal definition equates to Bush lied.
> 
> *I have never stated that Bush's lies constitute any legal transgression. The straightforward definition from the dictionary is all that I am using:  something intended or serving to convey a false impression And the false impression was:  that there was absolute certainty about Saddam's WMD stockpiles... and that impression, along with the implications made by the Vice President and others that Saddam had an alliance with AQ stretching back to before 9/11, served to hype the case for war*
> 
> No moral test equates to Bush lied.
> 
> *I don't know about you, but I think it is immoral to lie a country into war*
> 
> AND last but not least there is no evidence, not one shred of it, that Bush lied.
> 
> *I gave you a link that discusses the caveats and qualifiers that were contained in the classified complete version of the NIE in question.... all you can rely upon is the unclassified summary*
> 
> Maineman's whole argument is a house of cards that has been knocked down time and again. It is a huge game of semantics and trying to redefine meanings to suit hatred and political spite.
> 
> *not true.  All you do is claim to have debunked my arguments...you have never actually DONE so*



You have no proof, never had. You can not site any ACTUAL evidence that Bush was told "maybe" yet I can show he was told with NO DOUBT that WMDs were there. I can further show that the head of the CIA stated it was a "Slm Dunk case" that there were WMDs.

You can not attest to actual evidence since none exists except that which supports the "no Doubt" claim. You can not prove what Bush thought, unless your a mind reader now. The one that keeps insisting they are right with no evidence is YOU.

Ohh and I love the line about no crime. Lying to Congress IS a crime. Intentionally Misleading Congress IS a crime. Hampering Congress from receiving data IS a crime. Doctoring reports and briefings to Congress IS a crime. Ordering personnel testifying or reporting to Congress to falsify such, IS a crime.

You have at one point or another made all these claims about Bush and his Administration. Which is it ducky?


----------



## Taomon

RetiredGySgt said:


> You have no proof, never had. You can not site any ACTUAL evidence that Bush was told "maybe" yet I can show he was told with NO DOUBT that WMDs were there. I can further show that the head of the CIA stated it was a "Slm Dunk case" that there were WMDs.
> 
> You can not attest to actual evidence since none exists except that which supports the "no Doubt" claim. You can not prove what Bush thought, unless your a mind reader now. The one that keeps insisting they are right with no evidence is YOU.
> 
> Ohh and I love the line about no crime. Lying to Congress IS a crime. Intentionally Misleading Congress IS a crime. Hampering Congress from receiving data IS a crime. Doctoring reports and briefings to Congress IS a crime. Ordering personnel testifying or reporting to Congress to falsify such, IS a crime.
> 
> You have at one point or another made all these claims about Bush and his Administration. Which is it ducky?


So did they find any WMD?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Taomon said:


> So did they find any WMD?



It does not matter what happened in 2003, we are discussing what was believed in 2002. Do try to at least keep up with the conversation.

Further the claim that your making holds no water. Bush would not have made a forceful case for WMDs if he knew there were none there BECAUSE after the invasion what happened would , well happen.


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> No logic exists to equate Bush lied.
> 
> *it is logical to state that, if someone knows about the existence of doubt, and claims otherwise, they are not being truthful*
> 
> 
> STILL AT IT.....Sonny?
> 
> You start off with this lie and continue to try to prove your lie...
> 
> Bush DID NOT CLAIM "THEIR IS NO DOUBT" or "DENY THE EXISTENCE OF DOUBT ...he wasn't even talking about that to begin with....
> 
> If you start with a lie, naturally you'll end with a lie....
> 
> 
> Bush DID SAY:
> 
> "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."
> 
> AND THAT IS A TRUE STATEMENT
> All you need is the intelligence to understand exactly what the quote says...and not what you wish it says.....Bush's claim is simple and direct...
> 
> Is the 10/02 NIE US intell ?....Yes....
> Does it confirm Iraq HAS WMD ?  Yes...
> Does any foreign intell confirm Iraq had WMD ? ....Yes....
> Is the Bush quote accurate ?...YES....ergo...There is no lie...
> 
> 
> No legal definition equates to Bush lied.
> 
> *I have never stated that Bush's lies constitute any legal transgression. The straightforward definition from the dictionary is all that I am using:  something intended or serving to convey a false impression And the false impression was:  that there was absolute certainty about Saddam's WMD stockpiles... and that impression, along with the implications made by the Vice President and others that Saddam had an alliance with AQ stretching back to before 9/11, served to hype the case for war*
> 
> No moral test equates to Bush lied.
> 
> *I don't know about you, but I think it is immoral to lie a country into war*
> 
> AND last but not least there is no evidence, not one shred of it, that Bush lied.
> 
> *I gave you a link that discusses the caveats and qualifiers that were contained in the classified complete version of the NIE in question.... all you can rely upon is the unclassified summary*
> 
> Maineman's whole argument is a house of cards that has been knocked down time and again. It is a huge game of semantics and trying to redefine meanings to suit hatred and political spite.
> 
> *not true.  All you do is claim to have debunked my arguments...you have never actually DONE so*



The only lie here is what you claim Bush said in the first place....
Your argument starts with a lie...your lie...
His quote, his exact words,  is right in front of you...and you continue to mis-state what he said..You are the liar ....


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> The only lie here is what you claim Bush said in the first place....
> Your argument starts with a lie...your lie...
> His quote, his exact words,  is right in front of you...and you continue to mis-state what he said..You are the liar ....



did you see the 934 other Bush/Team Bush lies?  Why are you presuming this is the only one!


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> You have no proof, never had. You can not site any ACTUAL evidence that Bush was told "maybe" yet I can show he was told with NO DOUBT that WMDs were there. I can further show that the head of the CIA stated it was a "Slm Dunk case" that there were WMDs.
> 
> You can not attest to actual evidence since none exists except that which supports the "no Doubt" claim. You can not prove what Bush thought, unless your a mind reader now. The one that keeps insisting they are right with no evidence is YOU.
> 
> Ohh and I love the line about no crime. Lying to Congress IS a crime. Intentionally Misleading Congress IS a crime. Hampering Congress from receiving data IS a crime. Doctoring reports and briefings to Congress IS a crime. Ordering personnel testifying or reporting to Congress to falsify such, IS a crime.
> 
> You have at one point or another made all these claims about Bush and his Administration. Which is it ducky?



I gave you the link that discusses caveats and qualifiers in the full, classified NIE.  Obviously, I cannot produce it for you....BECAUSE IT'S CLASSIFIED!!!  You continue to point to the unclassified summary as if it is the word of God.  It is only a SUMMARY of an ESTIMATE.

Again...if caveats and qualifiers WERE there - and there are plenty of people who say they were, and the Bush administration has never even denied that there were - then what Bush THOUGHT or BELIEVED is irrelevant.  If there were doubts, and there were, to create the false impression that doubt did not exist IS a lie... whether or not he chose to heed the caveats, the fact that they were there is all that is important.

Lying is not a crime.  Lying under oath CAN be a crime if it is material.  Last I knew, Bush has never been under oath during his presidency.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> I gave you the link that discusses caveats and qualifiers in the full, classified NIE.  Obviously, I cannot produce it for you....BECAUSE IT'S CLASSIFIED!!!  You continue to point to the unclassified summary as if it is the word of God.  It is only a SUMMARY of an ESTIMATE.
> 
> Again...if caveats and qualifiers WERE there - and there are plenty of people who say they were, and the Bush administration has never even denied that there were - then what Bush THOUGHT or BELIEVED is irrelevant.  If there were doubts, and there were, to create the false impression that doubt did not exist IS a lie... whether or not he chose to heed the caveats, the fact that they were there is all that is important.
> 
> Lying is not a crime.  Lying under oath CAN be a crime if it is material.  Last I knew, Bush has never been under oath during his presidency.



A link to someone claiming what something said with no evidence it actually says it is no proof of anything. FURTHER what we can see refutes any claim you have made as to what else the NIE said.

There was NO doubt in 2002 Iraq had WMDs, your claiming there were is a game and YOU know it.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> A link to someone claiming what something said with no evidence it actually says it is no proof of anything. FURTHER what we can see refutes any claim you have made as to what else the NIE said.
> 
> There was NO doubt in 2002 Iraq had WMDs, your claiming there were is a game and YOU know it.




without being able to see the actual classifed version of the NIE, we will never have PROOF necessary for legal proceedings.  But, as I said, lying is not a crime.  Bush lied.  

Again.., NIE's are ESTIMATES...BEST GUESSES... they change back and forth.  2005:  Iran actively pursuing nukes...2007:  Iran had abandoned the program in 2003.  That is why they call it an ESTIMATE.


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> I gave you the link that discusses caveats and qualifiers in the full, classified NIE.  Obviously, I cannot produce it for you....BECAUSE IT'S CLASSIFIED!!!  You continue to point to the unclassified summary as if it is the word of God.  It is only a SUMMARY of an ESTIMATE.
> 
> Again...if caveats and qualifiers WERE there - and there are plenty of people who say they were, and the Bush administration has never even denied that there were - then what Bush THOUGHT or BELIEVED is irrelevant.  If there were doubts, and there were, to create the false impression that doubt did not exist IS a lie..
> 
> You start off with this lie and continue to try to prove your lie...
> 
> Bush DID NOT CLAIM "THEIR IS NO DOUBT" or "DENY THE EXISTENCE OF DOUBT ...he wasn't even talking about that to begin with....
> 
> You can mis-state what Bush said from now until hell freezes and the words will still not change....
> 
> you start with YOUR lie, naturally you'll end with a lie....
> The only lie here is what you claim Bush said in the first place....
> Your argument starts with a lie...your lie...
> His quote, his exact words, are right in front of you...and you continue to mis-state what he said..You are the liar .....
> 
> 
> whether or not he chose to heed the caveats, the fact that they were there is all that is important.
> 
> Lying is not a crime.  Lying under oath CAN be a crime if it is material.  Last I knew, Bush has never been under oath during his presidency.


*
There was an investigation and there was a 511-page report to discrepancies between the two versions of the crucial October 2002 NIE, the panel laid out numerous instances in which the unclassified version omitted key dissenting opinions about Iraqi weapons capabilities, overstated U.S. knowledge about Iraq's alleged stockpiles of weapons(all concerning the quantity) and, in one case, inserted threatening language into the public document that was not contained in the classified version.

AND IN THE END, EVEN THIS INVESTIGATION SHOWS YOU TO BE THE LIAR.....and I suspect a bit deranged one at that.*


----------



## Little-Acorn

GunnyL said:


> Not "another" Bush lied thread.
> 
> LMFAO.  This study is so twisted I can't believe it actually got printed.  I can easily believe some of you Bush-haters would jump right on though.



The BUSH LIED crowd has never had any particular facts to back up their agenda. So they have to latch on to any "study" like this they can find, no matter how twisted.


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> without being able to see the actual classifed version of the NIE, we will never have PROOF necessary for legal proceedings.  But, as I said, lying is not a crime.  Bush lied.
> 
> Again.., NIE's are ESTIMATES...BEST GUESSES... they change back and forth.  2005:  Iran actively pursuing nukes...2007:  Iran had abandoned the program in 2003.  That is why they call it an ESTIMATE.



"We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. *Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons *  as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade."

Just what words in this NIE report lead you to believe they are guessing?

And where did you get the impression that EVERYTHING in their conclusions are only 'best guesses'....

Do you contend that because a conclusion is incorrect it is nothing more than best guesses?


----------



## Alpha1

Two men are solving a complex mathematical problem for the first time....
one proclaims, "The answer is 100"
and the other insists, "The answer is 101".....

So is the man with the wrong answer lying?....guessing? ...or making a mistake?
And the man with the correct answer is not lying, not guessing, and of course not making any mistakes....


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> There was an investigation and there was a 511-page report to discrepancies between the two versions of the crucial October 2002 NIE, the panel laid out numerous instances in which the unclassified version *omitted key dissenting opinions about Iraqi weapons capabilities*, overstated U.S. knowledge about Iraq's alleged stockpiles of weapons(all concerning the quantity) and, in one case, inserted threatening language into the public document that was not contained in the classified version.



It would appear to me that the paragraph you have quoted supports my claim and not yours.  


And again...you act as if the one quote from Bush you list is the only one. Did you miss the other 934 in the recent report? Bush and his minions beat the war drums for Iraq.  They convinced Americans that Saddam had dangerous weapons AND that he had an alliance with AQ and the implication was made - over and over and over again - that if we didn't stop him right this very minute, he would give those weapons to Osama and his gang and they would use them against us.

Look.  Alpha.... you refuse to accept the fact that Bush and his administration scared us into war by overstating the case for Saddam's WMD's and by suggesting an alliance between radical islamics and secular baathists that was, to anyone with any real knowledge of the region, nonsensical.  We keep repeating the same things over and over again.  YOu call me a liar.  I say you are blind and do not understand the meaning of the word estimate... and back and forth and back and forth.  Let's just agree to disagree and move on.  Nothing you can say will make anything I have said a lie, and nothing I can say will make you change your mind and become something other than a partisan hack buffoon. Drop it.


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> It would appear to me that the paragraph you have quoted supports my claim and not yours.
> 
> *The discrepancies and omissions were investigated and a report written....YOUR claim is specific...Bush...and the word doubt..and when I questioned you about it...YOU supplied that particular Bush quote, where he clearly talked about what our intell claimed...not any claim he made*
> =============================================
> And again...you act as if the one quote from Bush you list is the only one.
> *And that particular quote is the one in question...no others*
> 
> Did you miss the other 934 in the recent report? Bush and his minions beat the war drums for Iraq.  They convinced Americans that Saddam had dangerous weapons AND that he had an alliance with AQ and the implication was made - over and over and over again - that if we didn't stop him right this very minute, he would give those weapons to Osama and his gang and they would use them against us.
> 
> *If, by his minions, you include M. Albright, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Sandy Berger, Nancy Pelosi, Carl Levin, etc. I do remember them....even the Clinton admin. people making the AQ/Iraq connection, Mr. Clark, I believe....
> 
> but if this one Bush quote is your claim that Bush lied with the words 'no doubt', you got it wrong....because that particular quote is accurate, the NIE made an unambiguous assertion about Iraqs possession of CW and BW...*
> ======================================================
> Look.  Alpha.... you refuse to accept the fact that Bush and his administration scared us into war by overstating the case for Saddam's WMD's
> 
> and by suggesting an alliance between radical islamics and secular baathists
> 
> *Lying again.?..These are claims I never made, even once*
> 
> that was, to anyone with any real knowledge of the region, nonsensical.  We keep repeating the same things over and over again.  YOu call me a liar.  I say you are blind and do not understand the meaning of the word estimate...
> 
> *You do not understand the meaning of the word HAS.....*
> 
> and back and forth and back and forth.  Let's just agree to disagree and move on.  Nothing you can say will make anything I have said a lie, and nothing I can say will make you change your mind and become something other than a partisan hack buffoon. Drop it.


 Drop it?  A good suggestion....


----------



## maineman

and when he was talking about that intelligence that supposedly "left no doubt", we now know that the intelligence did, in fact have doubt.  what part of that do you not understand?

I will need links to any democrats making the Saddam/AQ connection prior to our invasion of Iraq. I know of none.  And Mr. Clarke was a Bush administration official at the time of 9/11.


I never said that you made the connection between AQ and Saddam...I said that Team Bush did.  You really need to work harder at reading for comprehension.

I understand the word HAS in its context in an unclassified summary document that is an estimate built on intelligence from many sources.  I understand what "omitting key dissenting opinions about Iraqi weapons capabilities" does to the "intelligence leaves no doubt" statement.  Obviously, you do not.


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> and when he was talking out that intelligence that supposedly left no doubt, we now know that the intelligence did, in fact have doubt.  what part of that do you not understand?
> 
> *Yes....but doubt about what....
> 
> Weapons capability(their supposed danger to US mainland)
> Missiles (Numbers,reliability and range)
> Ability to deliver WMD (aerial Sprayers, artillery etc.)
> Quality and Quanity of CW/BW (10 metric tons?/100metric tones?)
> 
> So yeah...doubts were expressed...
> 
> .........But not about the existence of CW/BW
> That was a definitive statement, (Baghdad HAS)
> 
> what part of that do you not understand?*
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I will need links to any democrats making the Saddam/AQ connection prior to our invasion of Iraq. I know of none.
> 
> *Page 128 of 9/11 Commission Report
> First Indictment of OBL (1998)
> The original sealed document had added that AQ had reached an understanding with the government of Iraq etc....
> ----------------------------
> This stuff was dropped in a later indictment because of lack of proof,  but that is the first connection made and being right or wrong is irrelevant, the connection was made and suspicion voiced about cooperation between AQ and Iraq ....*
> 
> I never said that you made the connection between AQ and Saddam...I said that Bush did.  You really need to work harder at reading for comprehension.
> 
> I understand the word HAS in its context in an unclassified summary document that is an estimate built on intelligence from many sources.  I understand what "omitting key dissenting opinions about Iraqi weapons capabilities" does to the "intelligence leaves no doubt" statement.
> 
> * Omitting dessenting opinions about weapons capabilities does nothing to undermine the claim that Baghdad HAS CM and BW.....and thats the point....
> 
> it certainly places doubt on the danger posed by these weapons...I freely admit that...and Saddams ability to actually deliver the weapons...I freely admit that....but that is not the center of the disagreement between us....Bushs claim is direct and singular...."that the intell leaves no doubt about Iraqs possession of these weapons"...and that is what the report says.....
> You want to guess what the classified version said and brand someone a liar based on you guess....I'll develop my opinions based on what I know...not on what I guess....*
> 
> Obviously, you do not.


1111


----------



## maineman

*I asked for a link where M. Albright, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Sandy Berger, Nancy Pelosi, Carl Levin connected AQ and Saddam and you offer up the original wording of an indictment that was scrapped for lack of evidence?????*

ROFLMFAO

"Omitting dessenting opinions about weapons capabilities does nothing to undermine the claim that Baghdad HAS CM and BW.....and thats the point...."

*how do you know what the dissenting opinions expressed? How do YOU know that those dissenting opinions did not directly relate to BW and CW weapons caches?  There WERE dissenting opinions about the intelligence....Bush & Co. did not let America in on those opinions...they only said that there was no doubt.... 

And the CLAIM is just that...certainly nothing so substantial that it "leaves no doubt".  

And the center of MY disagreement with the Bush administration - which you slavishly defend - is that the sum total of everything all of them said was designed to play to our fear and our anger and get Americans to believe that a war against Iraq was really a direct and appropriate response to 9/11 - a move I strongly opposed THEN and continue to assert has caused us irreparable harm in our fight against our true enemies*


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> *I asked for a link where M. Albright, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Sandy Berger, Nancy Pelosi, Carl Levin connected AQ and Saddam and you offer up the original wording of an indictment that was scrapped for lack of evidence?????*
> 
> ROFLMFAO
> I forget you need to be lead by the fuckin' hand like a child...
> 
> MM:Bush and his minions beat the war drums for Iraq. They convinced Americans that Saddam had dangerous weapons
> 
> these are among the menions beating the drums of war....alarming the people of the dangers of Saddam...warning of Saddams WMD, from the mid 1990's Before Bush was elected....
> M. Albright, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Sandy Berger, Nancy Pelosi, Carl Levin, and others.....
> 
> 
> "Omitting dessenting opinions about weapons capabilities does nothing to undermine the claim that Baghdad HAS CM and BW.....and thats the point...."
> 
> *how do you know what the dissenting opinions expressed? How do YOU know that those dissenting opinions did not directly relate to BW and CW weapons caches?  There WERE dissenting opinions about the intelligence....Bush & Co. did not let America in on those opinions...they only said that there was no doubt....
> 
> Yes...there were dissenting opinions that related to BW and CW weapons caches...I already said that...there was disagreement about the quantity of stockpiles....the quality of BW and CW....and about the effectiveness of delivery systems....just not about the EXISTENCE of the CW and BW, of that, the report was clear....Baghdad HAS....
> 
> And the CLAIM is just that...certainly nothing so substantial that it "leaves no doubt".
> 
> And the center of MY disagreement with the Bush administration - which you slavishly defend - is that the sum total of everything all of them said was designed to play to our fear and our anger and get Americans to believe that a war against Iraq was really a direct and appropriate response to 9/11 - a move I strongly opposed THEN and continue to assert has caused us irreparable harm in our fight against our true enemies*



Wrong again...I don't defend the sum total of everything Bush ever said ....
just this one particular quote YOU SUPPLIED TO ME....which is limited and specific, for those that can comprehend normal english....this quote is accurate and the words of report confirm that accuracy....


----------



## Alpha1

And because I tire of the repetition ...... lets just admit...you've been schooled and corrected and should in all probability have learned some new and interesting facts here.....although you reading comprehension is that of a child, just knowing that should make you strive for improvement.....
Dismissed, Sonny.......


----------



## mattskramer

Alpha1 said:


> And because I tire of the repetition ...... lets just admit...you've been schooled and corrected and should in all probability have learned some new and interesting facts here.....although you reading comprehension is that of a child, just knowing that should make you strive for improvement.....
> Dismissed, Sonny.......


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> Wrong again...I don't defend the sum total of everything Bush ever said ....
> just this one particular quote YOU SUPPLIED TO ME....which is limited and specific, for those that can comprehend normal english....this quote is accurate and the words of report confirm that accuracy....




as I have repeatedly said...this has never been about "one quote" ...it has been about an attempt, by this administration, to convince America that Saddam as an immediate threat to our safety, to tie AQ and Saddam together,and to further convince us that invading conquering and occupying Iraq was the ONLY way we could avoid anihilation...

NONE of the democrats you listed who were speaking about the threat from Saddam prior to the Bush administration EVER advocated invasion, conquest and occupation as a means of dealing with that threat.
But since you like to try to debunk quotes:  please continue with these:

"On August 26, 2002, in an address to the national convention of the Veteran of Foreign Wars, Cheney flatly declared: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." In fact, former CIA Director George Tenet later recalled, Cheney's assertions went well beyond his agency's assessments at the time. Another CIA official, referring to the same speech, told journalist Ron Suskind, "Our reaction was, 'Where is he getting this stuff from?' " 

plenty more here:

http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/

I await your analysis of the quotes.  I hope you do not chose the low road and attempt to besmirch the source...but I would not be surprised.


----------



## DeadCanDance

maineman said:


> as I have repeatedly said...this has never been about "one quote" ...it has been about an attempt, by this administration, to convince America that Saddam as an immediate threat to our safety, to tie AQ and Saddam together,and to further convince us that invading conquering and occupying Iraq was the ONLY way we could avoid anihilation...
> 
> NONE of the democrats you listed who were speaking about the threat from Saddam prior to the Bush administration EVER advocated invasion, conquest and occupation as a means of dealing with that threat.
> But since you like to try to debunk quotes:  please continue with these:
> 
> "On August 26, 2002, in an address to the national convention of the Veteran of Foreign Wars, Cheney flatly declared: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." In fact, former CIA Director George Tenet later recalled, Cheney's assertions went well beyond his agency's assessments at the time. Another CIA official, referring to the same speech, told journalist Ron Suskind, "Our reaction was, 'Where is he getting this stuff from?' "
> 
> plenty more here:
> 
> http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/
> 
> I await your analysis of the quotes.  I hope you do not chose the low road and attempt to besmirch the source...but I would not be surprised.




_"There is *no doubt* he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies,* and against us."* _


The NIE expressed a lot of doubt that Saddam would us WMD against us.   In fact, it explicitly stated that they doubted Saddam would ever use WMD on us, unless he were invaded or attacked by us.


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> as I have repeatedly said...this has never been about "one quote" ...it has been about an attempt, by this administration, to convince America that Saddam as an immediate threat to our safety, to tie AQ and Saddam together,and to further convince us that invading conquering and occupying Iraq was the ONLY way we could avoid anihilation...
> 
> You are the one obsessed with the us of phrase 'no doubt'  ...any normal listener or reader would conclude that the speaker is voicing his or her own personal beliefs, and that still is the sanest way to look at it..it is you that insists on making what is common usage of words at big fuckin' production in order to manufacture you lie theorys
> 
> NONE of the democrats you listed who were speaking about the threat from Saddam prior to the Bush administration EVER advocated invasion, conquest and occupation as a means of dealing with that threat.
> But since you like to try to debunk quotes:  please continue with these:
> 
> No Dem used that particular word..thats right....
> 
> *One way or the other,* we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line. President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
> 
> Saddam rejects peace* and we have to use force*, our purpose is clear.
> 
> We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to* take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites)* to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq
> 
> Now even you can understand the threats being made against Iraq in these passages....I don't remember Bush using the word 'invade' either, but thats what he did....so using the word is a red herring, showing your obsession with semantics and trying to redefine meanings to suit your irrational claims...but your game is tiresome...
> 
> "On August 26, 2002, in an address to the national convention of the Veteran of Foreign Wars, Cheney flatly declared: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." In fact, former CIA Director George Tenet later recalled, Cheney's assertions went well beyond his agency's assessments at the time. Another CIA official, referring to the same speech, told journalist Ron Suskind, "Our reaction was, 'Where is he getting this stuff from?' "
> 
> plenty more here:
> 
> http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/
> 
> I await your analysis of the quotes.  I hope you do not chose the low road and attempt to besmirch the source...but I would not be surprised.



I can't say where Cheney was "getting this stuff from".....
One guess might be here...
(A unanimous resolution holding Iraq in "material breach" of disarmament - there would no need to disarm them if you believed they didn't have the weapons in the first place...) Cheney's assertions went well beyond his agency's assessments? Then its obvious Cheney was conveying HIS beliefs and not the CIA "assertions"..what YOU might refer to a 'guesses'....
Cheney and Bush ARE allowed to state their personal beliefs from time to time....

UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1441 (2002)Aug. 11

Holding Iraq in material breach of its obligations under previous resolutions, the Security Council this morning decided to afford it a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations

The Council demanded that Iraq confirm, within seven days, its intention to comply fully with the resolution.  It further decided that, within 30 days, Iraq, in order to begin to comply with its obligations, should provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA and the Council a complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, including chemical, biological and nuclear programmes

Recognizing the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

3.Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

JEREMY GREENSTOCK (United Kingdom) said no shadow of a doubt remained that Iraq had defied the United Nations over the last 11 years.  With the adoption of the resolution, the Council had clearly stated that the United Nations would no longer tolerate that defiance.


----------



## Alpha1

DeadCanDance said:


> _"There is *no doubt* he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies,* and against us."* _
> 
> 
> The NIE expressed a lot of doubt that Saddam would us WMD against us.   In fact, it explicitly stated that they doubted Saddam would ever use WMD on us, unless he were invaded or attacked by us.



Like I told MM...
 Cheney and Bush ARE allowed to state their personal beliefs from time to time....
Everything they utter doesn't have to have been expressed by someone else or a conclusion of the CIA or NIE or anyone else .....sometimes people just express what THEY BELIEVE... be it right or wrong...


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> Like I told MM...
> Cheney and Bush ARE allowed to state their personal beliefs from time to time....
> Everything they utter doesn't have to have been expressed by someone else or a conclusion of the CIA or NIE or anyone else .....sometimes people just express what THEY BELIEVE... be it right or wrong...




In that case, they should say *"I** HAVE NO DOUBT"*


----------



## jillian

Alpha1 said:


> Like I told MM...
> Cheney and Bush ARE allowed to state their personal beliefs from time to time....
> Everything they utter doesn't have to have been expressed by someone else or a conclusion of the CIA or NIE or anyone else .....sometimes people just express what THEY BELIEVE... be it right or wrong...



An _opinion_? Not when it's used to lead this country into war, I'm afraid. They can express their opinions, but should label it as such if that's the case. Or, more intelligent, give facts and let people decide on their own whether they want to support his agenda or agree with his _opinion_.

Oh right, if they'd been candid, no one would have supported them.


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> In that case, they should say *"I** HAVE NO DOUBT"*



If I am speaking, then the I  is understood unless I  specifically point out otherwise.....and if the I 
isn't there it would seem fairly stupid of someone to assume I  am referring to everyone in the world or anyone other than myself....

Its similar to when Al Gore said, 

"WE KNOW that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country"

 Or when Kennedy said, 

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction".

......they certainly mean others along with themselves, but we can't possibly guess who the we or the they refer to....

In Bushs case you assuming he is referring to others because of a perceived omission...

In either case you can't assume to know more than what is exactly quoted...


----------



## Alpha1

jillian said:


> An _opinion_? Not when it's used to lead this country into war, I'm afraid. They can express their opinions, but should label it as such if that's the case. Or, more intelligent, give facts and let people decide on their own whether they want to support his agenda or agree with his _opinion_.
> 
> Oh right, if they'd been candid, no one would have supported them.



I see you haven't  specified this rant as an opinion....am I to assume it something other than your opinion because you didn't label it as such....


----------



## Alpha1

jillian said:


> An _opinion_? Not when it's used to lead this country into war, I'm afraid. They can express their opinions, but should label it as such if that's the case. Or, more intelligent, give facts and let people decide on their own whether they want to support his agenda or agree with his _opinion_.
> 
> Oh right, if they'd been candid, no one would have supported them.



Send all your bitches, rants, and other bullshit to:

Biden, Cleland, Clinton, Daschle, Dodd, Dorgan, Edwards, Feinstein, Harkin, 

Hollings, Kerry, Landrieu, Lieberman, Lincoln, Reid, Rockefeller, Schumer, Toricelli, etc.

These are just some of the BIG NAME leaders in the Democratic Senate that helped pass the War Resolution....without their support, there would be no war.....


----------



## DeadCanDance

Alpha1 said:


> Like I told MM...
> Cheney and Bush ARE allowed to state their personal beliefs from time to time....
> Everything they utter doesn't have to have been expressed by someone else or a conclusion of the CIA or NIE or anyone else .....sometimes people just express what THEY BELIEVE... be it right or wrong...




I&#8217;ve never said that the BushCo. exaggerations, specifically over Iraq&#8217;s alleged acquisition of bio/chem. weapons were that egregious.  Most professionals _judged_ that Iraq had some bio/chem. weapon capability.  The size and scope of the stockpiles were always subject to debate.  Stating that there was &#8220;NO DOUBT&#8221; saddam possessed bio/chem. Weapons wasn&#8217;t too bad of a lie. 

The lies that were really egregious, and lead us into war, were the lies about what Saddam _would do_ with bio/chem. weapons; whether or not he had a nuke program; and his alleged collaborative ties with al qaeda. 

We certainly weren&#8217;t going to invade Iraq _over some mustard gas and sarin._  Bio/chem. Weapons aren&#8217;t that big of a strategic threat.   They&#8217;re barely a tactical military threat, and are only useful on the battlefield under certain conditions. 

The exaggerations about nukes and al qaeda were far more insidious, and untruthful.  The fact is, the intelligence community expressed significant skepticism that Saddam would ever us WMD on us, or share them with al qaeda, and would probably only possibly do so if he were invaded and attacked by us.   And the nature of the relationship between saddam and al qaeda was always subject to debate and skepticism.   Most professionals had a hard time finding much in the way of evidence, that a secular socialist regime would collaborate with fundamentalist religious nuts.   Nuts who were as bent on overthrowing secular arab regimes and they were in attacking US interests. 

In addition, by March 2003, the lies about iraq&#8217;s nuclear weapons program were effectively debunked.  There was always doubt about it, and months of intrusive IAEA inspections had, by march 2003, found zero evidence of a nuclear program.


----------



## maineman

It is not stupid to assume that, when Bush is talking about the intelligence reports available to him concerning Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's, and he says "there is no doubt", he is referring to that collective body of intelligence.  If he himself wanted to express his personal opinion, "I have no doubt" is the correct phrase.


----------



## Alpha1

DeadCanDance said:


> Ive never said that the BushCo. exaggerations, specifically over Iraqs alleged acquisition of bio/chem. weapons were that egregious.  Most professionals _judged_ that Iraq had some bio/chem. weapon capability.  The size and scope of the stockpiles were always subject to debate.  Stating that there was NO DOUBT saddam possessed bio/chem. Weapons wasnt too bad of a lie.
> 
> I gotta agree to a degree.... I too was taken in by the 'lies'
> One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.
> President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
> 
> If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraqs weapons of mass destruction program. President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
> 
> Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face. Madeline Albright Feb. 18, 1998
> 
> He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983. Sandy Berger, National Security Adviser, Feb. 18, 1998
> 
> We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraqs refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs. Letter to President Clinton, signed by: Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
> 
> Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.  Nancy Pelosi (D, CA) December 16, 1998
> 
> 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.*
> 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
> 
> We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.
> Sen. Ted Kennedy (D,MA) 9/2702
> 
> *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)10/3/02
> 
> 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) 10/9/02
> 
> 
> 
> The lies that were really egregious, and lead us into war, were the lies about what Saddam _would do_ with bio/chem. weapons; whether or not he had a nuke program; and his alleged collaborative ties with al qaeda.
> 
> And here to I have to agree to a degree....
> Lies about a nuke program and nuke weapons? Again I was taken in.....
> 
> 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)10/10/02
> 
> 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) 10/10/02
> 
> And the ties to OBL
> 
> 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) 10/10/02
> 
> 
> We certainly werent going to invade Iraq _over some mustard gas and sarin._  Bio/chem. Weapons arent that big of a strategic threat.   Theyre barely a tactical military threat, and are only useful on the battlefield under certain conditions.
> 
> The exaggerations about nukes and al qaeda were far more insidious, and untruthful.  The fact is, the intelligence community expressed significant skepticism that Saddam would ever us WMD on us, or share them with al qaeda, and would probably only possibly do so if he were invaded and attacked by us.   And the nature of the relationship between saddam and al qaeda was always subject to debate and skepticism.   Most professionals had a hard time finding much in the way of evidence, that a secular socialist regime would collaborate with fundamentalist religious nuts.   Nuts who were as bent on overthrowing secular arab regimes and they were in attacking US interests.
> 
> In addition, by March 2003, the lies about iraqs nuclear weapons program were effectively debunked.  There was always doubt about it, and months of intrusive IAEA inspections had, by march 2003, found zero evidence of a nuclear program.



Yes...Clarks assertains that AQ and Iraq were meeting were as wrong in 1998 and they are today....


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> It is not stupid to assume that, when Bush is talking about the intelligence reports available to him concerning Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's, and he says "there is no doubt", he is referring to that collective body of intelligence.  If he himself wanted to express his personal opinion, "I have no doubt" is the correct phrase.



There is only one time when Bush is talking about the intelligence reports and he DOES NOT SAY, "there is no doubt"....he does say, "the intell leaves no doubt'
and that is correct..as shown in the NIE report...
but lets not repeat it over and over...suffice it to say...its beyond your ability to understand his exact words...you insist on mis-stating them over and over...

Other times he expresses no doubt is about what he believes unless he mentions others by name...ie, the CIA, or 'intell', or makes some other reference....


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> There is only one time when Bush is talking about the intelligence reports and he DOES NOT SAY, "there is no doubt"....he does say, "the intell leaves no doubt'
> and that is correct..as shown in the NIE report...
> but lets not repeat it over and over...suffice it to say...its beyond your ability to understand his exact words...you insist on mis-stating them over and over...
> 
> Other times he expresses no doubt is about what he believes unless he mentions others by name...ie, the CIA, or 'intell', or makes some other reference....



oh stop it...the unclassified summary shows no doubt... your own link referred to caveats and qualifiers throughout the classified section that were ignored by the administration.  Clearly, the intell left plenty of doubt that he chose to disregard...and LIE about.


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> oh stop it...the unclassified summary shows no doubt... your own link referred to caveats and qualifiers throughout the classified section that were ignored by the administration.  Clearly, the intell left plenty of doubt that he chose to disregard...and LIE about.



There certainly was plenty of doubt about a variety of things...
I've listed them for you before.....

almost the only issue not mentioned with a caveat or qualifier was that Iraq possessed BW and CW....
and AS A MATTER OF FACT, IT WAS CLEARLY STATED.........

BAGHDAD HAS BW AND CW....

clear enough for you yet ? If not, give it up....everyone else gets it....


----------



## Alpha1

DCD says....

I&#8217;ve never said that the BushCo. exaggerations, specifically over Iraq&#8217;s alleged acquisition of bio/chem. weapons were that egregious. Most professionals judged that Iraq had some bio/chem. weapon capability. The size and scope of the stockpiles were always subject to debate. Stating that there was &#8220;NO DOUBT&#8221; saddam possessed bio/chem. Weapons wasn&#8217;t too bad of a lie.
-------------------------------------------------------------

Most professionals judged that Iraq had some bio/chem. weapon capability. ?
MOST PROFESSIONALS believed it....

Thats an understatement if I ever heard one.....

As a matter of record, there was a large number of UN resolutions (covering, what 10-12+ years)concerning Iraqs possession of WMD....nothing ambiguous about Saddam having these weapons...resolutions passed by UNANIMOUS AGREEMENT demanding that Saddam destroy these weapons....

As a matter of being realistic...one could say, "*There was no fuckin' doubt* that most if not all UN countrys leaders believed Saddam had WMD.....

Referring to that generally unanimous belief as a lie just shows how narrow-minded some people can be....but do carry on...both you and mm....


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> There certainly was plenty of doubt about a variety of things...
> I've listed them for you before.....
> 
> almost the only issue not mentioned with a caveat or qualifier was that Iraq possessed BW and CW....
> and AS A MATTER OF FACT, IT WAS CLEARLY STATED.........
> 
> BAGHDAD HAS BW AND CW....
> 
> clear enough for you yet ? If not, give it up....everyone else gets it....



so...tell me when you got to see the classified NIE. Did I miss that?  Because if you have not seen it, how can you possibly know what caveats and qualifiers are present there?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> so...tell me when you got to see the classified NIE. Did I miss that?  Because if you have not seen it, how can you possibly know what caveats and qualifiers are present there?



Good question, explain to us HOW you know.


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> so...tell me when you got to see the classified NIE. Did I miss that?  Because if you have not seen it, how can you possibly know what caveats and qualifiers are present there?



Nope..As you, I didn't get to see the real thing...but I do have some old notes from the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on prewar intelligence. There was alot of gripes about the differences between the classified and public versionsof that NIE report.....the Committee compared the two at the time and I gave you some of gripes about the quantity of ABC , the quality, the aerial unmanned drones,  aerial sprayers and missiles, range and accuracy, etc, threat level of various weapons..the threat to mainland USA.....but I saw no caveat about Iraqs possession of WMD, ....you seem to ignore that from early 1990's well into 2002 it was pretty much accepted fact that Saddam had these weapons..hence the UN resolutions (unanimous) .....there really was very few that didn't buy into that belief....and the fact that this belief was in error is irrelevant....


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> Nope..As you, I didn't get to see the real thing...but I do have some old notes from the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on prewar intelligence. There was alot of gripes about the differences between the classified and public versionsof that NIE report.....the Committee compared the two at the time and I gave you some of gripes about the quantity of ABC , the quality, the aerial unmanned drones,  aerial sprayers and missiles, range and accuracy, etc, threat level of various weapons..the threat to mainland USA.....but I saw no caveat about Iraqs possession of WMD, ....you seem to ignore that from early 1990's well into 2002 it was pretty much accepted fact that Saddam had these weapons..hence the UN resolutions (unanimous) .....there really was very few that didn't buy into that belief....and the fact that this belief was in error is irrelevant....


so...because you have "some notes"...because you "saw no caveat about Iraq's possession of WMD's"... well there... that is all the proof anyone needs, I guess.  IO guess that is just as good as having seen the classified version.  I guess if you'd told Bush that, he would have every reason in the world to give the impression of absolute certainty.  [/sarcasm off]


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> Good question, explain to us HOW you know.



All I know is what I have heard and read regarding the comments of analysts who have stated that there were, in fact plenty of caveats.  How do you "know" there were not...because Bush and Cheney told you so?

from above:

_"On August 26, 2002, in an address to the national convention of the Veteran of Foreign Wars, Cheney flatly declared: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." In fact, former CIA Director George Tenet later recalled, *Cheney's assertions went well beyond his agency's assessments at the time.* Another CIA official, referring to the same speech, told journalist Ron Suskind, "Our reaction was, *'Where is he getting this stuff from?'* " _


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> All I know is what I have heard and read regarding the comments of analysts who have stated that there were, in fact plenty of caveats.  How do you "know" there were not...because Bush and Cheney told you so?
> 
> from above:
> 
> _"On August 26, 2002, in an address to the national convention of the Veteran of Foreign Wars, Cheney flatly declared: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." In fact, former CIA Director George Tenet later recalled, *Cheney's assertions went well beyond his agency's assessments at the time.* Another CIA official, referring to the same speech, told journalist Ron Suskind, "Our reaction was, *'Where is he getting this stuff from?'* " _



There ya go using a quote out of context. The part that he used that they never said was that there was positive proof that Iraq would use them on us. The NIE is clear that he HAD them but had caveats about him USING them against us. So now back to some actual evidence... you do not get to claim a classified document says what you want with out being able to produce it. I have produced the part that was declassified that clearly explains why the Intel people said what they did about Cheney's remarks. Again though even then Cheny could just be mistaken and have not actually lied. Again if HE believed what he said to be true it is NOT a lie.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> There ya go using a quote out of context. The part that he used that they never said was that there was positive proof that Iraq would use them on us. The NIE is clear that he HAD them but had caveats about him USING them against us. So now back to some actual evidence... you do not get to claim a classified document says what you want with out being able to produce it. I have produced the part that was declassified that clearly explains why the Intel people said what they did about Cheney's remarks. Again though even then Cheny could just be mistaken and have not actually lied. Again if HE believed what he said to be true it is NOT a lie.



again...if he believed it, he should have phrased it that way.  He did not.


----------



## Paulie

Alpha1 said:


> you seem to ignore that from early 1990's well into 2002 it was pretty much accepted fact that Saddam had these weapons..



Where'd he get them?


----------



## Alpha1

The sad fact seems to be....he didn't have them.....

From what we have learned since 2002, it would be a rational judgment to come to, if you concluded Iraq's WMD threat was destroyed as far back as 1991/1992

Their is no doubt (in my mind) that Clinton ranted and raved about WMD for a few years about the danger Saddam posed to his neighbors and to the US.

Their is no doubt (in my mind) that Bush ranted and raved for the next couple of years about WMD and the danger Saddam posed to his neighbors and to the US.

You can be a hack and blame only Bush for the war..or you look at the bigger picture and see that this war was in the making over both administrations, and that it took the cooperation of both partys to take the final step....

And there was no real threat from Saddam during that entire time...yet UN resolutions were being unanimously passed demanding Saddam disarm....
We, along with France, Germany, and England were demanding Saddam disarm.
and he had little to nothing to disarm....
old rusty artillery shells, with degraded, useless Sarin...
Harmless Scuds, unreliable, with little range....
Unmanned aerial drones, in reality little more than model airplanes, toys
Some radio-active material, that was probably more dangerous to himself than others.....yet he convinced the world....

I don't take to calling the Clinton Administration liars over this crap
I don't take to calling the Bush Administration liars over this crap
I can't claim the entire UN lied in order to pass resolutions against Iraq
I don't think the entire intell org. of France, Germany, England and the US became liars to badmouth Saddam....
and that is what you would have to conclude if you insist on the lies crap...
Everyone would have had to  lie...and that is beyond belief....

It is more likely Saddam conned us all...our leaders, our intell, our medias, etc.
and that in itself is damning....we were bombarded with the dangers and threat of Saddam for years, and during those, years he had nothing....


----------



## DeadCanDance

Alpha1 said:


> The sad fact seems to be....he didn't have them.....
> 
> From what we have learned since 2002, it would be a rational judgment to come to, if you concluded Iraq's WMD threat was destroyed as far back as 1991/1992
> 
> Their is no doubt (in my mind) that Clinton ranted and raved about WMD for a few years about the danger Saddam posed to his neighbors and to the US.
> 
> Their is no doubt (in my mind) that Bush ranted and raved for the next couple of years about WMD and the danger Saddam posed to his neighbors and to the US.
> 
> You can be a hack and blame only Bush for the war..or you look at the bigger picture and see that this war was in the making over both administrations, and that it took the cooperation of both partys to take the final step....
> 
> And there was no real threat from Saddam during that entire time...yet UN resolutions were being unanimously passed demanding Saddam disarm....
> We, along with France, Germany, and England were demanding Saddam disarm.
> and he had little to nothing to disarm....
> old rusty artillery shells, with degraded, useless Sarin...
> Harmless Scuds, unreliable, with little range....
> Unmanned aerial drones, in reality little more than model airplanes, toys
> Some radio-active material, that was probably more dangerous to himself than others.....yet he convinced the world....
> 
> I don't take to calling the Clinton Administration liars over this crap
> I don't take to calling the Bush Administration liars over this crap
> I can't claim the entire UN lied in order to pass resolutions against Iraq
> I don't think the entire intell org. of France, Germany, England and the US became liars to badmouth Saddam....
> and that is what you would have to conclude if you insist on the lies crap...
> Everyone would have had to  lie...and that is beyond belief....
> 
> It is more likely Saddam conned us all...our leaders, our intell, our medias, etc.
> and that in itself is damning....we were bombarded with the dangers and threat of Saddam for years, and during those, years he had nothing....




_....we were bombarded with the dangers and threat of Saddam for years, and during those, years he had nothing..._


Therefore, you should down on your knees, grovel, and apologize to people like Maineman, me, Barak Obama, Howard Dean and others who told you in 2002 that Iraq did not appear to be a threat worthy of invasion, and that the claims about nukes, ties to al qaeda, and wmd were dubious at worst, unproven at best.  

I'm sure maineman recalls, as do I, being called pro-saddam traitors for urging caution and skepticism back in 2002.


----------



## Alpha1

I'm sorry Sonny....did I give the impression that I was against this war.....?

I very happy Saddam is gone and only sorry that Clinton didn't have the balls to rid the world of him when he was President....I hate seeing the world view Dems as gutless pushovers and pussys....
And if you were called a pro-Saddam traitor, it was probably just someone mistaking you anti-Americanism with being pro-Saddam....an honest mistake...


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> I'm sorry Sonny....did I give the impression that I was against this war.....?
> 
> I very happy Saddam is gone and only sorry that Clinton didn't have the balls to rid the world of him when he was President....I hate seeing the world view Dems as gutless pushovers and pussys....
> And if you were called a pro-Saddam traitor, it was probably just someone mistaking you anti-Americanism with being pro-Saddam....an honest mistake...




Gramps.... you should not question our patriotism just because we do not see eye to eye with your hero in the white house.  

Do I need to post Teddy Roosevelt's quote again about WHO is really being unpatriotic and servile and morally treasonable in this argument?


----------



## DeadCanDance

Alpha1 said:


> I'm sorry Sonny....did I give the impression that I was against this war.....?
> 
> I very happy Saddam is gone and only sorry that Clinton didn't have the balls to rid the world of him when he was President....I hate seeing the world view Dems as gutless pushovers and pussys....
> And if you were called a pro-Saddam traitor, it was probably just someone mistaking you anti-Americanism with being pro-Saddam....an honest mistake...




LOL

If you and Bush had told the american people in 2002, that you wouldn't find WMD, that your war would cost upwards of a trillion dollars, get 35,000 americans killed and maimed, result in a failed state teetering on civil war, result in a never-ending insurgency, and fueled islamic radicalism, the total number of people you would have gotten to support your war could have fit into Larry Craig's bathroom stall.  With room to spare.   

Your war was a horrible mistake.  Your love for Bush and the GOP is the only thing that keeps you from admitting it.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

DeadCanDance said:


> LOL
> 
> If you and Bush had told the american people in 2002, that you wouldn't find WMD, that your war would cost upwards of a trillion dollars, get 35,000 americans killed and maimed, result in a failed state teetering on civil war, result in a never-ending insurgency, and fueled islamic radicalism, the total number of people you would have gotten to support your war could have fit into Larry Craig's bathroom stall.  With room to spare.
> 
> Your war was a horrible mistake.  Your love for Bush and the GOP is the only thing that keeps you from admitting it.



YOUR a MORON, again for the stupid, mentally challenged MONGALOIDs out there, in 2002 there was NO DOUBT that Iraq had WMDs NONE, not any, from any of our allies, from any of our intelligence agencies, NONE EVEN from the leaders of the Democratic party. You remember them right? They all voted FOR the war. THEY ALL stated Saddam had weapons, it is in video and print and has been repeated to your moronic shriveled brain many times.

Your the liar. And you keep on repeating the lies over and over.

The biggest of them all is that I or Alpha worship Bush. He was the lesser danger of the choices we had in 2000 and 2004.  He is NOT a conservative, he is NOT whom I would have picked to be President nor nominee for the Republican party. BUT ,you fucking RETARD, HE IS OUR PRESIDENT. 

You and your ilk have fallen off the shallow end and sunk in the deep dank endless bottomless pit of the deep end. Your hatred and ignorance no no bounds, you will tell any lie, any distortion, any rumor if it makes our President look bad. You have no evidence but you do not care. You whine like a little baby when we point out Clinton's faults, all with out claiming he was NOT our President for 8 years. This is all about getting even cause Clinton got caught in a lie to a Judge and was impeached , PROPERLY.

If some Republican says nice things to old senile senator retiring after 50 years in the senate people like you demand he resign, but Clinton LIES under oath and its , what? He didn't do anything wrong, your just picking on him. You lost your mind after that, if you EVER had one.

You want to blame someone for the war? Blame Congress, INCLUDING all the Democratic leaders that VOTED FOR the war. With out that vote, there would have been no war. Blame Saddam Hussein for LYING to the world about the weapons he claimed to have and refused to allow inspectors prove he did not have them. With out the phantom WMD's that Saddam so carefully sold everyone , EVERYONE, on there would have been no war. If he had not spent 12 YEARS running the inspectors around and hadn't KICKED them out for 4 YEARS, there would have been no WAR.

I am past tired of your LIES. Maineman at least has a semi lucid claim, it is wrong, but everyone is wrong sometime. You are just a partisan hack that has gone insane over OUR president.

The next time you claim I worship Bush or think he is the greatest President or that I fawn at his feet I will AGAIN call you the sack of SHIT lying RETARDED ASSHOLE that you are.

GET IT, MORON?


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> YOUR a MORON, again for the stupid, mentally challenged MONGALOIDs out there, in 2002 there was NO DOUBT that Iraq had WMDs NONE, not any, from any of our allies, from any of our intelligence agencies, NONE EVEN from the leaders of the Democratic party. You remember them right? They all voted FOR the war. THEY ALL stated Saddam had weapons, it is in video and print and has been repeated to your moronic shriveled brain many times.
> 
> Your the liar. And you keep on repeating the lies over and over.
> 
> The biggest of them all is that I or Alpha worship Bush. He was the lesser danger of the choices we had in 2000 and 2004.  He is NOT a conservative, he is NOT whom I would have picked to be President nor nominee for the Republican party. BUT ,you fucking RETARD, HE IS OUR PRESIDENT.
> 
> You and your ilk have fallen off the shallow end and sunk in the deep dank endless bottomless pit of the deep end. Your hatred and ignorance no no bounds, you will tell any lie, any distortion, any rumor if it makes our President look bad. You have no evidence but you do not care. You whine like a little baby when we point out Clinton's faults, all with out claiming he was NOT our President for 8 years. This is all about getting even cause Clinton got caught in a lie to a Judge and was impeached , PROPERLY.
> 
> If some Republican says nice things to old senile senator retiring after 50 years in the senate people like you demand he resign, but Clinton LIES under oath and its , what? He didn't do anything wrong, your just picking on him. You lost your mind after that, if you EVER had one.
> 
> You want to blame someone for the war? Blame Congress, INCLUDING all the Democratic leaders that VOTED FOR the war. With out that vote, there would have been no war. Blame Saddam Hussein for LYING to the world about the weapons he claimed to have and refused to allow inspectors prove he did not have them. With out the phantom WMD's that Saddam so carefully sold everyone , EVERYONE, on there would have been no war. If he had not spent 12 YEARS running the inspectors around and hadn't KICKED them out for 4 YEARS, there would have been no WAR.
> 
> I am past tired of your LIES. Maineman at least has a semi lucid claim, it is wrong, but everyone is wrong sometime. You are just a partisan hack that has gone insane over OUR president.
> 
> The next time you claim I worship Bush or think he is the greatest President or that I fawn at his feet I will AGAIN call you the sack of SHIT lying RETARDED ASSHOLE that you are.
> 
> GET IT, MORON?



that is not true.  there were questions about whether or not Saddam had in fact possibly used or destroyed the vast majority of his WMD cache...there was doubt that he had a robust nuclear weapons program on the brink of making mushroom clouds.  But any and all doubt was drowned out and those who expressed it were called cowards and traitors.  

And I have seen you slavishly defend this war and his rationale for quickly entering into it.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> that is not true.  there were questions about whether or not Saddam had in fact possibly used or destroyed the vast majority of his WMD cache...there was doubt that he had a robust nuclear weapons program on the brink of making mushroom clouds.  But any and all doubt was drowned out and those who expressed it were called cowards and traitors.
> 
> And I have seen you slavishly defend this war and his rationale for quickly entering into it.



NO you have seen me STATE that why we went to war does NOT matter now and did not matter the minute we crossed the berm. All that matters now is doing what is the correct and right thing for an ally and for a country that needs us.

Further as you want to do, I was not ON this board in 2002 or 2003, nor 2004 or even 2005, so claiming I have SLAVISHLY defended the decision to go to war is nothing more than a ( and here I give YOU the benefit of the doubt) mistake on your part.

I HAVE pointed out your claims are stupid and I will continue to point them out. None of which tells you anything about my thoughts on whether we should have invaded or not.

Here let me specific. I doubt given what I have seen of the NIE that I would have invaded Iraq if I were President. BUT I can see why the President and Congress agreed to do it. Further the invasion went well. We made critical mistakes though, we allowed the Republican Guard to disperse into the country side and we disbanded the army and allowed the police to disband as well. So after the invasion we had a huge armed "civilian" base we would not have had if that had been handled differently.

We were slow to secure the weapons caches we knew about and did not anticipate the terrorist tactics that quickly developed.

Again none of which tells you anything about whether I was "gung ho" for invasion.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> NO you have seen me STATE that why we went to war does NOT matter now and did not matter the minute we crossed the berm. All that matters now is doing what is the correct and right thing for an ally and for a country that needs us.
> 
> Further as you want to do, I was not ON this board in 2002 or 2003, nor 2004 or even 2005, so claiming I have SLAVISHLY defended the decision to go to war is nothing more than a ( and here I give YOU the benefit of the doubt) mistake on your part.
> 
> I HAVE pointed out your claims are stupid and I will continue to point them out. None of which tells you anything about my thoughts on whether we should have invaded or not.
> 
> Here let me specific. I doubt given what I have seen of the NIE that I would have invaded Iraq if I were President. BUT I can see why the President and Congress agreed to do it. Further the invasion went well. We made critical mistakes though, we allowed the Republican Guard to disperse into the country side and we disbanded the army and allowed the police to disband as well. So after the invasion we had a huge armed "civilian" base we would not have had if that had been handled differently.
> 
> We were slow to secure the weapons caches we knew about and did not anticipate the terrorist tactics that quickly developed.
> 
> Again none of which tells you anything about whether I was "gung ho" for invasion.



fair enough.  Have you had a chance to read the summary of the recent rand corp report commissioned by the pentagon?


----------



## DeadCanDance

RetiredGySgt said:


> snip
> 
> Your the liar. And you keep on repeating the lies over and over.
> 
> The biggest of them all is that I or Alpha worship Bush. He was the lesser danger of the choices we had in 2000 and 2004.  He is NOT a conservative, he is NOT whom I would have picked to be President nor nominee for the Republican party. BUT ,you fucking RETARD, HE IS OUR PRESIDENT.
> 
> snip
> 
> GET IT, MORON?



The "I only voted for Bush because he was marginally better than Gore/Kerry" excuse is laughable. 

If you really thought Bush was doing a bad or mediocre job, why didn't you or any republican make noise about a primary challenger to him in 2004?  A GOP primary challenger more to your liking?   Incompetent or unpopular presidents routinely face primary challengers from their electoral base, if the base is unhappy with the incumbents performance.  Poppy Bush and Jimmy Carter did.      I heard not one single republican call for a primary challenger to Bush in 2004, which can only be interpreted to mean you approved of the job Bush was doing. 

As for the belated hand-wringing that bush is "not a conservative", where were you in 2000, 2001, and 2002?   Don't act surprised at what bush has done and declare him a fake conservative.  Bush did exactly what he promised to do in 2000:  cut taxes (mainly for the wealthy) and significantly increase spending on education, the pentagon, and healthcare.    Those were his explicit promises in 2000, and that's what you knowingly voted for.  You voted for more spending, and lower taxes for the wealthy.  To act "suprised" now, that bush vastly increased spending is disingenous, at best.   It's what Bush promised to do as far back as 2000, and that's the platform you voted for.  In fact, you appear to have been so satisfied with this platform, that you and other republicans remained dead silent in 2004 about a possible GOP primary challenger to Bush.


----------



## Alpha1

What we knew and WHEN we knew it is important....decisions were made in 2001/2002 with the intell of 2001/2002, NOT with intell gathered in 2004/2006......
get a grip on your pathetic, partison hate and trying reading it as an academic, learning  exercise...


Postwar findings about Iraq WMD
Select Committee on Intelligence
Sep 8 , 2006
Page 26
(U)The main assessments in the 2002 NIE regarding Iraq's biological warfare program were that Iraq "HAS BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS" and that 'all key
aspects-R&D, production, and weaponization-of Iraq's offensive BW program are active and that most elements are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf war.
(U)The Intelligence Community also said:
We assess that Iraq has some BW agents and maintains the capability to 
produce a variety of BW agents.

The conclusions continues on Page 27.......
and in subsequent pages explains what we found out later and why these assessments were overstated or plain wrong..... 

This is what our government had to work with in 2002....this is the intell that decisions were based on.....
http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf


----------



## Alpha1

DeadCanDance said:


> The "I only voted for Bush because he was marginally better than Gore/Kerry" excuse is laughable.
> 
> If you really thought Bush was doing a bad or mediocre job, why didn't you or any republican make noise about a primary challenger to him in 2004?  A GOP primary challenger more to your liking?   Incompetent or unpopular presidents routinely face primary challengers from their electoral base, if the base is unhappy with the incumbents performance.  Poppy Bush and Jimmy Carter did.      I heard not one single republican call for a primary challenger to Bush in 2004, which can only be interpreted to mean you approved of the job Bush was doing.
> 
> As for the belated hand-wringing that bush is "not a conservative", where were you in 2000, 2001, and 2002?   Don't act surprised at what bush has done and declare him a fake conservative.  Bush did exactly what he promised to do in 2000:  cut taxes (mainly for the wealthy)
> 
> LOL Another lie spewed by the lefty masses....just what the kool-aid crowd loves to devour...debunking thousands of times doesn't even dent this lie.....
> 
> and significantly increase spending on education, the pentagon, and healthcare.    Those were his explicit promises in 2000, and that's what you knowingly voted for.  You voted for more spending, and lower taxes for the wealthy.  To act "suprised" now, that bush vastly increased spending is disingenous, at best.   It's what Bush promised to do as far back as 2000, and that's the platform you voted for.  In fact, you appear to have been so satisfied with this platform, that you and other republicans remained dead silent in 2004 about a possible GOP primary challenger to Bush.



I can't speak for the Gunny...but I'm a happy camper....I don't swallow the lies from the left anymore....I've learned from  the years of Saddam bashing from the Democrats that they are prolific liars and backed by the media, hard to get past....


----------



## Paulie

Alpha1 said:


> The sad fact seems to be....he didn't have them.....
> 
> From what we have learned since 2002, it would be a rational judgment to come to, if you concluded Iraq's WMD threat was destroyed as far back as 1991/1992
> 
> Their is no doubt (in my mind) that Clinton ranted and raved about WMD for a few years about the danger Saddam posed to his neighbors and to the US.
> 
> Their is no doubt (in my mind) that Bush ranted and raved for the next couple of years about WMD and the danger Saddam posed to his neighbors and to the US.
> 
> You can be a hack and blame only Bush for the war..or you look at the bigger picture and see that this war was in the making over both administrations, and that it took the cooperation of both partys to take the final step....
> 
> And there was no real threat from Saddam during that entire time...yet UN resolutions were being unanimously passed demanding Saddam disarm....
> We, along with France, Germany, and England were demanding Saddam disarm.
> and he had little to nothing to disarm....
> old rusty artillery shells, with degraded, useless Sarin...
> Harmless Scuds, unreliable, with little range....
> Unmanned aerial drones, in reality little more than model airplanes, toys
> Some radio-active material, that was probably more dangerous to himself than others.....yet he convinced the world....
> 
> I don't take to calling the Clinton Administration liars over this crap
> I don't take to calling the Bush Administration liars over this crap
> I can't claim the entire UN lied in order to pass resolutions against Iraq
> I don't think the entire intell org. of France, Germany, England and the US became liars to badmouth Saddam....
> and that is what you would have to conclude if you insist on the lies crap...
> Everyone would have had to  lie...and that is beyond belief....
> 
> It is more likely Saddam conned us all...our leaders, our intell, our medias, etc.
> and that in itself is damning....we were bombarded with the dangers and threat of Saddam for years, and during those, years he had nothing....



That didn't really answer my question.

Where did he get the WMD from?


----------



## Alpha1

Paulitics said:


> That didn't really answer my question.
> 
> Where did he get the WMD from?




What little WMD Saddam had consisted mostly CW agents....
You will hear that the US supplied the gas? That implys the US government supplied it, thats misleading...US companys sold the makings to Iraq along with many other nations....The government allowed it by removing Iraq from the State Department's list State Sponsors of Terrorism...


According Iraq's report to the UN, the know-how and material for developing chemical weapons were obtained from firms in such countries as: the United States, West Germany, the United Kingdom, France and China.[3] By far, the largest suppliers of precursors for chemical weapons production were in Singapore (4,515 tons), the Netherlands (4,261 tons), Egypt (2,400 tons), India (2,343 tons), and West Germany (1,027 tons). One Indian company, Exomet Plastics (now part of EPC Industrie) sent 2,292 tons of precursor chemicals to Iraq. The Kim Al-Khaleej firm, located in Singapore and affiliated to United Arab Emirates, supplied more than 4,500 tons of VX, sarin, and mustard gas precursors and production equipment to Iraq.[4]

The provision of chemical precursors from US companies to Iraq was enabled by a Reagan administration policy that removed Iraq from the State Department's list State Sponsors of Terrorism. Leaked portions of Iraq's "Full, Final and Complete" disclosure of the sources for its weapons programs shows that thiodiglycol, a substance needed to manufacture deadly mustard gas, was among the chemical precursors provided to Iraq from U.S.companies such as Alcolac International, Inc and Phillips. Both companies have since undergone reorganization and Phillips, once a subsidiary of Phillips Petroleum and now part of ConocoPhillips, an American oil and energy company while Alcolac Intl. has since dissolved and reformed as Alcolac Inc.[5]


----------



## jreeves

Does anyone dispute that Saddam had used chemical weapons against the Kurds?(his own people) Does anyone dispute that all major intelligence estimates believed that Iraq had WMD's? Does anyone believe that Saddam didn't have a supreme hate toward the U.S.? -----------Answer each question then tell me the decision you would have made......ok, ok if you want to, you can twist whatever you want, but that doesn't make you right?

History, talking of wars that were unjustified....Bosnia Hmm?? I know I know that was a peace keeping mission not a war right, but American lives were still lost. 

Think of the U.S.S. Cole what was our response a few tomahawks on a couple of tents, where did that get us? Answer 9-11, showed Osama bin-laden we were cowards.

Somalia- American soliders lives lost, we retreat. Again where did that get us? 9-11

Afgan and Iraq war (even though very expensive) what has that gotten us? no terrorist attacks on innocent americans in about 7 years

I will take the last one thank you!!


----------



## maineman

jreeves said:


> Does anyone dispute that Saddam had used chemical weapons against the Kurds?(his own people) Does anyone dispute that all major intelligence estimates believed that Iraq had WMD's? Does anyone believe that Saddam didn't have a supreme hate toward the U.S.? -----------Answer each question then tell me the decision you would have made......ok, ok if you want to, you can twist whatever you want, but that doesn't make you right?
> 
> History, talking of wars that were unjustified....Bosnia Hmm?? I know I know that was a peace keeping mission not a war right, but American lives were still lost.
> 
> Think of the U.S.S. Cole what was our response a few tomahawks on a couple of tents, where did that get us? Answer 9-11, showed Osama bin-laden we were cowards.
> 
> Somalia- American soliders lives lost, we retreat. Again where did that get us? 9-11
> 
> Afgan and Iraq war (even though very expensive) what has that gotten us? no terrorist attacks on innocent americans in about 7 years
> 
> I will take the last one thank you!!



think of Ronnie Reagan running away in frightened surrender from the slaughter of 241 marines in Beirut...

I dispute the assumption that Saddam was anywhere near as big a threat to us as islamic extremists were.  For that matter, I dispute the assumption that Iraq was more dangerous to American interests than even Iran or North Korea.


----------



## DeadCanDance

jreeves said:


> snip 9-11
> 
> Afgan and Iraq war (even though very expensive) what has that gotten us? *no terrorist attacks on innocent americans in about 7 years*
> 
> I will take the last one thank you!!



2006, June 16	Iraq: 2 American servicemen kidnapped, tortured and brutally killed	terrorists in Iraq

2006, March 11	Iraq: American contractor kidnapped, tortured and shot	terrorists in Iraq

2005, December to May 8, 2006	Iraq; 12 American contractors killed by land mines, bombs in garbage, suicide bombers, roadside bombs; shot, kidnapped and tortured	terrorists in Iraq

2005, November 25	Iraq; American contractor kidnapped, held hostage and killed on December 19, 2005. Murder was video-taped and televised.	al Qaeda

2005, November 9	Jordan; Ammon; 57 Killed (3 Americans) in bombings of 3 hotels	al Qaeda

2005, September 7	Iraq; Basra; 4 American security guards killed in roadside bomb	terrorists in Iraq

2005, July 23	Egypt; 88 killed (1 American) in 3 separate bombings in tourist resort	Pakistan terrorists

2005, July 7	England; 50+ Killed (1 American) in bombings of 3 trains and 1 bus in London	Al-Qaeda fringe group

2005, May 22	Iraq; One American kidnapped and killed	unknown

2005, May 7	Iraq; 22 killed (2 Americans) when 2 suicide bombers attacked in a crowded Bagdad area.	unknown

2005, April 21	Iraq; 9 killed (6 Americans) when their commercial helicopter was attacked by surface-to-air missle	unknown

2005, April 8	Egypt; 3 killed (1 American) in bombing of tourist bazaar	Hasan R A Bashandi, 17

2005, March 13	Iraq; 2 Americans killed in roadside bombing	unknown

2005, January 29	Iraq; 2 Americans killed in U.S. Embassy bombing; terrorists protesting Iraqi elections
	7 terrorists arrested

2005, January 14	New Jersey; 4 American/Egyptian Christian family members slaughtered; the father had been threatened for making anti-Muslim remarks online. NY Post	unknown

2004, December 21	Iraq, 22 Killed (5 American Civilians; 13 American military); 75 wounded	Suicide Bomber

2004, November 24	Iraq, American State Department education advisor shot	Al Qaeda

2004, October 24	Iraq, American contractor ambushed with mortar fire	Terrorists in Iraq

2004, October 24	Iraq, American contractor ambushed with mortar fire	Terrorists in Iraq

2004, October 14	Iraq, 10 (4 Americans) killed by suicide bomber	Terrorists in Iraq

2004, September 21	Iraq, American contractor kidnapped before being beheaded three days later.	Al-Qaeda, Abu Musa'b al-Zarqawi et al

2004, September 20	Iraq, American contractor kidnapped before being beheaded on video tape two days later. Video was published on Al-Jazeera television and on the internet.	Al-Qaeda, Abu Musa'b al-Zarqawi et al

2004, August 11	Iraq, American contractor killed by explosive device as he was driving a supply truck.	unknown

2004, June 29	Iraq, American soldier shot in back of head; pictures published on Al-Jazeera television on June 29, 2004. Soldier had been kidnapped on April 9, 2004 in Iraq.	Unknown

2004, June 18	Saudi Arabia, American contractor (1) kidnapped, held hostage for 72 hours and then beheaded. Pictures of brutal killing were published on the internet.	Al-Qaeda

2004, June 12	Saudi Arabia, American contractor (1) shot in the back as he parked his car in his garage. He was then beheaded.	Al-Qaeda

2004, June 8	Saudi Arabia, American contractor (1) shot and killed in his garage.	Al-Qaeda

2004, May 29	Saudi Arabia - Khobar Towers; 22 (1 American) killed; 50 hostages taken when terrorists stormed the Al-Khobar Petroleum Center	Al-Qaeda

2004, May 8	Iraq, 1 American hostage beheaded; Killing was video taped and released for publication	Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, 5 others with links to Al Qaeda

2004, May 1	Saudi Arabia, 6 Killed (2 Americans) in shooting attack at ABB Lummus Global Inc petroleum plant	Al Qaeda

2004, April 18	Kosovo, 2 American women who were part of the U.N. Peacekeeping Force were shot and killed.	Jordanian

2004, March 31	Iraq, 4 American Contractors ambushed, killed and bodies mutilated.	Muqtada al-Sadr followers

2003, October 23	Texas
Man killed while he was fishing because he was a Christian.	Kerron Lavern Otis, American muslim

2003, October 15	Gaza Strip, Remote-controlled bomb killed 3 Americans traveling in a vehicle convoy. Terrorists then stoned rescuers/investigators.	Palestinian Arabs

2003, August 19	Iraq - Baghdad, Suicide bombing of UN Headquarters in Iraq;  23 Killed (3 Americans)	Osama bin Laden, Al-Qaeda

2003, May 12	Saudi Arabia - Riyadh, Three separate bombings of American/Western residential areas - 34 Killed (8 Americans)Over 200 injured	Osama bin Laden, Al-Qaeda

2003, March 29	Iraq - Operation Iraqi Freedom, 4 US Soldiers Killed; Terrorist blew up bomb after asking for help from soldiers at a checkpoint	Islamic suicide car-bomber

2003, March 22	Iraq - Operation Iraqi Freedom, 2 Killed, 5 Injured; Grenade attack on sleeping soldiers	US Islamic soldier

2003, March 18	Yemen, 3 Killed, 1 Injured; American oil workers shot	Suicide Killer

2003, March 4	Phillipines - Bomb explosion at Manila airport, 19 Killed; 	Moro Islamic Liberation Front

2003, January 21	Kuwait, 1 Killed, 1 Injured; American contractors ambushed with assault rifles at a stoplight	Unknown

2002, December 30	Yemen - Baptist Mission Hospital, 3 Killed (American doctor and administrators); Shot and killed at the hospital	Unknown

2002, October 15	Bali  Nightclub, 180 Killed (2 Americans); Remote-controlled bomb

http://americanmemorialsite.com/victims.html


----------



## RetiredGySgt

DeadCanDance said:


> 2006, June 16	Iraq: 2 American servicemen kidnapped, tortured and brutally killed	terrorists in Iraq
> 
> 2006, March 11	Iraq: American contractor kidnapped, tortured and shot	terrorists in Iraq
> 
> 2005, December to May 8, 2006	Iraq; 12 American contractors killed by land mines, bombs in garbage, suicide bombers, roadside bombs; shot, kidnapped and tortured	terrorists in Iraq
> 
> 2005, November 25	Iraq; American contractor kidnapped, held hostage and killed on December 19, 2005. Murder was video-taped and televised.	al Qaeda
> 
> 2005, November 9	Jordan; Ammon; 57 Killed (3 Americans) in bombings of 3 hotels	al Qaeda
> 
> 2005, September 7	Iraq; Basra; 4 American security guards killed in roadside bomb	terrorists in Iraq
> 
> 2005, July 23	Egypt; 88 killed (1 American) in 3 separate bombings in tourist resort	Pakistan terrorists
> 
> 2005, July 7	England; 50+ Killed (1 American) in bombings of 3 trains and 1 bus in London	Al-Qaeda fringe group
> 
> 2005, May 22	Iraq; One American kidnapped and killed	unknown
> 
> 2005, May 7	Iraq; 22 killed (2 Americans) when 2 suicide bombers attacked in a crowded Bagdad area.	unknown
> 
> 2005, April 21	Iraq; 9 killed (6 Americans) when their commercial helicopter was attacked by surface-to-air missle	unknown
> 
> 2005, April 8	Egypt; 3 killed (1 American) in bombing of tourist bazaar	Hasan R A Bashandi, 17
> 
> 2005, March 13	Iraq; 2 Americans killed in roadside bombing	unknown
> 
> 2005, January 29	Iraq; 2 Americans killed in U.S. Embassy bombing; terrorists protesting Iraqi elections
> 7 terrorists arrested
> 
> 2005, January 14	New Jersey; 4 American/Egyptian Christian family members slaughtered; the father had been threatened for making anti-Muslim remarks online. NY Post	unknown
> 
> 2004, December 21	Iraq, 22 Killed (5 American Civilians; 13 American military); 75 wounded	Suicide Bomber
> 
> 2004, November 24	Iraq, American State Department education advisor shot	Al Qaeda
> 
> 2004, October 24	Iraq, American contractor ambushed with mortar fire	Terrorists in Iraq
> 
> 2004, October 24	Iraq, American contractor ambushed with mortar fire	Terrorists in Iraq
> 
> 2004, October 14	Iraq, 10 (4 Americans) killed by suicide bomber	Terrorists in Iraq
> 
> 2004, September 21	Iraq, American contractor kidnapped before being beheaded three days later.	Al-Qaeda, Abu Musa'b al-Zarqawi et al
> 
> 2004, September 20	Iraq, American contractor kidnapped before being beheaded on video tape two days later. Video was published on Al-Jazeera television and on the internet.	Al-Qaeda, Abu Musa'b al-Zarqawi et al
> 
> 2004, August 11	Iraq, American contractor killed by explosive device as he was driving a supply truck.	unknown
> 
> 2004, June 29	Iraq, American soldier shot in back of head; pictures published on Al-Jazeera television on June 29, 2004. Soldier had been kidnapped on April 9, 2004 in Iraq.	Unknown
> 
> 2004, June 18	Saudi Arabia, American contractor (1) kidnapped, held hostage for 72 hours and then beheaded. Pictures of brutal killing were published on the internet.	Al-Qaeda
> 
> 2004, June 12	Saudi Arabia, American contractor (1) shot in the back as he parked his car in his garage. He was then beheaded.	Al-Qaeda
> 
> 2004, June 8	Saudi Arabia, American contractor (1) shot and killed in his garage.	Al-Qaeda
> 
> 2004, May 29	Saudi Arabia - Khobar Towers; 22 (1 American) killed; 50 hostages taken when terrorists stormed the Al-Khobar Petroleum Center	Al-Qaeda
> 
> 2004, May 8	Iraq, 1 American hostage beheaded; Killing was video taped and released for publication	Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, 5 others with links to Al Qaeda
> 
> 2004, May 1	Saudi Arabia, 6 Killed (2 Americans) in shooting attack at ABB Lummus Global Inc petroleum plant	Al Qaeda
> 
> 2004, April 18	Kosovo, 2 American women who were part of the U.N. Peacekeeping Force were shot and killed.	Jordanian
> 
> 2004, March 31	Iraq, 4 American Contractors ambushed, killed and bodies mutilated.	Muqtada al-Sadr followers
> 
> 2003, October 23	Texas
> Man killed while he was fishing because he was a Christian.	Kerron Lavern Otis, American muslim
> 
> 2003, October 15	Gaza Strip, Remote-controlled bomb killed 3 Americans traveling in a vehicle convoy. Terrorists then stoned rescuers/investigators.	Palestinian Arabs
> 
> 2003, August 19	Iraq - Baghdad, Suicide bombing of UN Headquarters in Iraq;  23 Killed (3 Americans)	Osama bin Laden, Al-Qaeda
> 
> 2003, May 12	Saudi Arabia - Riyadh, Three separate bombings of American/Western residential areas - 34 Killed (8 Americans)Over 200 injured	Osama bin Laden, Al-Qaeda
> 
> 2003, March 29	Iraq - Operation Iraqi Freedom, 4 US Soldiers Killed; Terrorist blew up bomb after asking for help from soldiers at a checkpoint	Islamic suicide car-bomber
> 
> 2003, March 22	Iraq - Operation Iraqi Freedom, 2 Killed, 5 Injured; Grenade attack on sleeping soldiers	US Islamic soldier
> 
> 2003, March 18	Yemen, 3 Killed, 1 Injured; American oil workers shot	Suicide Killer
> 
> 2003, March 4	Phillipines - Bomb explosion at Manila airport, 19 Killed; 	Moro Islamic Liberation Front
> 
> 2003, January 21	Kuwait, 1 Killed, 1 Injured; American contractors ambushed with assault rifles at a stoplight	Unknown
> 
> 2002, December 30	Yemen - Baptist Mission Hospital, 3 Killed (American doctor and administrators); Shot and killed at the hospital	Unknown
> 
> 2002, October 15	Bali  Nightclub, 180 Killed (2 Americans); Remote-controlled bomb
> 
> http://americanmemorialsite.com/victims.html



Be so kind as to post a terror attack inside the US. You do recall that was the goal  or has your brain fried so much from your blind hatred you can not remember that?


----------



## DeadCanDance

RetiredGySgt said:


> Be so kind as to post a terror attack inside the US. You do recall that was the goal  or has your brain fried so much from your blind hatred you can not remember that?




that's not what he said.  He said there were no attacks on innocent americans since your war. 

The answer to your question is:  one attack on american soil (two, if the antrhrax attacks were related to muslim extremists)

Which is the same number on muslim extremist attacks on american soil, during clinton's adminstration:  one. 

As far as terrorist attacks on americans and american interests worldwide; the number of attacks has risen exponentially since your war started.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

DeadCanDance said:


> that's not what he said.  He said there were no attacks on innocent americans since your war.
> 
> The answer to your question is:  one attack on american soil (two, if the antrhrax attacks were related to muslim extremists)
> 
> Which is the same number on muslim extremist attacks on american soil, during clinton's adminstration:  one.
> 
> As far as terrorist attacks on americans and american interests worldwide; the number of attacks has risen exponentially since your war started.



Sorry retard but you do not get to count war zone attacks. But do keep lying your ass off. Further there is evidence the anthrax attack was a US citizen. and there were no other attacks that I know of ON US soil since 9/11. Or shall you show me different?

Further claiming armed military members on duty on post as innocent is funny as hell.


----------



## DeadCanDance

RetiredGySgt said:


> Sorry retard but you do not get to count war zone attacks. But do keep lying your ass off. Further there is evidence the anthrax attack was a US citizen. and there were no other attacks that I know of ON US soil since 9/11. Or shall you show me different?



The attacks I listed come from all over the world.  The fact that your war in Iraq, has fueld terrorist attacks on americans there, does not diminish that fact.  You put 130,000 americans in iraq with bullseye targets on their heads. 



> Further claiming *armed military members on duty on post as innocent* is funny as hell.



so, you won't ever again be refering to the USS Cole, and Khobar tower attacks ever again, because those american soliders weren't "innocent".


----------



## DeadCanDance

and if terrorist attacks against americans and american interests now only count if they happen "on american soil", then please refrain from mentioning the USS Cole, Khobar Towers, and the african embassy attacks.  Those weren't on american soil.   There was only one attack on american soil in the 1990s by muslim extremists.  The exact same number of attacks on american soil during the bush presidency.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

DeadCanDance said:


> and if terrorist attacks against americans and american interests now only count if they happen "on american soil", then please refrain from mentioning the USS Cole, Khobar Towers, and the african embassy attacks.  Those weren't on american soil.   There was only one attack on american soil in the 1990s by muslim extremists.  The exact same number of attacks on american soil during the bush presidency.



And that attack killed 3000? Destroyed a whole section,including at least 3 skyscrapers and 4 Jumbo aircraft, of New York?

Your a retard, a partisan hack, your not even worth the effort to school but it passes the time when you make your ignorant bullshit claims so I respond anyway.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> And that attack killed 3000? Destroyed a whole section,including at least 3 skyscrapers and 4 Jumbo aircraft, of New York?
> 
> Your a retard, a partisan hack, your not even worth the effort to school but it passes the time when you make your ignorant bullshit claims so I respond anyway.




exactly.  How many dead Americans as a result of terrorist attacks on American soil during a democrat's watch?  How many during a republican's?


----------



## DeadCanDance

RetiredGySgt said:


> And that attack killed 3000? Destroyed a whole section,including at least 3 skyscrapers and 4 Jumbo aircraft, of New York?
> 
> Your a retard, a partisan hack, your not even worth the effort to school but it passes the time when you make your ignorant bullshit claims so I respond anyway.




I understand you don't want to address the facts. 

There was one attack on american soil on bush's watch, by muslim extremists.  There was one attack on clinton's watch, on american soil. 

However, The amount of terrorist attacks worldwide against americans and american interests has grown exponentially under your president.  Partcularly since your president invaded iraq.  These are fact, confirmed by the State Dept. and the CIA.  Hard, cold numbers and facts. 

Now, if you don't want to count terrorist attacks on american solidiers as terrorist attacks, then you can most certainly stop counting the attacks on the USS Cole and Khobar towar as "terrorist attacks" on clinton's watch.


----------



## Paulie

jreeves said:


> Does anyone dispute that Saddam had used chemical weapons against the Kurds?(his own people) Does anyone dispute that all major intelligence estimates believed that Iraq had WMD's? Does anyone believe that Saddam didn't have a supreme hate toward the U.S.? -----------Answer each question then tell me the decision you would have made......ok, ok if you want to, you can twist whatever you want, but that doesn't make you right?



For what it's worth, I was the biggest cheerleader of the Iraq invasion in 2003 that you'd meet.  

I was young, dumb, and full of cum then.

I don't agree with pre-emptive attacks against other countries anymore.


----------



## DeadCanDance

Paulitics said:


> For what it's worth, I was the biggest cheerleader of the Iraq invasion in 2003 that you'd meet.
> 
> I was young, dumb, and full of cum then.
> 
> I don't agree with pre-emptive attacks against other countries anymore.




You are to be commended for having enough honesty and integrity to change your opinion, based on what has obviously been one of the most tragic disasters in american foreign policy history.


----------



## Alpha1

I was young, dumb, and full of cum then.
---------------

Well, MeLad....if you were young, dumb and full of cum in 2003, you're still young, dumb and full of cum in 2008...

If an enemy nation is known to possess CW, BW, and/or NW, and our President has good reason, trusted intell, to suspect that that nation might act, MIGHT use those weapons on the US....that President would be guilty of dereliction of his duty if he didn't pre-emptively remove that threat to the best of his ability by whatever means necessary........
because....
once the shit hits the fan just might prove to late to save the country and millions of our citizens....this loud mouth rhetoric from leaders of some nations that threaten to destroy others must realize that they are risking a catastrophe of their own making by their wild threats to others if they actually have the means to carry out those threats.........reaction is becoming unacceptable to the threats of WMD....the MAD policy of the cold war are no longer as sensible as once thought...


and this has nothing to do with present wars...

And with some luck....
Someday you'll be old, smart, full of wisdom and change your handle to DCD...


----------



## jreeves

maineman said:


> think of Ronnie Reagan running away in frightened surrender from the slaughter of 241 marines in Beirut...
> 
> I dispute the assumption that Saddam was anywhere near as big a threat to us as islamic extremists were.  For that matter, I dispute the assumption that Iraq was more dangerous to American interests than even Iran or North Korea.



I agree retreat from beirut was a mistake, that still doesn't change that Clinton was wrong for no response to terror attacks and retreating from Somali. Saddam was a threat, I seem to remember him invading his neighbors. Also, he killed his own people with WMD's for godsake. Iran and North Korea never used WMD's against their own people.


----------



## Dr Grump

jreeves said:


> I agree retreat from beirut was a mistake, that still doesn't change that Clinton was wrong for no response to terror attacks and retreating from Somali. Saddam was a threat, I seem to remember him invading his neighbors. Also, he killed his own people with WMD's for godsake. Iran and North Korea never used WMD's against their own people.



Clinton did respond to terrorist attacks. Somali had an aid focus, not a change of govt. Yeah, Iran is a lovely place - they just hang homos and shit. Great! And N Korea just starves people to death - but that's OK, Kim doesn't gas 'em!!


----------



## Alucard

Dr Grump said:


> Clinton did respond to terrorist attacks. Somali had an aid focus, not a change of govt. Yeah, Iran is a lovely place - they just hang homos and shit. Great! And N Korea just starves people to death - but that's OK, Kim doesn't gas 'em!!



Acording to your reasoning since Iran and N.Korea abuse their citizens we should of allowed Saddam to continue to murder innocent civilians...

I dont give a shit if Iraq had wmd's in the long run or not... I just picture that little kid running around smacking the shit out of the face of the Saddam statue the troops helped the people tear down the day we took Bagdad, and it was all worth it.... no one deserves to live under a tyrant like Saddam... I'm proud of what we have done.... I just want to finish the job ... we owe that to the Iraqi people...


----------



## jillian

Alucard said:


> Acording to your reasoning since Iran and N.Korea abuse their citizens we should of allowed Saddam to continue to murder innocent civilians...



I think his point is that Saddam's treatmen of his citizens had nothing to do with our going in.



> I dont give a shit if Iraq had wmd's in the long run or not... I just picture that little kid running around smacking the shit out of the face of the Saddam statue the troops helped the people tear down the day we took Bagdad, and it was all worth it.... no one deserves to live under a tyrant like Saddam... I'm proud of what we have done.... I just want to finish the job ... we owe that to the Iraqi people...



Proud? That we occupied a foreign country for no reason? I'm not proud of that. I'm embarrassed for us.

That aside, when is the job done? I keep trying to get somone who wants to stay to explain it to me. Every answer I get basically... there's no difference if we leave now, in 10 years, or in 100 years.

Maybe you can do better.


----------



## maineman

jreeves said:


> I agree retreat from beirut was a mistake, that still doesn't change that Clinton was wrong for no response to terror attacks and retreating from Somali. Saddam was a threat, I seem to remember him invading his neighbors. Also, he killed his own people with WMD's for godsake. Iran and North Korea never used WMD's against their own people.



why then, six months BEFORE 9/11, did our secretary of state clearly and unambiguously state that Saddam was NOT a threat to either his neighbors or us?  And your memory or Saddam's use of chemical weapons is a long one...it happened a decade before we invaded.  In between that time, Islamic terrorists became a much greater and more important enemy for us than Saddam EVER was.  WE had gotten attacked.  WE should have been fighting a war against our attackers. Saddam had DIDDLY to do with 9/11.  Saddam and Al Qaeda were natural enemies.  Invading Iraq was an incredible waste of time, resources and focus.

These bad guys attacked us...so, in response...we go after some OTHER bad guy?  That makes zero sense.


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> why then, six months BEFORE 9/11, did our secretary of state clearly and unambiguously state that Saddam was NOT a threat to either his neighbors or us?  And your memory or Saddam's use of chemical weapons is a long one...it happened a decade before we invaded.  In between that time, Islamic terrorists became a much greater and more important enemy for us than Saddam EVER was.  WE had gotten attacked.  WE should have been fighting a war against our attackers. Saddam had DIDDLY to do with 9/11.  Saddam and Al Qaeda were natural enemies.  Invading Iraq was an incredible waste of time, resources and focus.
> 
> These bad guys attacked us...so, in response...we go after some OTHER bad guy?  That makes zero sense.



These bad guys attacked us...so, in response...we go after some OTHER bad guy?  That makes zero sense.????????????????????????????????????
-----------------------------------------------------

You correctly state that "Saddam had DIDDLY to do with 9/11. "

Then,,,,you say," in response to being attacked, we go after some other bad guy........"
THATS JUST NOT A FACT (simply, its a lie)

In response to being attacked(that is 9/11) we attacked the AQ network in Afghan. and dismantled the Taliban....and are still fighting that enemy there.....WE DIDN'T GO AFTER SOME OTHER BAD GUY....in response to 9/11....

Try posting the truth, its not that difficult of you actually know what IS the truth....


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> These bad guys attacked us...so, in response...we go after some OTHER bad guy?  That makes zero sense.????????????????????????????????????
> -----------------------------------------------------
> 
> You correctly state that "Saddam had DIDDLY to do with 9/11. "
> 
> Then,,,,you say," in response to being attacked, we go after some other bad guy........"
> THATS JUST NOT A FACT (simply, its a lie)
> 
> In response to being attacked(that is 9/11) we attacked the AQ network in Afghan. and dismantled the Taliban....and are still fighting that enemy there.....WE DIDN'T GO AFTER SOME OTHER BAD GUY....in response to 9/11....
> 
> Try posting the truth, its not that difficult of you actually know what IS the truth....



you are kidding yourself if you think that the vast majority of Americans did not see the invasion of Iraq as directly related to 9/11.  And the bad guys who attacked us should ALWAYS be higher on our priority list than taking out unrelated bad guys.  I was completely supportive of the invasion of Afghanistan in order to destroy and capture Al Qaeda.  Team Bush misled us into a war in Iraq by co-joining Iraq and AQ and making it urgent because of Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's and therefore the imminent transfer of those to the bad guys who attacked us...it was all bullshit and it moved our real enemy down our priority list.  Unconscionable.


----------



## mattskramer

maineman said:


> you are kidding yourself if you think that the vast majority of Americans did not see the invasion of Iraq as directly related to 9/11.  And the bad guys who attacked us should ALWAYS be higher on our priority list than taking out unrelated bad guys.  I was completely supportive of the invasion of Afghanistan in order to destroy and capture Al Qaeda.  Team Bush misled us into a war in Iraq by co-joining Iraq and AQ and making it urgent because of Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's and therefore the imminent transfer of those to the bad guys who attacked us...it was all bullshit and it moved our real enemy down our priority list.  Unconscionable.



We are in complete agreement.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm

Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorists' strike against this country.


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> you are kidding yourself if you think that the vast majority of Americans did not see the invasion of Iraq as directly related to 9/11.
> 
> What the majority of Americans THINK is not the point....what you said is ....and it was not true and you know that....
> 
> And the bad guys who attacked us should ALWAYS be higher on our priority list than taking out unrelated bad guys.  I was completely supportive of the invasion of Afghanistan in order to destroy and capture Al Qaeda.  Team Bush misled us into a war in Iraq by co-joining Iraq and AQ and making it urgent because of Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's and therefore the imminent transfer of those to the bad guys who attacked us...it was all bullshit and it moved our real enemy down our priority list.  Unconscionable.



 You state something thats not true, then rant and rave like the injured party....we DIDN"T invade Iraq because of 9/11 and you know that...so why state otherwise, ....thats lying...
is being corrected that distasteful that you can't be a man about it...?

We did attack the AQ in Afghan. in response to 9/11...

You make an incorrect statement and your new pet, mattskramer swears to it....kinda weird...


----------



## mattskramer

Alpha1 said:


> You state something thats not true, then rant and rave like the injured party....we DIDN"T invade Iraq because of 9/11 and you know that...so why state otherwise, ....thats lying...
> is being corrected that distasteful that you can't be a man about it...?
> 
> We did attack the AQ in Afghan. in response to 9/11...
> 
> You make an incorrect statement and your new pet, mattskramer swears to it....kinda weird...



I am nobodys pet.  I agree with MM on some things and disagree with him on others things.  Along with other reasons that Bush and company suggested for our going to Iraq (which turned out to be false) was the notion that Saddam was partly responsible.  If he did not say so, then Bush and his buddies certainly implied it.

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

Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. - President Bush in his State of the Union address, January 2002. The speech was primarily concerned with how the US was coping in the aftermath of 11 September.

We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On 11 September, 2001, America felt its vulnerability - even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America. - President Bush speaking in Cincinnati, Ohio, in October, 2002, in which he laid out the threat he believed Iraq posed.

Before 11 September 2001, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents and lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons, and other plans - this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take just one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. - President Bush in his State of the Union address, January 2003. He made these comments in the context of the links he perceived between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. 

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0511/S00247.htm

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/15/bush.alqaeda/


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> You state something thats not true, then rant and rave like the injured party....we DIDN"T invade Iraq because of 9/11 and you know that...so why state otherwise, ....thats lying...
> is being corrected that distasteful that you can't be a man about it...?
> 
> We did attack the AQ in Afghan. in response to 9/11...
> 
> You make an incorrect statement and your new pet, mattskramer swears to it....kinda weird...




no.  my statement is not incorrect.  We invaded Iraq for a variety of "reasons", none of which were all that urgent and none of which would have garnered the support of the American people had they not been misled to believe that our invasion of Iraq was a direct result of our being attacked.  The American people were misled to believe that we had to invade Iraq because Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's, he was buddy buddy with AQ  - and had been even before 9/11 - and if we didn't invade him right this very minute, he'd give those weapons to Osama who would use them against us.

And from the moment we DID invade Iraq, that front has consumed the VAST majority of our time, our energy, our treasure and our casualties while the real battle in Afghanistan is so minor in our priorities that the REAL bad guys are able to hold a TELEVISED outdoor graduation ceremony for 300 suicide bombers and not only are we incapable of responding, we didn't even KNOW about it until well after it was over.  pathetic.


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> no.  my statement is not incorrect.
> 
> Busllshit...
> Saddam had DIDDLY to do with 9/11. Saddam and Al Qaeda were natural enemies. Invading Iraq was an incredible waste of time, resources and focus.
> 
> "These bad guys attacked us...so, in response...we go after some OTHER bad guy? That makes zero sense."
> 
> THIS IS your statement and it is a lie.....
> We did not go after Iraq for 9/11 and YOU FUCKIN' KNOW IT....
> 
> The above unlined plainly shows you know the truth...and in the next sentence you plainly lie....if thats not obvious to you, your command of English is worse than I thought...
> 
> This has nothing to do with what anyone else believed....YOU OWN THIS STATEMENT, only you...and you're lying....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We invaded Iraq for a variety of "reasons", none of which were all that urgent and none of which would have garnered the support of the American people had they not been misled to believe that our invasion of Iraq was a direct result of our being attacked.  The American people were misled to believe that we had to invade Iraq because Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's, he was buddy buddy with AQ  - and had been even before 9/11 - and if we didn't invade him right this very minute, he'd give those weapons to Osama who would use them against us.
> 
> And from the moment we DID invade Iraq, that front has consumed the VAST majority of our time, our energy, our treasure and our casualties while the real battle in Afghanistan is so minor in our priorities that the REAL bad guys are able to hold a TELEVISED outdoor graduation ceremony for 300 suicide bombers and not only are we incapable of responding, we didn't even KNOW about it until well after it was over.  pathetic.



Take it like a man for once in your life....


----------



## Dr Grump

Alpha1 said:


> Take it like a man for once in your life....



How about admitting you're wrong for once in your life...


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> Take it like a man for once in your life....



what???? 

I know that Saddam did not have diddly to do with 9/11.  That is stated.

I KNOW that a majority of Americans were led to believe that Saddam was directly responsible for 9/11.  That is documented.

I know that Bush misled Americans into thinking that Saddam and AQ were in cahoots.  That is also demonstrated by numerous quotes from Team Bush...the Dark Lord Cheney in particular.

I know that the Bush administration convinced America that there was no doubt that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's and the implication was not at all subtle that they would end up in the hands of AQ.  That is also demonstrated by numerous quotes.

A vast majority of Americans believed that the invasion of Iraq was a direct response to 9/11 in that we were going to get the guy who had planned it, and the guy who would be the arms supplier for the guys who DID it.

Can you understand the argument?

I have told no lie.  

And I would not continue to question my manhood, if I were you, grampa.


----------



## Alpha1

Before your helpers start blurring this debate ...lets see what your original post stated.... 

Originally Posted by maineman View Post
why then, six months BEFORE 9/11, did our secretary of state clearly and unambiguously state that Saddam was NOT a threat to either his neighbors or us? And your memory or Saddam's use of chemical weapons is a long one...it happened a decade before we invaded. In between that time, Islamic terrorists became a much greater and more important enemy for us than Saddam EVER was. 

WE had gotten attacked. WE should have been fighting a war against our attackers. Saddam had DIDDLY to do with 9/11. Saddam and Al Qaeda were natural enemies. Invading Iraq was an incredible waste of time, resources and focus.

All of what you say above is your rightful opinion.... 

These bad guys attacked us...so, in response...we go after some OTHER bad guy? That makes zero sense.

Then you go off to the left....this last statement is just plain wrong....

WE had gotten attacked.? No doubt....

We were fighting a war against our attackers, and had been for some time....

Saddam had DIDDLY to do with 9/11. Saddam and Al Qaeda were natural enemies?....OK....

Then you claim that in response to being attacked, we go after Saddam....?

We were already in Afghan. fighting AQ in response to 9/11...that was a done deal....

We've just been arguing for days about invading Iraq over WMD that didn't exist...which is the truth....
Now you want to claim we invaded because of 9/11.....

October 7, 2002....Bush set out the reasons for war .....
--------------------------
President George W. Bush delivers remarks on Iraq at the Cincinnati Museum Center in Cincinnati, Ohio, Monday night, Oct. 7, 2002.

"Tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace, and America's determination to lead the world in confronting that threat.
The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions -- 
its history of aggression, 
and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. 
Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction,
to cease all development of such weapons,
and to stop all support for terrorist groups. 

The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations.
It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. 
It is seeking nuclear weapons. 
It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and 
practices terror against its own people. 

The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith. "
------------------------------------

Now Bush might have been all wrong, but nowhere does he blame Saddam for 9/11 or state that as a reason for attacking him....and what you or 50&#37; or 60% or 70% of the people think is irrelevant....


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> what????
> 
> I know that Saddam did not have diddly to do with 9/11.  That is stated.
> 
> I KNOW that a majority of Americans were led to believe that Saddam was directly responsible for 9/11.  That is documented.
> 
> I know that Bush misled Americans into thinking that Saddam and AQ were in cahoots.  That is also demonstrated by numerous quotes from Team Bush...the Dark Lord Cheney in particular.
> 
> I know that the Bush administration convinced America that there was no doubt that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's and the implication was not at all subtle that they would end up in the hands of AQ.  That is also demonstrated by numerous quotes.
> 
> A vast majority of Americans believed that the invasion of Iraq was a direct response to 9/11 in that we were going to get the guy who had planned it, and the guy who would be the arms supplier for the guys who DID it.
> 
> Can you understand the argument?
> 
> I have told no lie.
> 
> And I would not continue to question my manhood, if I were you, grampa.



There is absolutely NO evidence that Bush or anyone else EVER said Saddam Hussein had ANYTHING to do with 9/11. IN FACT he and others in his Administration, including the Vice President have said repeatedly FOR the record that Iraq and Saddam Hussein HAD NOTHING to do with 9/11. 

If you can claim Bush lied because he stated Iraq had WMDs then we can sure as HELL claim your lying by claiming Bush said Iraq was involved in 9/11. In fact we have absolute smoking gun evidence your lying, we have the President ON TAPE saying several times Iraq was NOT involved in 9/11. We have the Vice President ON TAPE saying that Iraq was NOT involved in 9/11. 

You are a LIAR. Your claim that either of these men claimed Iraq was involved is a BALD FACED LIE. It is proven a lie by TAPED comments by BOTH men STATING for the RECORD Iraq and Saddam Hussein were NEVER linked to 9/11. Both men have stated there is NO EVIDENCE to show a link to Saddam Hussein or Iraq to 9/11.

There is NO EVIDENCE what so EVER that Bush EVER linked Iraq with the responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. NONE, not a shred.

Linking Iraq with terror is another matter, that is a proven link. Claiming other wise is ANOTHER lie.

We have you on TWO LIES.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> There is absolutely NO evidence that Bush or anyone else EVER said Saddam Hussein had ANYTHING to do with 9/11. IN FACT he and others in his Administration, including the Vice President have said repeatedly FOR the record that Iraq and Saddam Hussein HAD NOTHING to do with 9/11.
> 
> If you can claim Bush lied because he stated Iraq had WMDs then we can sure as HELL claim your lying by claiming Bush said Iraq was involved in 9/11. In fact we have absolute smoking gun evidence your lying, we have the President ON TAPE saying several times Iraq was NOT involved in 9/11. We have the Vice President ON TAPE saying that Iraq was NOT involved in 9/11.
> 
> You are a LIAR. Your claim that either of these men claimed Iraq was involved is a BALD FACED LIE. It is proven a lie by TAPED comments by BOTH men STATING for the RECORD Iraq and Saddam Hussein were NEVER linked to 9/11. Both men have stated there is NO EVIDENCE to show a link to Saddam Hussein or Iraq to 9/11.
> 
> There is NO EVIDENCE what so EVER that Bush EVER linked Iraq with the responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. NONE, not a shred.
> 
> Linking Iraq with terror is another matter, that is a proven link. Claiming other wise is ANOTHER lie.
> 
> We have you on TWO LIES.



Cheney's remarks about Atta and Saddam's boys clearly made the link and made it with respect to 9/11.

Saddam has no links to wahabbist terrorists...only arab/palestinian nationalist terrorists....they were not the guys who attacked us.


----------



## rayboyusmc

And your side bitches about Clinton parsing words.  What total hippo critical bullshit.

If you don't realize that he used all his speaches to make US think Saddam attacked US you are pissing in the wing.



> In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.
> 
> *Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.*  This is the cowards way of getting the job done.  He can always back out later.
> 
> Cheney, on the other hand has multiple times made the connection on national TV.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sources knowledgeable about US intelligence say there is no evidence that Hussein played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, nor that he has been or is currently aiding Al Qaeda. Yet the White House appears to be encouraging this false impression, as it seeks to maintain American support for a possible war against Iraq and demonstrate seriousness of purpose to Hussein's regime.
> 
> 
> *"The administration has succeeded in creating a sense that there is some connection [between Sept. 11 and Saddam Hussein]," says Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland.*  Right, this was never their intention.
> 
> What unadultarated crap.


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> Cheney's remarks about Atta and Saddam's boys clearly made the link and made it with respect to 9/11.
> 
> Saddam has no links to wahabbist terrorists...only arab/palestinian nationalist terrorists....they were not the guys who attacked us.




*Cheney's remarks about Atta and Saddam's boys clearly made the link and made it with respect to 9/11.*

Actually made this Atta connection twice...in Nov. and Dec. 2001, and that
Czechs intell, made that claim public.....but Cheney made NO 9/11 claims....lets make that clear first...
Of course Atta being one of the hijackers is a well known fact...
Is there a point here or is it just FYI?


----------



## Alpha1

Well, lets address your innuendo anyway.....

The available evidence does not support the original Czech report of an Atta-Ani meeting.

In the final analysis, the 9/11 Commission Report makes this statement: *"These findings cannot absolutely rule out the possibility that Atta was in Prague on April 9, 2001. He could have used an alias to travel and a passport under that alias, but this would be an exception to his practice of using his true name while traveling (as he did in January and would in July when he took his next overseas trip)." (p. 229)*

Our CIA and FBI investigated this report for Czech intell and conclude it be very unreliable and don't believe it .... but there remain 2 sides to the story and thus the 9/11 Commission  statement.....

IMO, Cheney should have never made statements like this....statements that do not make clear that they were in no way reliable and proven.....

Until late 2004, many believed that Atta traveled to Prague for one day on May 30, 2000, doubts still linger.....so there is no closure on this issue...as noted by the Commission


----------



## Alpha1

rayboyusmc said:


> And your side bitches about Clinton parsing words.  What total hippo critical bullshit.
> 
> If you don't realize that he used all his speaches to make US think Saddam attacked US you are pissing in the wing.



So Rayboy......were YOU convinced that Saddam attacked the US on 9/11 or had a roll in it.....???


----------



## maineman

Prior to the invasion of Iraq, Cheney placed Atta in Prague meeting with Iraqi intelligence officials in April of 2001.  That is linking Saddam and 9/11 and saying otherwise is willful ignorance.


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> So Rayboy......were YOU convinced that Saddam attacked the US on 9/11 or had a roll in it.....???




who cares?  several polls show that a majority of Americans were.  As stupid as I think you are, I am well aware that there are people a lot more stupid than you are populating our great land.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> who cares?  several polls show that a majority of Americans were.  As stupid as I think you are, I am well aware that there are people a lot more stupid than you are populating our great land.



Pot meet kettle.......


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> Pot meet kettle.......



I am actually pretty smart.  Wanna compare CV's?


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> Prior to the invasion of Iraq, Cheney placed Atta in Prague meeting with Iraqi intelligence officials in April of 2001.  That is linking Saddam and 9/11 and saying otherwise is willful ignorance.




You question was answered before you asked....Czech intell made claims they could not substantiate with proof..Cheney repeated them, and should not have, if he was aware our own CIA said it was unlikely to be true..... 

But we can't ignore the fact that even years later,
the 9/11 Commission Report makes this statement:* "These findings cannot absolutely rule out the possibility that Atta was in Prague on April 9, 2001. He could have used an alias to travel and a passport under that alias, but this would be an exception to his practice of using his true name while traveling (as he did in January and would in July when he took his next overseas trip)." (p. 229)*

Unlike you...I don't come to conclusions that even experts can't arrive at....

January 2003, CIA assessed that...they were "increasingly skeptical that Atta traveled to Prague in 2001 or met with IIS officer al-Ani." Postwar debriefings of al-Ani indicate that he had never seen or heard of Atta until after September 11, 2001, when Atta's face appeared on the news.

I consider WHEN statements are made and WHEN they are deemed unreliable or untrue, which is sometimes years later....

While hyper guesses and bullshit is your medium...I go with the careful conclusion of the 9/11 Commission Report


----------



## Alpha1

Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet released "the most complete public assessment by the agency on the issue" in a statement to the Senate Armed Services Committee in July 2004, stating "Although we cannot rule it out, we are increasingly skeptical that such a meeting occurred."

So even in 2004 our own CIA was unsure of the claims....but naturally for your purpose, you NEED to bash Cheney with ........slime and innuendo..Its you mo


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> I am actually pretty smart.  Wanna compare CV's?



Pretty?  maybe......Smart?  you haven't shown that side of your self yet...


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> You question was answered before you asked....Czech intell made claims they could not substantiate with proof..Cheney repeated them, and should not have, if he was aware our own CIA said it was unlikely to be true.....
> 
> But we can't ignore the fact that even years later,
> the 9/11 Commission Report makes this statement:* "These findings cannot absolutely rule out the possibility that Atta was in Prague on April 9, 2001. He could have used an alias to travel and a passport under that alias, but this would be an exception to his practice of using his true name while traveling (as he did in January and would in July when he took his next overseas trip)." (p. 229)*
> 
> Unlike you...I don't come to conclusions that even experts can't arrive at....
> 
> January 2003, CIA assessed that...they were "increasingly skeptical that Atta traveled to Prague in 2001 or met with IIS officer al-Ani." Postwar debriefings of al-Ani indicate that he had never seen or heard of Atta until after September 11, 2001, when Atta's face appeared on the news.
> 
> I consider WHEN statements are made and WHEN they are deemed unreliable or untrue, which is sometimes years later....
> 
> While hyper guesses and bullshit is your medium...I go with the careful conclusion of the 9/11 Commission Report




the fact remains.  Cheney tied Iraq to 9/11 before our invasion.

and the administration also said there was no doubt that Saddam had WMD's.  

Americans connected the two blatantly obvious dots.... which justified their support for Bush's urgent and precipitous actions.


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> Pretty?  maybe......Smart?  you haven't shown that side of your self yet...



I am fairly certain that many folks would disagree.


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> who cares?  several polls show that a majority of Americans were.  As stupid as I think you are, I am well aware that there are people a lot more stupid than you are populating our great land.


 
So .....WERE you one of them too.....I keep hearing about them and never in my life met one.....you tell me about 3 out of 4 were conned?....there must be at least a few one this board that can admit they were fooled, just to satisfy the myth , I don't expect the truth...


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> So .....WERE you one of them too.....I keep hearing about them and never in my life met one.....you tell me about 3 out of 4 were conned?....there must be at least a few one this board that can admit they were fooled, just to satisfy the myth , I don't expect the truth...



no...I was not one....but if you suggest that respected polling organizations just boldly make shit up out of whole cloth with no basis in reality, I think that you are just in denial.

And who in their right mind would admit to being conned if they didn't have to?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> I am actually pretty smart.  Wanna compare CV's?



You have no idea about my or anyone else's "intelligence" here. What you do have is an attitude that anyone that does not lick your boots is stupid. Anyone that does not allow you to tell them what to think and how to respond is stupid. Your arrogant and a partisan hack.

My IQ has fluctuated from 137 to 126 over the years. Which may not make me a super brain but I am hardly ignorant or stupid. I joined the Marine Corps on an open contract and THEY sent me to Electronics School where I was 1st in my class and went on to Crypto school on an Army Base. The Marine Corps does not let dumb people represent them in other service schools, especially technical schools. I graduated 2nd in that School. Got beat out by a very good National Guard Sgt. Though he already knew the equipment before he ever came to the school.

Every professional school I attended in the Marine Corps I graduated first in my class. And I made GySgt before I was in 11 years.

When I went to College my grade point average was 3.73. That was in Accounting and years later I did the same with General courses. If I hadn't gotten to sick to continue I was working on a degree that would allow me to be a computer programmer. Hadn't decided if I would do a 4 year Business degree or a specialized Degree, both would have allowed my chosen path.

When I was in the National Guard before joining the Marine Corps my command put me up for Officer training with less than 3 months in the unit. I was rejected because the board wanted me to have at least 18 months in the Guard first. I was told to reapply once I had the 18 months. I joined the Marine Corps before that happened.

Even as a Cpl. I was always in charge of something, this in a field where SSgts were just techs a lot of times. As a Sgt I ran a section that a GySgt was supposed to run. Not because there were no GySgt's available, but because I was so good at it.

As a Sgt I was sent to be an Instructor at my former school ON AN Army Base. Normally only SSgt and above were assigned there and in fact I was the ONLY Sgt not already selected for SSgt there. At the end of 4 years the school wanted me to stay and I could have but chose to move to the Fleet. I was a SSgt by then. I served in 2nd Mar Div and 3rd Mar Div Hqs Bn Comm Co. I was a GySgt with in less than 2 years of leaving Instructor Duty.

I would bet dollars to dough nuts Alpha is no slouch either.


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> the fact remains.  Cheney tied Iraq to 9/11 before our invasion.
> 
> and here we go round and round....Put into context.....the fact remains, Czech intell made claims they could not substantiate with proof..Cheney repeated them...a risky thing to do, if our own CIA wasn't convinced it was true....It didn't tie Iraq to 9/11, it tied one of the terrorists to Iraq intell....
> 
> and the administration also said there was no doubt that Saddam had WMD's.
> 
> and we go again....the facts are that EVERYONE claimed Saddam had WMD...the words 'no doubt' is red herring your obsessed with....you hear Gore, Pelosi and others...."Saddam has WMD" ...the belief was almost universal. get over it already, its the truth....
> 
> Americans connected the two blatantly obvious dots.... which justified their support for Bush's urgent and precipitous actions.
> 
> Yep...and the vote was taken....and the resolution passed...and the war began.....time to get over that too....



----------


----------



## Alpha1

Look man...You can recite things that were said, post quotes and cite actions that occured....and they can and do look damning at first blush......

but the fact is, that WHEN each of the things are said, and each of the actions actually occur, that can does  paint a whole and different and a more coherent picture of the history. Not just different but more factual....

If I state in 2001 what  I believe to be factual and in 2006 its proven no to be factual....its blantenly ridiculous to claim I was lying.....

and that is exactly what the left constantly does, over and over....
along with parsing the verbs used and tense of the verbs ad nausium....
not to mention that they ignore these things when it comes to analyzing their own.....its tiresome.


----------



## maineman

Cheney's statements placing the leader of the 9/11 hijackers with Iraqi intelligence certainly tied Saddam to 9/11.  

I firmly believe that Bush and his party beat the war drums and misled us into war.... it is certainly not time to get over it or to let America forget it happened.  There is an election in nine months and your party is running a guy who has been the war's biggest cheerleader.  I think it is imperative that the misleading and poor judgment of the Bush administration be tied directly to McCain and to the republican party.  They deserve to have the keys taken away, IMHO.


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> Look man...You can recite things that were said, post quotes and cite actions that occured....and they can and do look damning at first blush......
> 
> but the fact is, that WHEN each of the things are said, and each of the actions actually occur, that can does  paint a whole and different and a more coherent picture of the history. Not just different but more factual....
> 
> If I state in 2001 what  I believe to be factual and in 2006 its proven no to be factual....its blantenly ridiculous to claim I was lying.....
> 
> and that is exactly what the left constantly does, over and over....
> along with parsing the verbs used and tense of the verbs ad nausium....
> not to mention that they ignore these things when it comes to analyzing their own.....its tiresome.




And again... I will not forgive a democrat who supported this war unless he or she repents and admits the error.  I don't give anyone a free pass for warmongering.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> And again... I will not forgive a democrat who supported this war unless he or she repents and admits the error.  I don't give anyone a free pass for warmongering.



So when or if Hillary wins the Nomination, you will be sitting out the election?


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> So when or if Hillary wins the Nomination, you will be sitting out the election?



probably not...but I won't stuff a single envelope or knock on a single door or spend election day driving voters to the polls.  If I balance HER position on Iraq with McCain's, she is clearly the lesser of two evils, and she is standing on a party platform that I have always endorsed.  I didn't vote for her in MY caucus and I cheer every Obama victory.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> probably not...but I won't stuff a single envelope or knock on a single door or spend election day driving voters to the polls.  If I balance HER position on Iraq with McCain's, she is clearly the lesser of two evils, and she is standing on a party platform that I have always endorsed.  I didn't vote for her in MY caucus and I cheer every Obama victory.



You have seen the new thread?


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> You have seen the new thread?



yes I have..and responded to it.


----------



## Alpha1

RetiredGySgt said:


> You have no idea about my or anyone else's "intelligence" here. What you do have is an attitude that anyone that does not lick your boots is stupid. Anyone that does not allow you to tell them what to think and how to respond is stupid. Your arrogant and a partisan hack.
> 
> My IQ has fluctuated from 137 to 126 over the years. Which may not make me a super brain but I am hardly ignorant or stupid. I joined the Marine Corps on an open contract and THEY sent me to Electronics School where I was 1st in my class and went on to Crypto school on an Army Base. The Marine Corps does not let dumb people represent them in other service schools, especially technical schools. I graduated 2nd in that School. Got beat out by a very good National Guard Sgt. Though he already knew the equipment before he ever came to the school.
> 
> Every professional school I attended in the Marine Corps I graduated first in my class. And I made GySgt before I was in 11 years.
> 
> When I went to College my grade point average was 3.73. That was in Accounting and years later I did the same with General courses. If I hadn't gotten to sick to continue I was working on a degree that would allow me to be a computer programmer. Hadn't decided if I would do a 4 year Business degree or a specialized Degree, both would have allowed my chosen path.
> 
> When I was in the National Guard before joining the Marine Corps my command put me up for Officer training with less than 3 months in the unit. I was rejected because the board wanted me to have at least 18 months in the Guard first. I was told to reapply once I had the 18 months. I joined the Marine Corps before that happened.
> 
> Even as a Cpl. I was always in charge of something, this in a field where SSgts were just techs a lot of times. As a Sgt I ran a section that a GySgt was supposed to run. Not because there were no GySgt's available, but because I was so good at it.
> 
> As a Sgt I was sent to be an Instructor at my former school ON AN Army Base. Normally only SSgt and above were assigned there and in fact I was the ONLY Sgt not already selected for SSgt there. At the end of 4 years the school wanted me to stay and I could have but chose to move to the Fleet. I was a SSgt by then. I served in 2nd Mar Div and 3rd Mar Div Hqs Bn Comm Co. I was a GySgt with in less than 2 years of leaving Instructor Duty.
> 
> I would bet dollars to dough nuts Alpha is no slouch either.



Holy shit....Whaoooa thairrrr Nelly.....
My resume don't have those kinds of credentials associated with it...though I can claim to match you in IQ.....(but then that silly number doesn't impress me a great deal)...electronics was my bag also, can't claim I was ever on the verge of inventing anything though....so I don't claim to be, in fact, special in any way....I've encountered some pretty sharp people online, and some foolish ones.....

If I choose to debate somebody, or choose to post a thoughtful reply to somebody, you can be sure its because I consider them a worthy opponent and an equal....(but misguided) 

...I try to use the common sense I have, the logical thinking I learned, and will put my morals, fairness, judgment, and sense of justice up against anyone....I view myself as Mr. Blue Collar, better known as Joe Sixpack...and damn proud of it.....and absolutely not a slouch


----------



## maineman

> You have no idea about my or anyone else's "intelligence" here. What you do have is an attitude that anyone that does not lick your boots is stupid. Anyone that does not allow you to tell them what to think and how to respond is stupid. Your arrogant and a partisan hack.



I have never asked you, or anyone else to lick my boots,  I have never asked anyone to allow me to tell them what to think.  I have suggested that having a dialog with questions and responses is more productive than merely bombarding the board with cut and paste op-ed pieces and one liners from Rush (as RSR would do).  I have suggested that there are areas of discussion that I am more qualified to discuss than others.  I do not presume any experiential edge about tax policy or social policy or environmental policy.  I do about the middle east, and that area only (unless, of course, we were talking about hunting submarines or Navy football or good scotch...I might step into those discussions with an edge as well) I have suggested that when people make claims about other members that they back them up or retract them.  

I will not deny the sin of arrogance.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> I have never asked you, or anyone else to lick my boots,  I have never asked anyone to allow me to tell them what to think.  I have suggested that having a dialog with questions and responses is more productive than merely bombarding the board with cut and paste op-ed pieces and one liners from Rush (as RSR would do).  I have suggested that there are areas of discussion that I am more qualified to discuss than others.  I do not presume any experiential edge about tax policy or social policy or environmental policy.  I do about the middle east, and that area only (unless, of course, we were talking about hunting submarines or Navy football or good scotch...I might step into those discussions with an edge as well) I have suggested that when people make claims about other members that they back them up or retract them.
> 
> I will not deny the sin of arrogance.



And then we have this....



> I have suggested that when people make claims about other members that they back them up or retract them.



You may want to change that sentence or actually delete it since YOU have on several occasions made specific claims about me and other veterans on this board, all for the folly of disagreeing with you. And you have NEVER backed them up nor retracted them. You just eventually agree to stop making them. And when pushed say " ok you are a retired...." until the next time you get mad and then you start all over again.

In fact you have NOT retracted your last claim I am not a retired Marine GySgt. You just stopped making it.


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> Cheney's statements placing the leader of the 9/11 hijackers with Iraqi intelligence certainly tied Saddam to 9/11.
> 
> 
> *This is the main hangup with you and me.....You will keep saying "Cheney's" statements...while in fact it was the claims of a foreign intell service....expressed by Cheney and though both of us speak a fact....my view is more accurate and gives the truth perspective of the issue........
> 
> Cheney didn't lie, didn't state an untruth, and therefore could not in reality mis-lead anyone.....the intell was probably incorrect and thats irrelevant and that makes it unjust to imply Cheney was guilty of some wrongdoing....
> 
> That happened in 2001 and in the year 2004, our own CIA STILL couldn't positively say the claim was false....more settle down and consider what I've said......does that fact resonate with you at all*
> 
> I firmly believe that Bush and his party beat the war drums and misled us into war.... it is certainly not time to get over it or to let America forget it happened.  There is an election in nine months and your party is running a guy who has been the war's biggest cheerleader.  I think it is imperative that the misleading and poor judgment of the Bush administration be tied directly to McCain and to the republican party.  They deserve to have the keys taken away, IMHO.




I know what you firmly believe and how you remember what Bush and Cheney said while conveniently forgetting what your Dims said....

you remember what was said without any concept of why and in what context statements were made or consideration of the timeline.... sorry man...that makes you a hack...

Bush utters 'no doubt' and Gore says 'We know' and I could go on with Pelosi and others....but in the end your simply can't see from any other perspective but the one your glued to....so the debate is a useless exercise.....
we continue to disagree....carry one, mate


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> I know what you firmly believe and how you remember what Bush and Cheney said while conveniently forgetting what your Dims said....
> 
> you remember what was said without any concept of why and in what context statements were made or consideration of the timeline.... sorry man...that makes you a hack...
> 
> Bush utters 'no doubt' and Gore says 'We know' and I could go on with Pelosi and others....but in the end your simply can't see from any other perspective but the one your glued to....so the debate is a useless exercise.....
> we continue to disagree....carry one, mate



I know what democrats said and I know that I have repeated oftentimes that I will not forgive and fully support any democrat who voted for the war or who beat the drums for war until they repent.

So...was Cheney ASKED about Atta or did he offer the name up first in the interview?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> I know what democrats said and I know that I have repeated oftentimes that I will not forgive and fully support any democrat who voted for the war or who beat the drums for war until they repent.
> 
> So...was Cheney ASKED about Atta or did he offer the name up first in the interview?



Who cares, it is irrelevant to the discussion. Cheney was simply repeating intel provided by an allied Country. Intel that if true was important in establishing links to Saddam Hussein and Terrorism. He also stated for the record NO link to Saddam Hussein and 9/11.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> And then we have this....
> 
> 
> 
> You may want to change that sentence or actually delete it since YOU have on several occasions made specific claims about me and other veterans on this board, *all for the folly of disagreeing with you*. And you have NEVER backed them up nor retracted them. You just eventually agree to stop making them. And when pushed say " ok you are a retired...." until the next time you get mad and then you start all over again.
> 
> In fact you have NOT retracted your last claim I am not a retired Marine GySgt. You just stopped making it.



I don't think I have ever attacked a veteran's service because I considered their disagreement with me, folly.  And we both know that your repeated claims about "other veterans" are not supportable.... if they were, you would produce quotes to support them.  In any case, I certainly believe that you are a retired Marine GySgt.  I most always disagree with your politics, but I do not deny your service and I retract any denigration of that service that I might have expressed in the heat of arguments... and I would say the same thing to the phantom "other veterans" whoever they may be.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> Who cares, it is irrelevant to the discussion. Cheney was simply repeating intel provided by an allied Country. Intel that if true was important in establishing links to Saddam Hussein and Terrorism. He also stated for the record NO link to Saddam Hussein and 9/11.



If he claimed a link between Atta and Iraq BEFORE 9/11, he certainly created a link between Saddam and 9/11.  Simple logic tells us that.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> If he claimed a link between Atta and Iraq BEFORE 9/11, he certainly created a link between Saddam and 9/11.  Simple logic tells us that.



NO it does not. Further he STATED at the time there was NO link with 9/11. Most of the Hijackers were Saudi, using your logic we should have bombed them. Your simple logic at work.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> NO it does not. Further he STATED at the time there was NO link with 9/11. Most of the Hijackers were Saudi, using your logic we should have bombed them. Your simple logic at work.



Of course it does.  you are being willfully blind.  If there were a terrible  attack on San Fransisco on the 4th of July 2008 and we know that the man who was responsible was, for argument's sake, named actsnoblemartin.  And then, in August of that year, the mayor of San Fransisco said,  *"In regards to the July 4th attacks, there are reports that actsnoblemartin had been seen in Los Angeles meeting with RetiredGySgt two weeks BEFORE the attack"*, are you really suggesting that people would not immediately think that you might very well have be involved with the attacks?  Are you saying that a connection would not have been logically made?


----------



## DeadCanDance

RetiredGySgt said:


> NO it does not. Further he STATED at the time there was NO link with 9/11. Most of the Hijackers were Saudi, using your logic we should have bombed them. Your simple logic at work.



Bush also never claimed the Taliban knew about, or were involved in planning or executing the 9/11 plot.  They were merely harboring al qaeda.  Which is why we took out the taliban. 

Which is one the primary reasons Bush gave for attacking Iraq:  that Iraq was harboring, training, and providing assistance to al qaeda.  That, like the taliban, he was an ally of al qaeda. 

Which was flat out false.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> Of course it does.  you are being willfully blind.  If there were a terrible  attack on San Fransisco on the 4th of July 2008 and we know that the man who was responsible was, for argument's sake, named actsnoblemartin.  And then, in August of that year, the mayor of San Fransisco said,  *"In regards to the July 4th attacks, there are reports that actsnoblemartin had been seen in Los Angeles meeting with RetiredGySgt two weeks BEFORE the attack"*, are you really suggesting that people would not immediately think that you might very well have be involved with the attacks?  Are you saying that a connection would not have been logically made?



Cheney did NOT say in regards to 9/11 Atta met with Iraqi intelligence. In fact he stipulated there WAS NO LINK to 9/11.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

DeadCanDance said:


> Bush also never claimed the Taliban knew about, or were involved in planning or executing the 9/11 plot.  They were merely harboring al qaeda.  Which is why we took out the taliban.
> 
> Which is one the primary reasons Bush gave for attacking Iraq:  that Iraq was harboring, training, and providing assistance to al qaeda.  That, like the taliban, he was an ally of al qaeda.
> 
> Which was flat out false.



It was not a lie though as at the time the intelligence was that they had training camps in Iraq. Once again for the slow if on Monday I see you driving a new red car and someone I trust tells me you bought said car and I tell everyone you bought a new red car, then on Wednesday it turns out you did not even buy a car and were just driving a friends car.... I did not lie.


----------



## jillian

RetiredGySgt said:


> It was not a lie though as at the time the intelligence was that they had training camps in Iraq. Once again for the slow if on Monday I see you driving a new red car and someone I trust tells me you bought said car and I tell everyone you bought a new red car, then on Wednesday it turns out you did not even buy a car and were just driving a friends car.... I did not lie.



Training camps? You mean Ansar al Islam?

Ansar al Islam was in northern Iraq in an area outside of Saddam Hussein's control.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansar_al-Islam

Another one of those convenient fallacies the right loved spreading during the run up to the invasion of Iraq.


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> I know what democrats said and I know that I have repeated oftentimes that I will not forgive and fully support any democrat who voted for the war or who beat the drums for war until they repent.
> 
> So...was Cheney ASKED about Atta or did he offer the name up first in the interview?




Since you ask....

November 14, 2001
    GLORIA BORGER (CBS News contributor): Well, you know that Mohammed Atta, the ringleader of the hijackers, actually met with Iraqi intelligence.

    CHENEY: I know this. In Prague, in April of this year, as well as earlier. And that information has been made public. The Czechs made that public. Obviously, that's an interesting piece of information.

And even more interesting....
 That happened in 2001 and in the year 2004, our own CIA STILL couldn't positively say the claim was false..


----------



## Alpha1

DeadCanDance said:


> Bush also never claimed the Taliban knew about, or were involved in planning or executing the 9/11 plot.  They were merely harboring al qaeda.  Which is why we took out the taliban.
> 
> Which is one the primary reasons Bush gave for attacking Iraq:  that Iraq was harboring, training, and providing assistance to al qaeda.  That, like the taliban, he was an ally of al qaeda.
> 
> Which was flat out false.



*IN HIS OWN WORDS*

October 7, 2002....Bush set out the reasons for war .....

President George W. Bush delivers remarks on Iraq at the Cincinnati Museum Center in Cincinnati, Ohio, Monday night, Oct. 7, 2002.

"Tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace, and America's determination to lead the world in confronting that threat.
The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions -- 
its history of aggression, 
and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. 
Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction,
to cease all development of such weapons,
and to stop all support for terrorist groups. 

The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations.
It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. 
It is seeking nuclear weapons. 
It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and 
practices terror against its own people. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
You claim a primary reason BUSH GAVE for attacking Iraq was Saddams link to AQ....?
Where do you get that....

I've seen suspicions  like that mentioned in passing by various people, including your Mr. Clark as far back as 1998 I think...but "a primary reason that Bush gave".....????


----------



## jreeves

maineman said:


> no...I was not one....but if you suggest that respected polling organizations just boldly make shit up out of whole cloth with no basis in reality, I think that you are just in denial.
> 
> And who in their right mind would admit to being conned if they didn't have to?



We can all tell how reliable polls are during this campaign season. Very Intellectual point on your part.


----------



## DeadCanDance

RetiredGySgt said:


> *It was not a lie though as at the time the intelligence was that they had training camps in Iraq. *Once again for the slow if on Monday I see you driving a new red car and someone I trust tells me you bought said car and I tell everyone you bought a new red car, then on Wednesday it turns out you did not even buy a car and were just driving a friends car.... I did not lie.




Don't lump me in with you.  You may have been fooled in 2003, that Saddam was training and supporting Al Qaeda.  I wasn't.  I don't get my news from Matt Drudge, Newsmax, and Fox.  Those are pro-war propagada sources.   I knew in 2003 that the alleged support Saddam was giving al qaeda were entirely false and exaggerated.  I knew the ansar al islam training camps in kurdistan had nothing to do with saddam, and were beyond his control.  And I knew that ansar al islam and Zarqawi in fact considered Saddam their enemy.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> Cheney did NOT say in regards to 9/11 Atta met with Iraqi intelligence. In fact he stipulated there WAS NO LINK to 9/11.




*"With respect to 9/11, of course, weve had the story that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."*Dick Cheney


----------



## DeadCanDance

Alpha1 said:


> You claim a primary reason BUSH GAVE for attacking Iraq was Saddams link to AQ....?
> 
> *Where do you get that....*







> CONDI RICE We know too that several of the detainees, in particular some high-ranking detainees, have said that *Iraq provided some training to Al Qaeda in chemical-weapons development*.
> 
> ARI FLEISHER: Clearly,* Al Qaeda is operating inside Iraq.* And the point is, in the shadowy world of terrorism, sometimes there is no precise way to have definitive information until it is too late.
> 
> ARI FLEISHER: We have solid reporting of senior-level *contacts between Al Qaeda and Iraqi officials* going back a decade, and, as Condi said, of chemical and biological agent training.
> 
> ARI FLEISHER:. *We know that Al Qaeda have found refuge in Iraq.* There is credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq to acquire chemical and other weapons of mass destruction capabilities.
> 
> ARI FLEISHER: Well, as Condi said last night&#8212;I cite her words&#8212;"*Iraq has provided some training to Al Qaeda in chemical weapons development."*
> 
> RUMSFELD: This is a man who continues to murder his own people; a man who has gassed&#8212;used gas on his own citizens; a man who has used chemical weapons on his neighbors; a man who has invaded two countries; a man which hates&#8212;who hates America;* a man who loves to link up with Al Qaeda*; a man who is a true threat to America, to Israel, to anybody in the neighborhood.
> 
> BUSH: We know that Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy&#8212;the United States of America. *We know that Iraq and Al Qaeda have had high-level contacts* that go back a decade.
> 
> BUSH: *This is a man that we know has had connections with Al Qaeda.* This is a man who, in my judgment, would like to use Al Qaeda as a forward army. And this is a man that we must deal with for the sake of peace, for the sake of our children's peace.
> 
> BUSH: We know that* he has had contacts with terrorist networks like Al Qaeda. *And we know, clearly, that one of the dangers we face is him serving as a training ground and an arsenal for one of these shadowy terrorist networks, which could come home, come home here. And so he's a danger.
> 
> BUSH: *Saddam is a man who would likely team up with Al Qaeda.* He could provide the arsenal for one of these shadowy terrorist networks. He would love to use somebody else to attack us, and not leave fingerprints behind.
> 
> BUSH: And, not only that, he is&#8212;would like nothing better than to *hook-up with one of these shadowy terrorist networks like Al Qaeda, provide some weapons and training to them, *let them come and do his dirty work, and we wouldn't be able to see his fingerprints on his action.
> 
> BUSH:* Saddam's  a threat because he is dealing with Al Qaeda.* In my Cincinnati speech, I reminded the American people, a true threat facing our country is that an Al Qaeda-type network trained and armed by Saddam could attack America and leave not one fingerprint.
> 
> Rice: Al Qaeda operatives gain training in CBRN [chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear], or *having meetings with&#8212;between Iraqis and Al Qaeda in various parts of the world, there's a relationship here*.
> 
> BUSH: Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror. He is pressing forward with weapons of mass destruction&#8212;weapons he's already used in his war against Iran and against his own people. *His regime has had high-level contacts with Al Qaeda going back a decade and has provided training to Al Qaeda terrorists*.
> 
> CHENEY:  It's been pretty well _confirmed_ that he (Atta) *did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service* in Czechoslovakia
> 
> http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/Search/Default.aspx






> **CIA/Senate Bipartisan Report on Iraq Intelligence*, September 2006:
> 
> -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 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 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."*
> 
> 
> http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf[/quote]
> 
> .


----------



## Alpha1

Why its so hard to penatrate the skulls of numbskulls.....
All those quotes are nothing but the normal beliefs in our government 
dating back to Clintons Administration....beliefs that you neglect to put
into some timeframe and give them context......and in spite of all your effort, 
not one of them comes close to 
making the claim of being a primary reason to attack Iraq....

The 9/11 Commission documented them ......so read:

PAGE 128  9/11 report
Time....11/1998
....this passage led Clark, who for years had read intell reports on Iraqi-Sudanese
cooperation on chemical weapons, to specualte to Berger that a large Iraqi presence at chem
facilities in Khartoum was* "probably a direct result of the Iraq-Al Qida
agreement." * Clark added that VX precursor traces found near al Shifa were the 
"exact formula" used by Iraq."

PAGE 61  9/11 Report
With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary,* Ben Ladin himself
met with a senior Inraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995*
Ben Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance 
assistance in procuring weapons, but there in no evidence that Iraq responded to this
request...As described below, the ensuring years saw additional efforts to 
establish connections....

PAGE 66   9/11 Report
There is also evidence that around this time *Bin Ladin sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi 
regime, offering some cooperation.*  None are reported to received a response.
In mid 1998 the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In
March 1998, after Bin Ladin's public fatwa against the United States *two al Qaeda
members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence[*. In July, an* Iraqi delegation
 traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Ben Ladin.*  Sources reported 
that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin's Egyptian
deputy, *Zawahiri, who had ties of his own the the Iraqis.*

*Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have 
occured in 1999 *during a period of some reported strains with the 
Taliban. According to the reporting, *Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe
haven in Iraq. *Bin Ladin declined,  etc......

Conclusion reached in 2004
....to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed in
into a collaborative operational relational.  Nor have we seen evidence indicating that
Iraq cooperated with AQ in developing or carrying out any attacks against the US...
So don't confuse conclusions reached in 2004 with beliefs held in earlier years....

Is it really any wonder why these people said these things? To those that think, 
its plain....ITS WHAT WAS COMMONLY BELIEVED AT THAT TIME IN HISTORY

---------------------------
Thats directly from the Commission's report....

Its the story of what our intell, combinded with intell from around the world
developed....
*today, we know its not valid....but not then.....*
Your still claiming that what is stated in 2001 is a lie because its found to be incorrect in 2006....
Thats how an assholes minds works...or doesn't work


----------



## maineman

I, along with many other Americans, did not share those beliefs.  But regardless, unfortunately, it was only Bush who chose to take those beliefs and use them as a justification for the invasion/conquest/occupation of Iraq.  And that decision was a bad one....in retrospect for some, and from the very outset with others - like me.  And Bush, and his party, need to pay for that bad decision.  We need to take the keys away from the republican party and make them go sit facing the corner for an extended "time out".


----------



## jreeves

maineman said:


> I, along with many other Americans, did not share those beliefs.  But regardless, unfortunately, it was only Bush who chose to take those beliefs and use them as a justification for the invasion/conquest/occupation of Iraq.  And that decision was a bad one....in retrospect for some, and from the very outset with others - like me.  And Bush, and his party, need to pay for that bad decision.  We need to take the keys away from the republican party and make them go sit facing the corner for an extended "time out".



I seem to remember Congress voting to give him authorization to go to war. Shouldn't Democrats pay too then? You can say he misled Congress, but they get their own independent intelligence briefings. Bush didn't run the CIA.....


----------



## mattskramer

jreeves said:


> I seem to remember Congress voting to give him authorization to go to war. Shouldn't Democrats pay too then? You can say he misled Congress, but they get their own independent intelligence briefings. Bush didn't run the CIA.....



Bush pressed the red button so to speak.   He ultimately made the call.


----------



## jreeves

mattskramer said:


> Bush pressed the red button so to speak.   He ultimately made the call.



He made his decision based on intelligence reports that were flawed. Not his fault, as it wasn't the democrats in congress's fault either. Seems as though we could learn from the mistake made and reform the intelligence agencies further.


----------



## mattskramer

jreeves said:


> He made his decision based on intelligence reports that were flawed. Not his fault, as it wasn't the democrats in congress's fault either. Seems as though we could learn from the mistake made and reform the intelligence agencies further.



In my opinion, Bush acted way too soon.  I doubt that he even though for a minutes that there might just not be WMD to any significant degree.  Did he ask for second opinions?  Did he ask for irrefutable proof before sending our soldiers into Iraq?   Did he consider the possibility of there being a lack of Iraqi support?  Did he consider the possibility of insurgents?  Did he even bother to take a little time to make sure that the hospitals would be ready for our wounded soldiers?  

Perhaps I expect too much from presidents when they send our soldiers off to war, but in my humble opinion, Bush acted like a reckless loose cannon.  He is a cowboy who is so eager to shoot first and ask questions later.  People say that hindsight is 20/20 but it doesnt take a fortunetelling genius to know ahead of time that Bush should have taken more time and been more careful.


----------



## jreeves

mattskramer said:


> In my opinion, Bush acted way too soon.  I doubt that he even though for a minutes that there might just not be WMD to any significant degree.  Did he ask for second opinions?  Did he ask for irrefutable proof before sending our soldiers into Iraq?   Did he consider the possibility of there being a lack of Iraqi support?  Did he consider the possibility of insurgents?  Did he even bother to take a little time to make sure that the hospitals would be ready for our wounded soldiers?
> 
> Perhaps I expect too much from presidents when they send our soldiers off to war, but in my humble opinion, Bush acted like a reckless loose cannon.  He is a cowboy who is so eager to shoot first and ask questions later.  People say that hindsight is 20/20 but it doesnt take a fortunetelling genius to know ahead of time that Bush should have taken more time and been more careful.



You state in your post that it doesn't take a fortunetelling genius to know ahead of time that Bush should have taken more time and been more careful.
Isn't this where the authorization for War vote comes in? I believe if democrats that Bush should take more time back then, then they shouldn't have given him war authorization. I do believe Bush made mistakes in preparation for war, we agree on that point. But in my opinion, the reason to go to war was justified even if it was justified by bad intelligence.


----------



## maineman

jreeves said:


> I seem to remember Congress voting to give him authorization to go to war. Shouldn't Democrats pay too then? You can say he misled Congress, but they get their own independent intelligence briefings. Bush didn't run the CIA.....



two points:

1.  a majority of congressional democrats voted against the war
2.  the CIA does indeed work for the executive branch of government... so Bush does, in effect, "run" the CIA, just as he does every other agency in the executive branch.


----------



## mattskramer

jreeves said:


> You state in your post that it doesn't take a fortunetelling genius to know ahead of time that Bush should have taken more time and been more careful.
> Isn't this where the authorization for War vote comes in? I believe if democrats that Bush should take more time back then, then they shouldn't have given him war authorization. I do believe Bush made mistakes in preparation for war, we agree on that point. But in my opinion, the reason to go to war was justified even if it was justified by bad intelligence.



I think that a case could be made that the Iraq war was illegal.  If Iraq broke UN resolutions that it was up to the UN to make the call  not the USA.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0305-01.htm

Mr Blix, speaking to The Independent, said the Attorney General's legal advice to the Government on the eve of war, giving cover for military action by the US and Britain, had no lawful justification. He said it would have required a second United Nations resolution explicitly authorizing the use of force for the invasion of Iraq last March to have been legal

   Mr Blix said that while it was possible to argue that Iraq had breached the ceasefire by violating UN resolutions adopted since 1991, the "ownership" of the resolutions rested with the entire 15-member Security Council and not with individual states. "It's the Security Council that is party to the ceasefire, not the UK and US individually, and therefore it is the council that has ownership of the ceasefire, in my interpretation."
Here is a neat video that really explains it.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Khut8xbXK8[/ame]


----------



## RetiredGySgt

mattskramer said:


> I think that a case could be made that the Iraq war was illegal.  If Iraq broke UN resolutions that it was up to the UN to make the call  not the USA.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq
> 
> http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0305-01.htm
> 
> Mr Blix, speaking to The Independent, said the Attorney General's legal advice to the Government on the eve of war, giving cover for military action by the US and Britain, had no lawful justification. He said it would have required a second United Nations resolution explicitly authorizing the use of force for the invasion of Iraq last March to have been legal
> 
> Mr Blix said that while it was possible to argue that Iraq had breached the ceasefire by violating UN resolutions adopted since 1991, the "ownership" of the resolutions rested with the entire 15-member Security Council and not with individual states. "It's the Security Council that is party to the ceasefire, not the UK and US individually, and therefore it is the council that has ownership of the ceasefire, in my interpretation."
> Here is a neat video that really explains it.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Khut8xbXK8



I suggest you ask the UN to prosecute us. Ohh wait, they can not. And other then grandstanding by Mr Corruption Koffi Annan the UN has made NO claim the US violated a single UN charter or Treaty the US has agreed to.

MOre BULLSHIT from idiots.


----------



## mattskramer

RetiredGySgt said:


> I suggest you ask the UN to prosecute us. Ohh wait, they can not. And other then grandstanding by Mr Corruption Koffi Annan the UN has made NO claim the US violated a single UN charter or Treaty the US has agreed to.
> 
> MOre BULLSHIT from idiots.



Silly name-calling aside, my point still stands.  If Iraq broke UN resolutions then it was up to the UN to make the call to invade Iraq. Just because the UN did not charge us with violating anything is irrelevant.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

mattskramer said:


> Silly name-calling aside, my point still stands.  If Iraq broke UN resolutions then it was up to the UN to make the call to invade Iraq. Just because the UN did not charge us with violating anything is irrelevant.



Sure thing dimwit.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> Sure thing dimwit.



Just because we are the biggest dog in the pack and can break the rules with impunity, does not mean that we didn't break the rules... it just means that the rest of the UN has decided not to make a big deal out of it... because we are the biggest dog in the pack and many of them owe us.

Let's both try to cut down on namecalling...  I realize I have been guilty of it in the past, but I will try hard to do better in the future.... perhaps you should too?


----------



## Alpha1

mattskramer said:


> Silly name-calling aside, my point still stands.  If Iraq broke UN resolutions then it was up to the UN to make the call to invade Iraq. Just because the UN did not charge us with violating anything is irrelevant.



A few anti-American folks have tried to make an issue of the legality of this war, combined with attempts to impeach Bush and/or Cheney, etc.....
and the fact that the UN did not try to make an issue with the US for any violations is absolutely relevant....

The United Nations Security Council has passed nearly 60 resolutions on Iraq and Kuwait since Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. The most relevant to this issue is Resolution 678, passed on November 29, 1990.* It authorizes "member states co-operating with the Government of Kuwait...to use all necessary means" to (1) implement Security Council Resolution 660 and other resolutions calling for the end of Iraq's occupation of Kuwait and withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwaiti territory and (2) "restore international peace and security in the area."*

Resolution 678 has not been rescinded or nullified by succeeding resolutions.

Bush Administration officials advanced a parallel legal argument using the earlier resolutions, which authorized force in response to Iraq's 1991 invasion of Kuwait. Under this reasoning, by failing to disarm and submit to weapons inspections, Iraq was in violation of U.N. Security Council Resolutions 660 and 678, and the U.S. could legally compel Iraq's compliance through military means.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The cease-fire with Iraq included Iraqs agreement to disarm and submit to inspections....
This was judged to be our legal right to invade....as a member-state 
The 2003 invasion of Iraq, which began on March 18 to May 1, 2003, was led by the United States, backed by British forces and smaller contingents from Australia and Poland. Other countries were involved in its aftermath


----------



## mattskramer

Alpha1 said:


> A few anti-American folks have tried to make an issue of the legality of this war, combined with attempts to impeach Bush and/or Cheney, etc.....
> and the fact that the UN did not try to make an issue with the US for any violations is absolutely relevant....
> 
> The United Nations Security Council has passed nearly 60 resolutions on Iraq and Kuwait since Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. The most relevant to this issue is Resolution 678, passed on November 29, 1990.* It authorizes "member states co-operating with the Government of Kuwait...to use all necessary means" to (1) implement Security Council Resolution 660 and other resolutions calling for the end of Iraq's occupation of Kuwait and withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwaiti territory and (2) "restore international peace and security in the area."*
> 
> Resolution 678 has not been rescinded or nullified by succeeding resolutions.
> 
> Bush Administration officials advanced a parallel legal argument using the earlier resolutions, which authorized force in response to Iraq's 1991 invasion of Kuwait. Under this reasoning, by failing to disarm and submit to weapons inspections, Iraq was in violation of U.N. Security Council Resolutions 660 and 678, and the U.S. could legally compel Iraq's compliance through military means.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The cease-fire with Iraq included Iraqs agreement to disarm and submit to inspections....
> This was judged to be our legal right to invade....as a member-state
> The 2003 invasion of Iraq, which began on March 18 to May 1, 2003, was led by the United States, backed by British forces and smaller contingents from Australia and Poland. Other countries were involved in its aftermath



Okay.  I see your point.  I think that it is a bit of a stretch for the US to reach back to an event 10 years ago to rationalize an invasion of Iraq.  To invade Iraq not long after we invaded Afghanistan seems like poor timing too.  Couldnt Bush have waited until we could build up our military strength some more  unless perhaps he wanted the gullible American citizens to think that Iraq is linked with Afghanistan and 9-11  at least until we invaded Iraq?  Oh well. Ill have to give the UN resolution issue more thought.    

Thanks for not resorting to high-handed political rhetoric and name-calling.


----------



## Alpha1

mattskramer said:


> Okay.  I see your point.  I think that it is a bit of a stretch for the US to reach back to an event 10 years ago to rationalize an invasion of Iraq.  To invade Iraq not long after we invaded Afghanistan seems like poor timing too.  Couldnt Bush have waited until we could build up our military strength some more  unless perhaps he wanted the gullible American citizens to think that Iraq is linked with Afghanistan and 9-11  at least until we invaded Iraq?  Oh well. Ill have to give the UN resolution issue more thought.
> 
> Thanks for not resorting to high-handed political rhetoric and name-calling.



To reach back 10 years a stretch?  If nothing happened in the 90's I might agree....but

U.S. Strikes Iraq for Plot to Kill Bush
By David Von Drehle and R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, June 27, 1993; Page A01

U.S. Navy ships launched 23 Tomahawk missiles against the headquarters of the Iraqi Intelligence Service yesterday in what President Clinton said was a "firm and commensurate" response to Iraq's plan to assassinate former president George Bush in mid-April.

The attack was meant to strike at the building where Iraqi officials had plotted against Bush, organized other unspecified terrorist actions and directed repressive internal security measures, senior U.S. officials said.

Clinton, speaking in a televised address to the nation at 7:40 last night, said he ordered the attack to send three messages to the Iraqi leadership: "We will combat terrorism. We will deter aggression. We will protect our people." 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Launches More Cruise Missiles Against Iraq
By Bradley Graham
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 4 1996; Page A01

The United States fired a second volley of cruise missiles against air defenses in southern Iraq last night
U.S. Warplanes Bomb Iraq
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Planes Hit Iraqi Site After Missile Attack

By Barton Gellman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 29, 1998; Page A01

American aircraft patrolling the "no-fly" zone in northern Iraq attacked and destroyed an air defense site yesterday 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Carrier, Marines Rushed To Gulf

By Barton Gellman and Bradley Graham
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 11, 1998; Page A01

The Clinton administration yesterday took its first substantial steps to reinforce striking power in range of Iraq, speeding deployment of a second aircraft carrier and a Marine amphibious group as Defense Secretary William S. Cohen warned that U.S. credibility is on the line and "time is running out" for Iraq to avert a military assault.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clinton attacks targets in Iraq....
12/16/98  Bill Clinton..

 Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. *Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs* and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Press
Friday, May 28, 1999; 11:29 a.m. EDT

ANKARA, Turkey (AP)  U.S. fighter planes bombed a military command center in northern Iraq on Monday....
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So Clinton was not reluctant or adverse to killing Iraqis during those years....


----------



## eots

Alpha1 said:


> To reach back 10 years a stretch?  If nothing happened in the 90's I might agree....but
> 
> U.S. Strikes Iraq for Plot to Kill Bush
> By David Von Drehle and R. Jeffrey Smith
> Washington Post Staff Writers
> Sunday, June 27, 1993; Page A01
> 
> U.S. Navy ships launched 23 Tomahawk missiles against the headquarters of the Iraqi Intelligence Service yesterday in what President Clinton said was a "firm and commensurate" response to Iraq's plan to assassinate former president George Bush in mid-April.
> 
> The attack was meant to strike at the building where Iraqi officials had plotted against Bush, organized other unspecified terrorist actions and directed repressive internal security measures, senior U.S. officials said.
> 
> Clinton, speaking in a televised address to the nation at 7:40 last night, said he ordered the attack to send three messages to the Iraqi leadership: "We will combat terrorism. We will deter aggression. We will protect our people."
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> U.S. Launches More Cruise Missiles Against Iraq
> By Bradley Graham
> Washington Post Staff Writer
> Wednesday, September 4 1996; Page A01
> 
> The United States fired a second volley of cruise missiles against air defenses in southern Iraq last night
> U.S. Warplanes Bomb Iraq
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> U.S. Planes Hit Iraqi Site After Missile Attack
> 
> By Barton Gellman
> Washington Post Staff Writer
> Tuesday, December 29, 1998; Page A01
> 
> American aircraft patrolling the "no-fly" zone in northern Iraq attacked and destroyed an air defense site yesterday
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Carrier, Marines Rushed To Gulf
> 
> By Barton Gellman and Bradley Graham
> Washington Post Staff Writer
> Wednesday, November 11, 1998; Page A01
> 
> The Clinton administration yesterday took its first substantial steps to reinforce striking power in range of Iraq, speeding deployment of a second aircraft carrier and a Marine amphibious group as Defense Secretary William S. Cohen warned that U.S. credibility is on the line and "time is running out" for Iraq to avert a military assault.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Clinton attacks targets in Iraq....
> 12/16/98  Bill Clinton..
> 
> Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. *Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs* and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
> 
> Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Associated Press
> Friday, May 28, 1999; 11:29 a.m. EDT
> 
> ANKARA, Turkey (AP) &#8212; U.S. fighter planes bombed a military command center in northern Iraq on Monday....
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> So Clinton was not reluctant or adverse to killing Iraqis during those years....



that's because Clinton is a nwo scum down with the sickness just like bush
they are not separate they serve to divide and conquer . 
they are there to offer the illusion of choice its only two brands like nwo order light or new world order extra..the family's vacation together it was bush that essentially ran the Reagan administration after he was shot 
the bush /Clinton dynasty has had a almost thirty year reign and their not done yet..its a total scam


----------



## mattskramer

Alpha1 said:


> To reach back 10 years a stretch?  If nothing happened in the 90's I might agree....but
> 
> U.S. Strikes Iraq for Plot to Kill Bush
> By David Von Drehle and R. Jeffrey Smith
> Washington Post Staff Writers
> Sunday, June 27, 1993; Page A01
> 
> U.S. Navy ships launched 23 Tomahawk missiles against the headquarters of the Iraqi Intelligence Service yesterday in what President Clinton said was a "firm and commensurate" response to Iraq's plan to assassinate former president George Bush in mid-April.
> 
> The attack was meant to strike at the building where Iraqi officials had plotted against Bush, organized other unspecified terrorist actions and directed repressive internal security measures, senior U.S. officials said.
> 
> Clinton, speaking in a televised address to the nation at 7:40 last night, said he ordered the attack to send three messages to the Iraqi leadership: "We will combat terrorism. We will deter aggression. We will protect our people."
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> U.S. Launches More Cruise Missiles Against Iraq
> By Bradley Graham
> Washington Post Staff Writer
> Wednesday, September 4 1996; Page A01
> 
> The United States fired a second volley of cruise missiles against air defenses in southern Iraq last night
> U.S. Warplanes Bomb Iraq
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> U.S. Planes Hit Iraqi Site After Missile Attack
> 
> By Barton Gellman
> Washington Post Staff Writer
> Tuesday, December 29, 1998; Page A01
> 
> American aircraft patrolling the "no-fly" zone in northern Iraq attacked and destroyed an air defense site yesterday
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Carrier, Marines Rushed To Gulf
> 
> By Barton Gellman and Bradley Graham
> Washington Post Staff Writer
> Wednesday, November 11, 1998; Page A01
> 
> The Clinton administration yesterday took its first substantial steps to reinforce striking power in range of Iraq, speeding deployment of a second aircraft carrier and a Marine amphibious group as Defense Secretary William S. Cohen warned that U.S. credibility is on the line and "time is running out" for Iraq to avert a military assault.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Clinton attacks targets in Iraq....
> 12/16/98  Bill Clinton..
> 
> Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. *Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs* and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
> 
> Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Associated Press
> Friday, May 28, 1999; 11:29 a.m. EDT
> 
> ANKARA, Turkey (AP)  U.S. fighter planes bombed a military command center in northern Iraq on Monday....
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> So Clinton was not reluctant or adverse to killing Iraqis during those years....



Yes.  Once in a while Iraq would rattle its saber and we would step in and remind it who is boss.  I read that Iraq would stir up trouble in the no fly zone so we would fly over to Iraq and drop a few bombs on its military activity.  Still, in my opinion, those incidences did not warrant going to all-out war against Iraq.  The isolation strategy was working for the most part.  

Basically Bush was bound and determined to go to war with Iraq and 9-11 gave him the timing he needed to add another phony reason for the war  to have his cohorts subtly imply that Saddam had something to do with it.  He marched into it recklessly and with insufficient preparedness.  

After the Afghanistan war, he should have waited a while:  Waited for our military to regain its strength, waited to make sure that our military hospitals were in top shape, waited and called for intelligence to give him absolute proof, waited to convince more member of the UN to condone a war against Iraq, waited for the military to build up its armor supply.  Instead, he threw discretion to the wind and rode in there with guns blazing like a reckless cowboy.


----------



## Alpha1

mattskramer said:


> Yes.  Once in a while Iraq would &#8220;rattle its saber&#8221; and we would step in and remind it who is boss.  I read that Iraq would stir up trouble in the &#8220;no fly zone&#8221; so we would fly over to Iraq and drop a few bombs on its military activity.  Still, in my opinion, those incidences did not warrant going to all-out war against Iraq.  The isolation strategy was working for the most part.
> 
> Basically Bush was bound and determined to go to war with Iraq and 9-11 gave him the timing he needed to add another phony reason for the war &#8211; to have his cohorts subtly imply that Saddam had something to do with it.  He marched into it recklessly and with insufficient preparedness.
> 
> 
> *Clinton attacks targets in Iraq....
> 12/16/98 Bill Clinton..
> 
> Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
> 
> Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
> -----------------------------
> So that how it works...?  Bush needed a phony reason, while Clintons reason were on the up and up....Sure I get it now*
> 
> 
> 
> After the Afghanistan war, he should have waited a while:  Waited for our military to regain its strength, waited to make sure that our military hospitals were in top shape, waited and called for intelligence to give him absolute proof, waited to convince more member of the UN to condone a war against Iraq, waited for the military to build up its armor supply.  Instead, he threw discretion to the wind and rode in there with guns blazing like a reckless cowboy.



hows how we go to war....

Give the troops a rest first....uhuh...
Get the hospitals in tip top shape.....uhuh
Wait for the smoking gun....or what?the 100,000 die from anthrax?...uhuh
Get permission from the UN or at least some members....uhuh
And have a big armor supply?...Ohhhhkaaayy

You know ...I'm gonna shoot a memo off the Sec. of DEF. right now..he needs to be aware of this ....


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> Just because we are the biggest dog in the pack and can break the rules with impunity, does not mean that we didn't break the rules... it just means that the rest of the UN has decided not to make a big deal out of it... because we are the biggest dog in the pack and many of them owe us.
> 
> Let's both try to cut down on namecalling...  I realize I have been guilty of it in the past, but I will try hard to do better in the future.... perhaps you should too?



I will try. Can not promise though.


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> hows how we go to war....
> 
> Give the troops a rest first....uhuh...
> Get the hospitals in tip top shape.....uhuh
> Wait for the smoking gun....or what?the 100,000 die from anthrax?...uhuh
> Get permission from the UN or at least some members....uhuh
> And have a big armor supply?...Ohhhhkaaayy
> 
> You know ...I'm gonna shoot a memo off the Sec. of DEF. right now..he needs to be aware of this ....



or...wait three months to have Hans Blix tell us that disarming Saddam is a _fait accompli_.

That would have been smart, doncha think?  I mean... we had already scored a major diplomatic coup by getting Saddam to let the inspectors back in....why kick them out before they could get the job done just so we could invade, conquer and occupy?


----------



## mattskramer

Alpha1 said:


> hows how we go to war....
> 
> Give the troops a rest first....uhuh...



Did I say that?  No.  Give recruiting stations and recruitment drives time to encourage more people to sign up for military service.  Increase the number of prepared soldiers. 



> Get the hospitals in tip top sharp...uhuh



Absolutely.  It would have taken very little time for the commander in chief to have people inspect hospitals and make sure that they are ready.  Instead, we get burst steam pipes near electrical cables, rats, mold, and holes in walls and floors, and garbage like this: 

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/20/walter.reed/index.html

_Leadership blamed for shabby Army hospital building_

http://www.wusa9.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=56746

_Major New Problems At Walter Reed_

http://www.nysun.com/article/48950

_At Top Military Hospital, Soldiers Contend With Mold, Mice, Mistreatment_



> Wait for the smoking gun....or what?the 100,000 die from anthrax?...uhuh



Could Saddam have flown enough canisters of Anthrax to kill 100000 before we received enough evidence that Saddam was making Anthrax and put a stop to him?  I seriously doubt it.   On the other hand, it is reasonable to estimate that this Iraq war has resulted (so far) in the deaths of 100000 people, particularly if you count the Iraqi civilians, Iraqi soldiers, American soldiers, and service personnel. 

With the time that we had, we could have improved and strengthend our intelligence gathering, recruited some anti-Saddam people to serve as spies, infiltrate his military structure, and collect real evidence, relay that evidence to authorities, and stopped Saddam before any 100000 casualty anthrax attack goes off.   



> Get permission from the UN or at least some members....uhuh



Yes.  Some times it is good to make nice and not do things in practically a unilateral manner.  Consider the worlds opinion of the USA.  

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=175

_Anti-war sentiment and disapproval of President Bush's international policies continue to erode America's image among the publics of its allies._

http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=252

_America's global image has again slipped and support for the war on terrorism has declined even among close U.S. allies like Japan._

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/p...sregions_bt/326.php?nid=&id=&pnt=326&lb=btvoc

How long can we afford to ignore the sentiments of so much of the rest of the word?  



> And have a big armor supply?...Ohhhhkaaayy



http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/121304B.shtml

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/26251/

_Spc. Richard Murphy said, "When my company landed in theatre in May, I was one of the few soldiers equipped with body armor effective at stopping powerful AK-47 ammunition. My mother, an elementary school art teacher, shipped the bullet-proof ceramic plates to me from the States. Other soldiers weren't so lucky, having to raid buildings and patrol dangerous streets while wearing inferior Vietnam-era flak jackets."

During a routine patrol in Baghdad June 2, Army Pfc. Stephen Tschiderer, a medic, was shot in the chest by an enemy sniper, hiding in a van just 75 yards away. The incident was filmed by the insurgents._



> You know ...I'm gonna shoot a memo off the Sec. of DEF. right now..he needs to be aware of this ....



Look.  It is obvious that the Bush administration is quick to send soldiers out there but is not that concerned with their health and safety.  Note the poor conditions that the hospitals were in.  Note the slow supply of armor.  Do you really think that your letter (probably one among many) will make a difference?  Thankfully we will soon have a different commander in chief.  I doubt that he could do much worse.

Now, I have things to do.  I guess that we will agree to disagree.  In summary and in my opinion: 

1.  It was unnecessary for us to start the war when we started it.  It might not have ever been warranted.  

2. It was handled very poorly from the start to the present.


----------



## jreeves

maineman said:


> no.  Bush knew that there was not absolute certainty about Saddam's WMD stockpiles, yet he and his team continually asserted that there was.  That is a lie.
> 
> 
> apples and oranges, sweetie.



What you seem to forget about, is the democrats in Congress gave authorization for the war in Iraq. Why aren't you blaming your democrats? They get their own intelligence breifings.


----------



## jreeves

maineman said:


> or...wait three months to have Hans Blix tell us that disarming Saddam is a _fait accompli_.
> 
> That would have been smart, doncha think?  I mean... we had already scored a major diplomatic coup by getting Saddam to let the inspectors back in....why kick them out before they could get the job done just so we could invade, conquer and occupy?



When we started bombing the inspector weren't given full access, come on get real!


----------



## jreeves

maineman said:


> Just because we are the biggest dog in the pack and can break the rules with impunity, does not mean that we didn't break the rules... it just means that the rest of the UN has decided not to make a big deal out of it... because we are the biggest dog in the pack and many of them owe us.
> 
> Let's both try to cut down on namecalling...  I realize I have been guilty of it in the past, but I will try hard to do better in the future.... perhaps you should too?



No the reason the UN didn't try to accuse the U.S. is because they were more corrupt than a Chicago Politician.


----------



## maineman

jreeves said:


> No the reason the UN didn't try to accuse the U.S. is because they were more corrupt than a Chicago Politician.



that is your opinion, and you are certainly entitled to it!  I, for one, disagree.


----------



## jreeves

mattskramer said:


> Yes.  Once in a while Iraq would rattle its saber and we would step in and remind it who is boss.  I read that Iraq would stir up trouble in the no fly zone so we would fly over to Iraq and drop a few bombs on its military activity.  Still, in my opinion, those incidences did not warrant going to all-out war against Iraq.  The isolation strategy was working for the most part.
> 
> Basically Bush was bound and determined to go to war with Iraq and 9-11 gave him the timing he needed to add another phony reason for the war  to have his cohorts subtly imply that Saddam had something to do with it.  He marched into it recklessly and with insufficient preparedness.
> 
> After the Afghanistan war, he should have waited a while:  Waited for our military to regain its strength, waited to make sure that our military hospitals were in top shape, waited and called for intelligence to give him absolute proof, waited to convince more member of the UN to condone a war against Iraq, waited for the military to build up its armor supply.  Instead, he threw discretion to the wind and rode in there with guns blazing like a reckless cowboy.



You say it was Bush's fault but democrats appoved it with the authorization of war vote. Why don't you hold democrats responsible for it also, come on stop running from that vote. It was failed intelligence period.


----------



## DeadCanDance

jreeves said:


> I seem to remember Congress voting to give him authorization to go to war. *Shouldn't Democrats pay too then?*



Looks like we agree.  Everyone who voted for the war - or has refused to apologize for there vote - should be tossed out.  That would be about 99&#37; of republicans, and about 30% of Democrats.   I look forward to you joining me to vote against congressmen/women who authorized the war. When I have a real opportunity to vote against a democrat who authorized the war, and hasn't apologized, I take it. 

The only time I ever had an opportunity to vote against Hillary Clinton, I took it.  And I voted for Obama, who was against the war.  




> You can say he misled Congress, but they get their own independent intelligence briefings.



The president gets more intelligence than congress.  The non-partisan GAO confirms it. 

Nonetheless, this is Bush's war.  He gets the vast lions share of the blame.  It was ultimately his decision to pull the trigger.  It's the president's war.  It's not the Senate's war.  You don't see liberals putting up threads blaming Senator Lindsey Graham, or Senator Mitch McConnell, anymore than you see them putting up threads blaming Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton for the war.  It's Bush's puppy. 



> Bush didn't run the CIA.....



Yes he does.  CIA is an Executive agency, run and staffed by Bush political appointees, and directly answerable to him.


----------



## maineman

jreeves said:


> You say it was Bush's fault but democrats appoved it with the authorization of war vote. Why don't you hold democrats responsible for it also, come on stop running from that vote. It was failed intelligence period.



All but a handful of republicans in congress voted for the use of force resolution.  A majority of democrats in congress voted against the use of force resolution...

and those that voted for it will be on my shitlist until they repent and admit that the vote was a terrible mistake.


----------



## Alpha1

DeadCanDance said:


> Looks like we agree.  Everyone who voted for the war - or has refused to apologize for there vote - should be tossed out.  That would be about 99&#37; of republicans, and about 30% of Democrats.   I look forward to you joining me to vote against congressmen/women who authorized the war. When I have a real opportunity to vote against a democrat who authorized the war, and hasn't apologized, I take it.
> 
> The only time I ever had an opportunity to vote against Hillary Clinton, I took it.  And I voted for Obama, who was against the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The president gets more intelligence than congress.  The non-partisan GAO confirms it.
> 
> *I saw something about this awhile ago.....the GAO huh?  Gotta a link??*
> 
> 
> 
> Nonetheless, this is Bush's war.  He gets the vast lions share of the blame.  It was ultimately his decision to pull the trigger.  It's the president's war.  It's not the Senate's war.  You don't see liberals putting up threads blaming Senator Lindsey Graham, or Senator Mitch McConnell, anymore than you see them putting up threads blaming Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton for the war.  It's Bush's puppy.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes he does.  CIA is an Executive agency, run and staffed by Bush political appointees, and directly answerable to him.



The DCD Dude is back....you can go back to Post 667/668 and continue if you want.....when you get schooled dont' think you can run away until a few posts intervene and changes the topic and bails you out....


----------



## jreeves

DeadCanDance said:


> Looks like we agree.  Everyone who voted for the war - or has refused to apologize for there vote - should be tossed out.  That would be about 99% of republicans, and about 30% of Democrats.   I look forward to you joining me to vote against congressmen/women who authorized the war. When I have a real opportunity to vote against a democrat who authorized the war, and hasn't apologized, I take it.
> 
> The only time I ever had an opportunity to vote against Hillary Clinton, I took it.  And I voted for Obama, who was against the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The president gets more intelligence than congress.  The non-partisan GAO confirms it.
> 
> Nonetheless, this is Bush's war.  He gets the vast lions share of the blame.  It was ultimately his decision to pull the trigger.  It's the president's war.  It's not the Senate's war.  You don't see liberals putting up threads blaming Senator Lindsey Graham, or Senator Mitch McConnell, anymore than you see them putting up threads blaming Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton for the war.  It's Bush's puppy.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes he does.  CIA is an Executive agency, run and staffed by Bush political appointees, and directly answerable to him.



Look at Obama's 2004 speech at the democratic convention, he stated that we shouldn't have went into Iraq with too few soliders. That doesn't sound like a sound rebuking for going to Iraq to begin with. I know, he gave a speech in 2002 in Chicago against the war to begin with. But in that same speech he conceeded that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons and was trying to develop a nuclear weapon. That to me is more of a point that would prevent him from being a good leader than his speech against the war. Bush screwed up, with prepartion not with his justification. The justification was a direct result of faulty intelligence and defiance on Saddam's part.


----------



## jreeves

jreeves said:


> Look at Obama's 2004 speech at the democratic convention, he stated that we shouldn't have went into Iraq with too few soliders. That doesn't sound like a sound rebuking for going to Iraq to begin with. I know, he gave a speech in 2002 in Chicago against the war to begin with. But in that same speech he conceeded that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons and was trying to develop a nuclear weapon. That to me is more of a point that would prevent him from being a good leader than his speech against the war. Bush screwed up, with prepartion not with his justification. The justification was a direct result of faulty intelligence and defiance on Saddam's part.



Show me where the General Accounting office has stated that the President recieves more intelligence than Congress. What the hell would the General Accounting Office say that anyway?


----------



## jreeves

jreeves said:


> Look at Obama's 2004 speech at the democratic convention, he stated that we shouldn't have went into Iraq with too few soliders. That doesn't sound like a sound rebuking for going to Iraq to begin with. I know, he gave a speech in 2002 in Chicago against the war to begin with. But in that same speech he conceeded that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons and was trying to develop a nuclear weapon. That to me is more of a point that would prevent him from being a good leader than his speech against the war. Bush screwed up, with prepartion not with his justification. The justification was a direct result of faulty intelligence and defiance on Saddam's part.



The CIA is an independent agency not an executive agency.....


----------



## jreeves

maineman said:


> All but a handful of republicans in congress voted for the use of force resolution.  A majority of democrats in congress voted against the use of force resolution...
> 
> and those that voted for it will be on my shitlist until they repent and admit that the vote was a terrible mistake.



If Obama is this great leader that a lot of you proclaim and by his own admission is, why didn't he convince democrats that the war in Iraq was wrong? He voted against timetables for withdrawal then voted for it when it was politically advantageous.


----------



## maineman

jreeves said:


> If Obama is this great leader that a lot of you proclaim and by his own admission is, why didn't he convince democrats that the war in Iraq was wrong? He voted against timetables for withdrawal then voted for it when it was politically advantageous.



quit changing the subject when you are whipped.

And... He voted against a definite withdrawal date and voted for benchmarks and timetables....  two different things.


----------



## maineman

jreeves said:


> The CIA is an independent agency not an executive agency.....


No..the CIA is in the executive branch of the government and the DCI reports directly to the president.


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> No..the CIA is in the executive branch of the government and the DCI reports directly to the president.



The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) *is a civilian intelligence agency of the United States government.* Its primary function is collecting and analyzing information about foreign governments, corporations, and persons in order to advise public policymakers.

????Well, which is it....I have 2 close that work there, neither was appointed by a President....and the DCI does report to the President....which means???

How about the FBI director?
How about all the US Attys...?

Is their a nefarious point to all this crap?


----------



## DeadCanDance

jreeves said:


> Show me where the General Accounting office has stated that the President recieves more intelligence than Congress. What the hell would the General Accounting Office say that anyway?




My bad.  It wasn't GAO.  It was the non-partisan Congressional Research Service, which is a non-partisan investigative and research arm of Congress. 




> *Limitations on Congressional Access to Certain National Intelligence*
> 
> by  Alfred Cumming
> Specialist in Intelligence and National Security
> Congressional Research Service
> 
> By virtue of his constitutional role as commander-and-in-chief and head of the executive branch, the President has access to all national intelligence collected, analyzed and produced by the Intelligence Community. The President's position also affords him the authority - which, at certain times, has been aggressively asserted (1) - to restrict the flow of intelligence information to Congress and its two intelligence committees, which are charged with providing legislative oversight of the Intelligence Community. (2) *As a result, the President, and a small number of presidentially-designated Cabinet-level officials*, including the Vice President (3) - in contrast to Members of Congress (4) - *have access to a far greater overall volume of intelligence and to more sensitive intelligence information, including information regarding intelligence sources and methods.* They, _unlike Members of Congress_, also have the authority to more extensively task the Intelligence Community, and its extensive cadre of analysts, for follow-up information. As a result, the President and his most senior advisors arguably are better positioned to assess the quality of the Community's intelligence more accurately than is Congress.
> 
> 
> 
> http://feinstein.senate.gov/crs-intel.htm


----------



## jreeves

maineman said:


> No..the CIA is in the executive branch of the government and the DCI reports directly to the president.



Look up it up my friend the CIA is an independent agency, better yet here you go...As a separate agency, CIA serves as an independent source of analysis on topics of concern and also works closely with the other organizations in the Intelligence Community to ensure that the intelligence consumerwhether Washington policymaker or battlefield commanderreceives the best intelligence possible.
right off the CIA's website.


----------



## Alpha1

DCD says....

CIA is an Executive agency, run and staffed by Bush political appointees, and directly answerable to him......

--------
WOW! thats scary...are you gonna tell me next that V. Palme is or was a loyal Bush supporter....or maybe Tenet?  A loyal Bush appointee???

Do you have a point at all?


----------



## jreeves

DeadCanDance said:


> My bad.  It wasn't GAO.  It was the non-partisan Congressional Research Service, which is a non-partisan investigative and research arm of Congress.



Your going to give me something off of Diane Feinstein's website....that's non-paritsian let me tell you....LOL


----------



## DeadCanDance

jreeves said:


> Your going to give me something off of Diane Feinstein's website....that's non-paritsian let me tell you....LOL




It's the actual CRS report.  Are you saying Fienstein posted a forgery, of the non-partisan CRS report?

Or, is your head so far up Bush's ass, that you are unwilling to admit that a NON-PARTISAN government report, said Bush has more access to intelligence than congres.


----------



## jreeves

maineman said:


> quit changing the subject when you are whipped.
> 
> And... He voted against a definite withdrawal date and voted for benchmarks and timetables....  two different things.



a withdrawal date and timetable to reduce troops in Iraq are pratically the same thing. Maineman it goes to legislative intent, what was the legislatures intent...to get troops out of Iraq the same thing....When a judge is judging on a case that doesn't have precedent they go to legislative intent...well the same thing applies here.


----------



## Alpha1

DeadCanDance said:


> My bad.  It wasn't GAO.  It was the non-partisan Congressional Research Service, which is a non-partisan investigative and research arm of Congress.



As a result, the President, and a small number of presidentially-designated Cabinet-level officials, including the Vice President (3) - in contrast to Members of Congress (4) - have access to a far greater overall volume of intelligence and to more sensitive intelligence information, including information regarding intelligence sources and methods. They, unlike Members of Congress, also have the authority to more extensively task the Intelligence Community, and its extensive cadre of analysts, for follow-up information. As a result, the President and his most senior advisors arguably are better positioned to assess the quality of the Community's intelligence more accurately than is Congress.

*Well hell....there you have it...that explains everything....
that explains why Clinton told the American people this in 1998...*

Clinton attacks targets in Iraq....
12/16/98 Bill Clinton..

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. *Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs* and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with *nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.*

Yes Sir ...that explains it...that explains why Bush said

"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."
--

Oh wait....Clintons off the hook....Bush was lying....is that the manta...??


----------



## jreeves

DeadCanDance said:


> My bad.  It wasn't GAO.  It was the non-partisan Congressional Research Service, which is a non-partisan investigative and research arm of Congress.



So if the President can restrict the flow of intelligence to Congress, then how does a Congressional Agency know that they are recieving less information than the President?


----------



## Alpha1

jreeves said:


> a withdrawal date and timetable to reduce troops in Iraq are pratically the same thing. Maineman it goes to legislative intent, what was the legislatures intent...to get troops out of Iraq the same thing....When a judge is judging on a case that doesn't have precedent they go to legislative intent...well the same thing applies here.



You don't have to explain to MM....He will mince words and meanings until hell freezes over....
OF COURSE ITS THE SAME THING..for all intents and purposes .....
A withdrawal date and timetable to reduce troops....
don't bother ....arguing this with him is like flying into his web....
We all know its a distinction without a difference....


----------



## DeadCanDance

Well dudes, it's saturday night and I'm heading out. 

But you guys keep telling yourselves the Iraq war was a great idea.  Frankly, it's fine by me.  You guys are the reason the republican congress went down to a crushing defeat in 2006.  And it's because of you guys, and the hardcore republican base, that Obama will be president, and Democratic majorities in the congress will expand.  Because the american people have concluded that your war was a collosal fiasco, a huge mistake, simply not worth the price in blood and treasure.  And if you want to run a geriatric pro-war hawk for president, and if you want to keep blabbing that the Iraq War was a great idea, you'll just be killing your party.  Death by a thousand cuts, as it were.  If you knew what was good for you, for your party, and for america, you'd be running as far away from Bush and his war as you could.   Good luck campaigning on the iraq war.


----------



## jreeves

DeadCanDance said:


> Well dudes, it's saturday night and I'm heading out.
> 
> But you guys keep telling yourselves the Iraq war was a great idea.  Frankly, it's fine by me.  You guys are the reason the republican congress went down to a crushing defeat in 2006.  And it's because of you guys, and the hardcore republican base, that Obama will be president, and Democratic majorities in the congress will expand.  Because the american people have concluded that your war was a collosal fiasco, a huge mistake, simply not worth the price in blood and treasure.  And if you want to run a geriatric pro-war hawk for president, and if you want to keep blabbing that the Iraq War was a great idea, you'll just be killing your party.  Death by a thousand cuts, as it were.  If you knew what was good for you, for your party, and for america, you'd be running as far away from Bush and his war as you could.   Good luck campaigning on the iraq war.



To you as well with democrats that approved it and by the way I am an Independent. I can't stand political posturing whether it's on the right or the left. I will say this if I had to choose a side, I would choose the side that tried to protect our country.


----------



## mattskramer

jreeves said:


> You say it was Bush's fault but democrats appoved it with the authorization of war vote. Why don't you hold democrats responsible for it also, come on stop running from that vote. It was failed intelligence period.



Shame on Democrats for trusting Bush and the intelligence.  Yet, as I said before, Bush pushed the red button.  The person who makes such a decision has responsibility to make absolutely sure that what he has is true irrefutable evidence.  He should have gotten second and third and fourth and fifth and sixth opinions.  He should have considered the possibility that Saddam did not have WMD  think about it form both sides.    No.  Failed intelligence did not send American soldiers into Iraq.  Bush sent American soldiers into Iraq.


----------



## jreeves

mattskramer said:


> Shame on Democrats for trusting Bush and the intelligence.  Yet, as I said before, Bush pushed the red button.  The person who makes such a decision has responsibility to make absolutely sure that what he has is true irrefutable evidence.  He should have gotten second and third and fourth and fifth and sixth opinions.  He should have considered the possibility that Saddam did not have WMD  think about it form both sides.    No.  Failed intelligence did not send American soldiers into Iraq.  Bush sent American soldiers into Iraq.



In his 2002 speech in Chicago Obama stated that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons and was trying to develop nuclear weapons. So evidently he was wrong too. But he stated with those facts that he wouldn't have gone to war against Saddam.


----------



## jillian

jreeves said:


> In his 2002 speech in Chicago Obama stated that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons and was trying to develop nuclear weapons. So evidently he was wrong too. But he stated with those facts that he wouldn't have gone to war against Saddam.



And I'm sure that's as "honest" a statement as the last one that got debunked.

Source?


----------



## jreeves

jillian said:


> And I'm sure that's as "honest" a statement as the last one that got debunked.
> 
> Source?[/QUOTENow let me be clear  I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.]
> http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech
> 
> By the way, it wasn't debunked, he made contradictary votes period and you know it.


----------



## Alpha1

Its nice to see liberal/Dimocratic ass getting kicked all over this board for the past couple of weeks.....
won't make any difference...they run now..but they'll be back with the some old lies again and again....
then ya school 'em
then they disappear
then they repeat like nothing happened....
'
Damn its fun....tiresome, but fun...


----------



## jillian

Alpha1 said:


> Its nice to see liberal/Dimocratic ass getting kicked all over this board for the past couple of weeks.....
> won't make any difference...they run now..but they'll be back with the some old lies again and again....
> then ya school 'em
> then they disappear
> then they repeat like nothing happened....
> '
> Damn its fun....tiresome, but fun...




I hear they have meds for delusions, baby... perhaps it's time for you to seek some out.


----------



## JimH52

jreeves said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I'm sure that's as "honest" a statement as the last one that got debunked.
> 
> Source?[/QUOTENow let me be clear  I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.]
> http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech
> 
> By the way, it wasn't debunked, he made contradictary votes period and you know it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing in that statement says that Saddam *"had" *chemical and biological weapons.  The statement is true.  He *did* all of those things.
> 
> It was bush and DICK who claimed he "had" the weapons.  You must be taking writing lessons from an administration official.  You sure know how to abuse the truth.
Click to expand...


----------



## DeadCanDance

jreeves said:


> In his 2002 speech in Chicago Obama stated that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons and was trying to develop nuclear weapons. So evidently he was wrong too. But he stated with those facts that he wouldn't have gone to war against Saddam.



That Obama speech is astonishing.  Probably the best anti-war speech ever given by a politician.    Thanks for reminding me.



> *BARAK OBAMA:    I don&#8217;t oppose all wars.....What I am opposed to is a dumb war.* What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other _arm-chair, weekend warriors_ in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
> 
> That&#8217;s what I&#8217;m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.
> 
> Now let me be clear &#8211; I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.  He&#8217;s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
> 
> *But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States,* or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community *he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.*
> 
> I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.  _(Wow, Obama is spot on here, and shows excellent judgement.  He correctly predicted everything that would happen, while Neocon armchair warriors were telling us we'd be treated as liberators)_
> 
> I am not opposed to all wars. I&#8217;m opposed to dumb wars.
> 
> So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let&#8217;s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.
> 
> You want a fight, President Bush? Let&#8217;s fight to make sure that the *UN inspectors can do their work,* and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.


----------



## jillian

JimH52 said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing in that statement says that Saddam *"had" *chemical and biological weapons.  The statement is true.  He *did* all of those things.
> 
> It was bush and DICK who claimed he "had" the weapons.  You must be taking writing lessons from an administration official.  You sure know how to abuse the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> was jreeves who said tha... not moi.
Click to expand...


----------



## jreeves

JimH52 said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing in that statement says that Saddam *"had" *chemical and biological weapons.  The statement is true.  He *did* all of those things.
> 
> It was bush and DICK who claimed he "had" the weapons.  You must be taking writing lessons from an administration official.  You sure know how to abuse the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Developed=Had...
Click to expand...


----------



## jreeves

DeadCanDance said:


> That Obama speech is astonishing.  Probably the best anti-war speech ever given by a politician.    Thanks for reminding me.



It's not when you make the assumptions he made that speech. That he had or "developed" biological and chemical weapons and coveted nuclear weapons. When is this country suppose to go to war then, when someone uses those weapons or invades their neighbors, oh wait Saddam did both.


----------



## DeadCanDance

jreeves said:


> It's not when you make the assumptions he made that speech. That he had or "developed" biological and chemical weapons and coveted nuclear weapons. When is this country suppose to go to war then, when someone uses those weapons or invades their neighbors, oh wait Saddam did both.




LOL

Weak, very weak. 

Please tell me we didn't invade iraq, because saddam used mustard gas on the iranian army.  We cheered him on and supported his invasion of Iran, and remained his ally throughout that war. 

When he gassed the kurds, he was punished.  NATO and the UN created a defact autonomous state in kurdistan, the kurdish people were protected by a no-fly zone, and NATO aircraft would shoot down any iraq plane or helicopter than encroached on kurdish territory.  In short, Saddam "lost" a huge chunk of his country. 

Now, the soviets also supposedly used chemical weapons on the afghans in the afghanistan war of the 1980s.  Did reagan view that as a reason to invade the soviet union?


----------



## jreeves

DeadCanDance said:


> LOL
> 
> Weak, very weak.
> 
> Please tell me we didn't invade iraq, because saddam used mustard gas on the iranian army.  We cheered him on and supported his invasion of Iran, and remained his ally throughout that war.
> 
> When he gassed the kurds, he was punished.  NATO and the UN created a defact autonomous state in kurdistan, the kurdish people were protected by a no-fly zone, and NATO aircraft would shoot down any iraq plane or helicopter than encroached on kurdish territory.  In short, Saddam "lost" a huge chunk of his country.
> 
> Now, the soviets also supposedly used chemical weapons on the afghans in the afghanistan war of the 1980s.  Did reagan view that as a reason to invade the soviet union?


We didn't support his invasion of Kuwait, when Iraqi Revolutionary guard raped and pillaged the country without provaction. We didn't support him lobbing Scud missles into Israel without any provaction from Israel. We didn't support killing his own people that happened not to belong to the Bath party. My friend you are delusionary. Can't accept the facts that Saddam was a butcher, the democratic front-runner said it not me.


----------



## jreeves

DeadCanDance said:


> LOL
> 
> Weak, very weak.
> 
> Please tell me we didn't invade iraq, because saddam used mustard gas on the iranian army.  We cheered him on and supported his invasion of Iran, and remained his ally throughout that war.
> 
> When he gassed the kurds, he was punished.  NATO and the UN created a defact autonomous state in kurdistan, the kurdish people were protected by a no-fly zone, and NATO aircraft would shoot down any iraq plane or helicopter than encroached on kurdish territory.  In short, Saddam "lost" a huge chunk of his country.
> 
> Now, the soviets also supposedly used chemical weapons on the afghans in the afghanistan war of the 1980s.  Did reagan view that as a reason to invade the soviet union?


We didn't invade the Soviet Union but we did support the afgans in the war. Hence the reason the Soviet Union lost the war.


----------



## jillian

jreeves said:


> We didn't support his invasion of Kuwait, when Iraqi Revolutionary guard raped and pillaged the country without provaction. We didn't support him lobbing Scud missles into Israel without any provaction from Israel. We didn't support killing his own people that happened not to belong to the Bath party. My friend you are delusionary. Can't accept the facts that Saddam was a butcher, the democratic front-runner said it not me.



Kuwait -- past history... well before we invaded.

Israel getting SCUDS??? We made them not respond and did nothing about it. So, your point?

Damn, I do wish you'd get some facts behind you.


----------



## DeadCanDance

jreeves said:


> We didn't invade the Soviet Union but we did support the afgans in the war. Hence the reason the Soviet Union lost the war.



And we _shouldn't_ have invaded Iraq because of their treatment of the Kurds two decades ago.  

Until Bush lied us into war, we were doing what Reagan did, in afghanistan.  We supported the kurds, armed them, and bascially forced Saddam to surrender kurdistan to the local kurdish government.  The kurds were protected by us, and Saddam's army and air force was effectively tossed out of the kurdish provinces.   He, in effect, lost his kurdish provinces.


----------



## jreeves

DeadCanDance said:


> LOL
> 
> Weak, very weak.
> 
> Please tell me we didn't invade iraq, because saddam used mustard gas on the iranian army.  We cheered him on and supported his invasion of Iran, and remained his ally throughout that war.
> 
> When he gassed the kurds, he was punished.  NATO and the UN created a defact autonomous state in kurdistan, the kurdish people were protected by a no-fly zone, and NATO aircraft would shoot down any iraq plane or helicopter than encroached on kurdish territory.  In short, Saddam "lost" a huge chunk of his country.
> 
> Now, the soviets also supposedly used chemical weapons on the afghans in the afghanistan war of the 1980s.  Did reagan view that as a reason to invade the soviet union?


One more misstatement in your post I would like to clarify the no fly zones in Iraq were a result of the first Gulf War not his gassing of the Iranians.


----------



## jreeves

jillian said:


> Kuwait -- past history... well before we invaded.
> 
> Israel getting SCUDS??? We made them not respond and did nothing about it. So, your point?
> 
> Damn, I do wish you'd get some facts behind you.



Saddam defied UN resolutions regarding WMD's. With his history, we couldn't chance him using those WMDs. Hence past history does play a role. Are you now disputing that he didn't defy UN resolutions?


----------



## mattskramer

jreeves said:


> In his 2002 speech in Chicago Obama stated that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons and was trying to develop nuclear weapons. So evidently he was wrong too. But he stated with those facts that he wouldn't have gone to war against Saddam.



Yes.  Evidently he was wrong too.  It seemed like he had a cool head about it.  On the other hand, we see Hillary.  Has she ever said that she was wrong?  She dances around the word.  She said that if she had known then what she knows now but it seems like she refuses to say that she was wrong.  That is one big thing that I dont like about Hillary.


----------



## jreeves

jreeves said:


> Saddam defied UN resolutions regarding WMD's. With his history, we couldn't chance him using those WMDs. Hence past history does play a role. Are you now disputing that he didn't defy UN resolutions?



The US called on Israel to show restraint, because we didn't want a regional conflict. Come on are you now saying we wanted Saddam to lob those Scuds in Israel, your the one who needs to get their facts straight.


----------



## Zoomie1980

mattskramer said:


> Shame on Democrats for trusting Bush and the intelligence.  Yet, as I said before, Bush pushed the red button.  The person who makes such a decision has responsibility to make absolutely sure that what he has is true irrefutable evidence.  He should have gotten second and third and fourth and fifth and sixth opinions.  He should have considered the possibility that Saddam did not have WMD  think about it form both sides.    No.  Failed intelligence did not send American soldiers into Iraq.  Bush sent American soldiers into Iraq.



Ugh....  WMD was only an ANCILLARY reason for going into Iraq.  When will people get over that.  It's IRRELEVANT anyway.  We are there, period.  We will be there for most of the rest of your life, regardless of who is in control of Congress or the White House.  Why?  Because that area of the world is VITAL to US and all Western civilization and CANNOT be allowed to be controlled by a pack of insane Islamic religious nuts.

Got that?  Good.


----------



## mattskramer

jreeves said:


> Saddam defied UN resolutions regarding WMD's. With his history, we couldn't chance him using those WMDs. Hence past history does play a role. Are you now disputing that he didn't defy UN resolutions?



I think that if Iraq broke UN resolutions, then it was the UNs place to make the call  not the USA place to act on behalf of the UN.  Even Kofi Annan said that the Iraq war was illegal (while not calling for a prosecution of the USA).  Im still thinking about how the UN resolutions supposedly authorize us to go to war.  I think that the intent was for a final vote to take place and for a formal UN declaration of war  not for the US to lead the way in declaring war against Iraq when and if we choose to do so (with a tiny bit of help from a few other nations).


----------



## mattskramer

Zoomie1980 said:


> Ugh....  WMD was only an ANCILLARY reason for going into Iraq.  When will people get over that.  It's IRRELEVANT anyway.  We are there, period.  We will be there for most of the rest of your life, regardless of who is in control of Congress or the White House.  Why?  Because that area of the world is VITAL to US and all Western civilization and CANNOT be allowed to be controlled by a pack of insane Islamic religious nuts.
> 
> Got that?  Good.



I know that the phony WMD notion was only one of several erroneous and weak reasons for going onto Iraq.  I never said that it was the only reason.  It is not irrelevant in so much as we learn from our mistakes and the next leader become more careful.  We will probably be there for a long time.  In my opinion, we should not be there for a long time.  I doubt that the area is vital to the USA, but for the sake of argument, lets assume that it is.  Im poor.  My next door neighbor has fine things in his home.  I could invade it, take a lot of his stuff and use it for myself.  His resources are vital to my success.  Also, I dont trust him.  He broke a promise to me.  He looks at me funny.  I guess those things justify my taking things from him.  America is far from being controlled by insane Islamic religious nuts.  Whether or not we stay in Iraq will have no bearing on whether or not Islamic nuts will control America.

Got that?  Good.


----------



## jreeves

mattskramer said:


> I think that if Iraq broke UN resolutions, then it was the UNs place to make the call  not the USA place to act on behalf of the UN.  Even Kofi Annan said that the Iraq war was illegal (while not calling for a prosecution of the USA).  Im still thinking about how the UN resolutions supposedly authorize us to go to war.  I think that the intent was for a final vote to take place and for a formal UN declaration of war  not for the US to lead the way in declaring war against Iraq when and if we choose to do so (with a tiny bit of help from a few other nations).



When did the UN become the authority on protecting U.S. interests? As you probably remember the reason the US didn't seek a UN resolution for force, was because of Russia and China. When has the UN ever taken pre-emptive action anyway? I never remember a war when the first people in the warzone had on blue UN helmets, maybe I'm forgetting if I am please remind me.


----------



## jreeves

mattskramer said:


> I know that the phony WMD notion was only one of several erroneous and weak reasons for going onto Iraq.  I never said that it was the only reason.  It is not irrelevant in so much as we learn from our mistakes and the next leader become more careful.  We will probably be there for a long time.  In my opinion, we should not be there for a long time.  I doubt that the area is vital to the USA, but for the sake of argument, lets assume that it is.  Im poor.  My next door neighbor has fine things in his home.  I could invade it, take a lot of his stuff and use it for myself.  His resources are vital to my success.  Also, I dont trust him.  He broke a promise to me.  He looks at me funny.  I guess those things justify my taking things from him.  America is far from being controlled by insane Islamic religious nuts.  Whether or not we stay in Iraq will have no bearing on whether or not Islamic nuts will control America.
> 
> Got that?  Good.



What does your neighbor have to do with Iraq......that's called a false premise.


----------



## steeliniraq

DeadCanDance said:


> It's hilarious to revist just how badly RSG was debunked on this thread.  He was just pulling raw numbers out of his ass, and making up stuff as he went along....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RSG debunked here on the number of American troops in bosnia/Kosovo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Next, RSG is again debunked by US Government website.  Stabilization operations in Bosnia were turned over to the European Union in 2004, with a small presence of American troops remaining in the country.




Wait, wait, wait, you are comparing Kosovo/Bosnia to Iraq?  Come on!!!!!  I've been to both and they are nothing alike!  Iraq is much more of a fight and it has very little to do with who the president is!  If you want to look at who was the president at the time Clinton also led us into Somalia.  The ball was dropped all over the battlefield in that little engagement.  Is that Clinton's fault?  That little engagement with AQ told Bin Laden that if you make the Americans bleed a little they will run.    Try fooling someone who is ignorant in the military and presidents who lead them!


----------



## mattskramer

jreeves said:


> What does your neighbor have to do with Iraq......that's called a false premise.



No.  It is called a reasonable comparison.  For the sake of comparison, the USA is like my home and Iraq is like my neighbors house.  What did my neighbor do to me?  He does not like me.  He broke a promise.  He has resources that would benefit me. 

In your recent post, you said that we will stay in Iraq because it is vital to us.  Using your own reasoning, wouldnt it be fair to say that I can take my neighbors stuff because I think that they would be vital to me?


----------



## steeliniraq

maineman said:


> no on suggested that Yugoslavia was a direct threat to the United States. It WAS, however, determined to be a direct threat to the members of NATO.  In case you weren't sure, that's a mutual defense treaty that we are a signatory of.  So...when there is a threat to any of the countries of NATO, there is, by definition, an agreed upon threat to US interests.  Go look on your globe and see how many NATO nations directly border the balkans.



So all im hearing is we can be pimped out to other countries but when it comes to defending or doing something our country see right thats wrong.  Thats interesting!  If that is your view on how the U.S. military should be run then maybe you should come say that to my guys faces and I will call the ambulance in advance.  Nice call!    Tell me is it possible that any country in that treaty be allowed to do things that might benefit their country?  Defend their country without NATO?  Or does everything start and stop with what the heads of NATO say?  I have an idea why don't we just get rid of that country called The United States of America and call it NATO?!


----------



## maineman

steeliniraq said:


> So all im hearing is we can be pimped out to other countries but when it comes to defending or doing something our country see right thats wrong.  Thats interesting!  If that is your view on how the U.S. military should be run then maybe you should come say that to my guys faces and I will call the ambulance in advance.  Nice call!    Tell me is it possible that any country in that treaty be allowed to do things that might benefit their country?  Defend their country without NATO?  Or does everything start and stop with what the heads of NATO say?  I have an idea why don't we just get rid of that country called The United States of America and call it NATO?!



tell me again what imminent threat to America Iraq posed in the spring of 2003?

I'll wait.


----------



## mattskramer

jreeves said:


> When did the UN become the authority on protecting U.S. interests? As you probably remember the reason the US didn't seek a UN resolution for force, was because of Russia and China. When has the UN ever taken pre-emptive action anyway? I never remember a war when the first people in the warzone had on blue UN helmets, maybe I'm forgetting if I am please remind me.



Look.  It is all so simple.  We signed the UN Charter.  Article 6 of the US constitution say that all treaties made under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.  When we became member of the UN we became answerable to the UN.  

It is interesting how so many Republicans will use the allegation that Iraq broke UN resolutions as a reason for us to go to war.  Yet, when the UN seems slow to respond or seems not quite ready to go to declare war, we nearly ignore the UN and take care of things ourselves.  It is the old double standard and forked tongue way of transacting.


----------



## steeliniraq

maineman said:


> tell me again what imminent threat to America Iraq posed in the spring of 2003?
> 
> I'll wait.



Go back and read my post again!!!  Where did I say Iraq was an imminent threat?  Point it out!!!!  I did say we should have a right to defend ourselves without having to ask permission from Nato but that wasnt implied to Iraq.  I also said we should be able to do whats right and something that benefits our country.


----------



## steeliniraq

mattskramer said:


> Look.  It is all so simple.  We signed the UN Charter.  Article 6 of the US constitution say that all treaties made under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.  When we became member of the UN we became answerable to the UN.
> 
> It is interesting how so many Republicans will use the allegation that Iraq broke UN resolutions as a reason for us to go to war.  Yet, when the UN seems slow to respond or seems not quite ready to go to declare war, we nearly ignore the UN and take care of things ourselves.  It is the old double standard and forked tongue way of transacting.



Have any other countries in the UN every attacked another country without begging permission from the UN?


----------



## maineman

steeliniraq said:


> Go back and read my post again!!!  Where did I say Iraq was an imminent threat?  Point it out!!!!  I did say we should have a right to defend ourselves without having to ask permission from Nato but that wasnt implied to Iraq.  I also said we should be able to do whats right and something that benefits our country.




and what was in Iraq that we so desperately needed to defend ourselves against in the spring of 2003?

And when we sign treaties...Article VI of the constitution says we have to follow them.... didn't you swear to uphold and defend the constitution?  start acting like it.  you don't get to pick and chose what in the constitution you get to uphold and defend...you got the whole damned thing.


----------



## steeliniraq

maineman said:


> and what was in Iraq that we so desperately needed to defend ourselves against in the spring of 2003?



Ummmm and again where did I say we needed to defend ourselves from Iraq?  My point was to counter yours.  We should be able to defend our country without asking permission from NATO or the UN.  I never said we needed to defend ourselves from Iraq!  I do think going into Iraq was the right thing to do but it was for other reasons and not immediate national defense.


----------



## maineman

steeliniraq said:


> Ummmm and again where did I say we needed to defend ourselves from Iraq?  My point was to counter yours.  We should be able to defend our country without asking permission from NATO or the UN.  I never said we needed to defend ourselves from Iraq!  I do think going into Iraq was the right thing to do but it was for other reasons and not immediate national defense.



where does it say that you get to ignore defending article VI of the constitution?  I took the same oath you did.  I wore a uniform for a quarter of a century.  I never remember that part.

When have we ever asked NATO permission to defend ourselves?


----------



## mattskramer

steeliniraq said:


> Have any other countries in the UN every attacked another country without begging permission from the UN?



They probably have, but that does not make it right and does not give us permission to do so.  It is irrelevant.  I know some people who got away with shoplifting.  I suppose that I should shoplift.


----------



## steeliniraq

maineman said:


> and what was in Iraq that we so desperately needed to defend ourselves against in the spring of 2003?
> 
> And when we sign treaties...Article VI of the constitution says we have to follow them.... didn't you swear to uphold and defend the constitution?  start acting like it.  you don't get to pick and chose what in the constitution you get to uphold and defend...you got the whole damned thing.



Hmmmm thats interesting.  What part of the constitution are you upholding?  Once again I am upholding the constitution.  I dont pick what wars I get to fight!!!  YOU DO!!!  YOU THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ELECTED THIS PRESIDENT AS A WHOLE!!!!  You think you are sooooooo fucking smart hiding behind your comp. telling me to start acting like I should be upholding the constitution!!!  What the fuck have you done?  Yea article VI does say that but I doubt our founding fathers meant this as the meaning.  Let me ask you this:  Do countries in NATO and the UN have things to gain if we do what they tell us?  Yea we follow that to a T like you say and this countries burns big man!


----------



## steeliniraq

mattskramer said:


> They probably have, but that does not make it right and does not give us permission to do so.  It is irrelevant.  I know some people who got away with shoplifting.  I suppose that I should shoplift.



Yea or maybe those countries did it because it was in the best interest of their country and had to put their so called "friends" aside to do what was best for them.  Just maybe people in NATO or the UN dont want other people in the counsel to do good.  Maybe just maybe they are our enemies.  Should we uphold what they say if it means destroy those exact liberties they want to destroy?  Not so simple in the end is it?  Well you seem to know everything so im sure it is.  Shoplifting?  Poor example.


----------



## maineman

steeliniraq said:


> Hmmmm thats interesting.  What part of the constitution are you upholding?  Once again I am upholding the constitution.  I dont pick what wars I get to fight!!!  YOU DO!!!  YOU THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ELECTED THIS PRESIDENT AS A WHOLE!!!!  You think you are sooooooo fucking smart hiding behind your comp. telling me to start acting like I should be upholding the constitution!!!  What the fuck have you done?  Yea article VI does say that but I doubt our founding fathers meant this as the meaning.  Let me ask you this:  Do countries in NATO and the UN have things to gain if we do what they tell us?  Yea we follow that to a T like you say and this countries burns big man!




I understand that the congress authorized the use of force in Iraq.  I understand that the republican party lost control of congress primarily because of that vote.  I have never voted for anyone who voted for that resolution and I won't - unless it is down to McCain v. Clinton, in which case I will hold my nose and vote for Clinton.  And you openly advocate ignoring our constitution.  That is a fact you really can't wiggle away from.

And...it really isn't up to you to interpret the founding fathers.  that is what we have a supreme court for.

If we don't like a treaty, we can always abrogate it.  until we do, we uphold it because, as the constitution clearly states, that treaty IS the "supreme law of the land"... and those in America who would advocate ignoring the tenets of the constitution are domestic enemies thereof.  plain and simple.


----------



## jreeves

mattskramer said:


> No.  It is called a reasonable comparison.  For the sake of comparison, the USA is like my home and Iraq is like my neighbors house.  What did my neighbor do to me?  He does not like me.  He broke a promise.  He has resources that would benefit me.
> 
> In your recent post, you said that we will stay in Iraq because it is vital to us.  Using your own reasoning, wouldnt it be fair to say that I can take my neighbors stuff because I think that they would be vital to me?



Unless your house has a gross domestic product over 3 trillion dollars, has nuclear weapons in it, you have the capitol building in your living room and the white house in your bedroom its a false premise. Unless your neighbor has mass graves in their living room and is gassing their kids upstairs it is a false premise.


----------



## jreeves

maineman said:


> and what was in Iraq that we so desperately needed to defend ourselves against in the spring of 2003?
> 
> And when we sign treaties...Article VI of the constitution says we have to follow them.... didn't you swear to uphold and defend the constitution?  start acting like it.  you don't get to pick and chose what in the constitution you get to uphold and defend...you got the whole damned thing.



Look this post comes from a man that thought the CIA is part of the executive branch. When showed that it is an independent agency he gets quite then comes back without acknowleging that he was wrong. Also as I have said before all major intelligence agencies stated Saddam had biological and chemical weapons and coveted a nuclear bomb. That given Saddam's past created urgency. I will admit Bush made huge mistakes in his execution of the war but he was justified in taking action.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

mattskramer said:


> Look.  It is all so simple.  We signed the UN Charter.  Article 6 of the US constitution say that all treaties made under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.  When we became member of the UN we became answerable to the UN.
> 
> It is interesting how so many Republicans will use the allegation that Iraq broke UN resolutions as a reason for us to go to war.  Yet, when the UN seems slow to respond or seems not quite ready to go to declare war, we nearly ignore the UN and take care of things ourselves.  It is the old double standard and forked tongue way of transacting.



We did site the relevant UN charter that we agreed to that allowed us to Invade Iraq or are you just to stupid to remember that?


----------



## jreeves

mattskramer said:


> They probably have, but that does not make it right and does not give us permission to do so.  It is irrelevant.  I know some people who got away with shoplifting.  I suppose that I should shoplift.



Man you are full of these false premises why don't you keep your posts based on facts instead of hypotheticals?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

RetiredGySgt said:


> We did site the relevant UN charter that we agreed to that allowed us to Invade Iraq or are you just to stupid to remember that?



That also would be why the UN has not officially condemned our invasion because they can NOT.


----------



## maineman

jreeves said:


> Look this post comes from a man that thought the CIA is part of the executive branch. When showed that it is an independent agency he gets quite then comes back without acknowleging that he was wrong. Also as I have said before all major intelligence agencies stated Saddam had biological and chemical weapons and coveted a nuclear bomb. That given Saddam's past created urgency. I will admit Bush made huge mistakes in his execution of the war but he was justified in taking action.




there are three branches of government.  Executive, Legislative, Judicial.  

Which branch does the CIA fall under?  
Who appoints the DCI?  
Who can ask for the DCI's resignation?  
Who is the direct superior of the DCI?


----------



## jreeves

maineman said:


> there are three branches of government.  Executive, Legislative, Judicial.
> 
> Which branch does the CIA fall under?
> Who appoints the DCI?
> Who can ask for the DCI's resignation?
> Who is the direct superior of the DCI?



The CIA is an "independent agency" in other words it doesn't belong to either of the three branches. Anyone can ask for the DCI's resignation, a Congressional member, the President. The DCI is appointed by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate, hence a built in check and balance. The DNI is the direct superior of the DCI.


----------



## Teri B.

jreeves said:


> The CIA is an "independent agency" in other words it doesn't belong to either of the three branches. Anyone can ask for the DCI's resignation, a Congressional member, the President. The DCI is appointed by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate, hence a built in check and balance. The DNI is the direct superior of the DCI.



The CIA falls under the executive branch, and according the unitary executive theory that Bush has been invoking, it means he has full control of the CIA, the Justice Dept., etc.


----------



## Annie

More info:

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-...-congress-as-a-user-of-intelligence/intro.htm


----------



## jreeves

Teri B. said:


> The CIA falls under the executive branch, and according the unitary executive theory that Bush has been invoking, it means he has full control of the CIA, the Justice Dept., etc.



Look up it up my friend the CIA is an independent agency, better yet here you go...As a separate agency, CIA serves as an independent source of analysis on topics of concern and also works closely with the other organizations in the Intelligence Community to ensure that the intelligence consumerwhether Washington policymaker or battlefield commanderreceives the best intelligence possible.
right off the CIA's website.
read the ealier posts Teri B.


----------



## Teri B.

jreeves said:


> Look up it up my friend the CIA is an independent agency, better yet here you go...As a separate agency, CIA serves as an independent source of analysis on topics of concern and also works closely with the other organizations in the Intelligence Community to ensure that the intelligence consumerwhether Washington policymaker or battlefield commanderreceives the best intelligence possible.
> right off the CIA's website.
> read the ealier posts Teri B.



Kathianne already did.



> The intelligence services of the United States, like their counterparts in most countries, *exist principally to serve the needs of the executive authority*.



I agree that's how it SHOULD function and in the past has functioned, but it's not how it IS functioning.


----------



## jreeves

Teri B. said:


> Kathianne already did.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that's how it SHOULD function and in the past has functioned, but it's not how it IS functioning.



Permanent, continuing, day-to-day Congressional oversight of the US Intelligence Community (IC) marked its 20th anniversary in May 1996. Two decades earlier, Senate Resolution 400 established the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) following revelations of "intelligence abuses." In July 1997, the SSCI's House counterpart, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), will celebrate its 20th birthday. During this time, the IC's missions, responsibilities, capabilities, size, and management have experienced dramatic changes. The Congressional oversight committees have played a significant role in shaping these changes and continue to do so.

Some individuals within the Community have argued, with a certain amount of justification, that Congressional oversight has been intrusive, meddling, short-sighted, and counterproductive; has involved micromanagement on a grand scale; and has served to drag the IC into the political cockpit of partisan politics from which it had previously been immune. Others tend to view Congressional oversight as being, on balance and after a somewhat rocky start in the late 1970s, a decided plus for the Community by providing loci for Congressional advocacy and support for intelligence and by providing rigorous review and questioning of intelligence activities and budgets.

Perhaps, in looking back at what Congressional oversight has and has not been, we will be better able to discern the future of oversight by the Congress. First, it is important to dispel the popular notion that Congressional oversight started with the establishment of the SSCI and the HPSCI. That notion is not accurate. Before their establishment, however, oversight was certainly not intense or much of an inconvenience to the agencies that carried out intelligence activities.


----------



## jreeves

jreeves said:


> Permanent, continuing, day-to-day Congressional oversight of the US Intelligence Community (IC) marked its 20th anniversary in May 1996. Two decades earlier, Senate Resolution 400 established the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) following revelations of "intelligence abuses." In July 1997, the SSCI's House counterpart, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), will celebrate its 20th birthday. During this time, the IC's missions, responsibilities, capabilities, size, and management have experienced dramatic changes. The Congressional oversight committees have played a significant role in shaping these changes and continue to do so.
> 
> Some individuals within the Community have argued, with a certain amount of justification, that Congressional oversight has been intrusive, meddling, short-sighted, and counterproductive; has involved micromanagement on a grand scale; and has served to drag the IC into the political cockpit of partisan politics from which it had previously been immune. Others tend to view Congressional oversight as being, on balance and after a somewhat rocky start in the late 1970s, a decided plus for the Community by providing loci for Congressional advocacy and support for intelligence and by providing rigorous review and questioning of intelligence activities and budgets.
> 
> Perhaps, in looking back at what Congressional oversight has and has not been, we will be better able to discern the future of oversight by the Congress. First, it is important to dispel the popular notion that Congressional oversight started with the establishment of the SSCI and the HPSCI. That notion is not accurate. Before their establishment, however, oversight was certainly not intense or much of an inconvenience to the agencies that carried out intelligence activities.



So if anyone controls the CIA it would be Congress because they pay their bills. But I don't believe they do control the CIA, the CIA controls the CIA, hence why they are an independent agency.


----------



## mattskramer

jreeves said:


> Unless your house has a gross domestic product over 3 trillion dollars, has nuclear weapons in it, you have the capitol building in your living room and the white house in your bedroom its a false premise. Unless your neighbor has mass graves in their living room and is gassing their kids upstairs it is a false premise.



It is a sound comparison.  My house is to my neighbors house as the USA is to Iraq.  While my house is nice, it is lacking some of the resources that my neighbor has.  Perhaps my neighbor has committed some crimes.  If so, then it is falls to the police department to get him.  It is not my responsibility.  He has not been a threat to me.


----------



## Teri B.

And then there's The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 amended the National Security Act to provide for a Director of National Intelligence who would assume some of the roles formerly fulfilled by the DCI, with a separate Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, which gave the President even more power over the CIA.  Apparently, I don't have permission to post URLs yet.

But let's make it simple, you don't think that Bush/Cheney directed George Tenet regarding the intelligence that got us into the Iraq War?  Cause Tenet seems to disagree.


----------



## jreeves

mattskramer said:


> It is a sound comparison.  My house is to my neighbors house as the USA is to Iraq.  While my house is nice, it is lacking some of the resources that my neighbor has.  Perhaps my neighbor has committed some crimes.  If so, then it is falls to the police department to get him.  It is not my responsibility.  He has not been a threat to me.



Like I said your two houses are comparable to two countries get real....false premise


----------



## mattskramer

jreeves said:


> Man you are full of these false premises why don't you keep your posts based on facts instead of hypotheticals?



Where did you come from?  I was responding to Sterling.  He seems to think that it is okay for us to commit wrongs as long as some other nation has done wrong.  Im sorry but my mom and dad always told me that two wrongs do not make it right.  Just because someone else gets away with doing something does not mean that you are allowed to do it.


----------



## mattskramer

jreeves said:


> Like I said your two houses are comparable to two countries get real....false premise



It is a parallel and fine comparison.


----------



## jreeves

mattskramer said:


> It is a parallel and fine comparison.



Go ahead and compare your two houses to two countries sounds completely the same to me. unbelievable


----------



## Annie

Teri B. said:


> ...
> 
> But let's make it simple, you don't think that Bush/Cheney directed George Tenet regarding the intelligence that got us into the Iraq War?  Cause Tenet seems to disagree.



Not everyone agrees with that assessment, more than a few think Tenet just wanted to sell his book and deflect blame:

http://i2.democracynow.org/2008/1/24/curveball_reporter_bob_drogin_on_spies



> Curveball: Reporter Bob Drogin on Spies, Lies, and the Con Man Who Caused a War
> 
> We speak with Los Angeles Times reporter Bob Drogin about his new book, Curveball: Spies, Lies, and the Con Man Who Caused a War. It examines how a former Iraqi taxi driver helped build the Bush administrations case for war by making false claims about Saddam Husseins alleged biological and chemical weapons programs....
> 
> AMY GOODMAN: Its good to have you back. You make this case, how the CIA leveraged and the Bush administration used this guy Curveballs false allegations to provide a pretext for war. Explain who he was and how the administration used him.
> 
> BOB DROGIN: Sure. Yeah, I think this is sort of the defining case of how we got led down the rabbit hole in Iraq. Curveball is the codename of an IraqiRafiq Alwan is his namewho was a chemical engineer who defected to Germany, fled to Germany in 1999 and told the German intelligence authorities that Saddamthat he had helped mastermind a scheme to build biological weapons for Saddam Hussein. That information was never confirmed. It was never vetted. It was just sort of put out there and handed over to the Americans.
> 
> And after 9/11, the CIA literally just pulled it out of a safe, and within three weeks, the classified documents showed that all of the caveats that had existed before that period, where the questions of Saddams WMD was viewed as possible, probable, could be, may be, someday, suddenly were viewed in a totally different light. And his informationthat is, the information from this one individualrose higher and higher until the fall of 2002, when President Bush is citing it. It appears in a document known as the National Intelligence Estimate, which is the gold standard of US Intelligence, it forms the strongest part of that. The President cites his information in the State of the Union speech in 2003. Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, makes it the absolute highlight of his speech, when he goes up to the UN Security Council in February before the war. He shows pictures or drawings of trucks.
> 
> What they dont say at that point is that US authorities had never interviewed this man, had never confirmed his information, had never vetted his background, didnt even know his name before the war. They had ignored warnings from the German intelligence authorities, who repeatedly had sent warnings over saying he was a single source, they couldnt confirm his information, he washe had had a nervous breakdown, they didnt know what to make of him, he might be a fabricator. There had been a bitter fight inside of the CIA between the clandestine servicethat is, the operatives who go out and steal secrets but who deal with informants and defectors like thisand the analysts. The analysts were utterly championingsorry, they were pushing his story.
> 
> And three days after Powell went to the United Nations, the UN weapons inspectors went to all of the sites, every single one of the sites that Curveball had told them about, where these weapons supposedly were being produced. And they not only didnt find the evidence, they proved that it couldnt be true. They found a variety of things that showed his story was wrong. All of that was ignored, was overruled, was pushed aside. And obviously we went to war on false pretenses.
> 
> So I find his storyand those people who tried to bring that truth to power, who tried to stop this train wreck from happening, were not only pushed asideone guy I write about iscame back and, you know, discovered that his desk, you know, had been boxed up, and this was at CIA, and he was being sent off to the visitors center. And then someone else, you know, put at the end of a hallway filled with construction material and no access to classified computers. The CIA was very vindictive.
> 
> So I found this case fascinating as I tried to sort of drill down and peel back the layers of what had happened here, this idea of these bureaucracies made up of people who are trained to lie, cheat and steal, that at every possible juncture there was rivalbureaucratic rivalries and really tawdry ambitions get in the way and, frankly, spineless leadership that just absolutely refused to stand up.
> 
> What you had, in the end, this man was a con man. He was trying to get a visa to Germany to get political asylum. But the CIA heard what it wanted to hear. It conned itself. It saw what it wanted to see, and it gave the White House totally what it wanted to hear.
> 
> AMY GOODMAN: And Cheneys role in this?
> 
> BOB DROGIN: Dick Cheneys role is not as large. I mean, to me, you know, the ideathere were two things happening, as you know, before the war. There was the WMD question, and then there was the role ofthe question of Saddams alleged support for terrorism. And on the WMD side, the CIA was not whispering this, you know, to Dick Cheney or something; it was coming in through the front door. George Tenet and the rest of the CIA, you know, was briefing the President, was briefing the Vice President, was briefing senior members of Congress. They were putting out these reports, all of which, you know, proved to be totally wrong.
> 
> So, to me, the greatin my view, the greater scandal is not that there were three or four guys over at the Pentagon sort of whispering in the Vice Presidents ear and, you know, feeding him false information about one thing or another; its that the entire intelligence community got this so devastatingly wrong. When you go back and you look at Colin Powells speechwere coming up to the fifth anniversary of it next monthand you go back and you read it now, and its entirely based on this document that the CIA put out a couple months earlier, this National Intelligence Estimate, its wrong on almost every single level. And thats based on what the CIA gave him. So, you know, I dont think itto me, its not the issue of a couple of guys, its that this system was so utterly corrupt....


----------



## mattskramer

steeliniraq said:


> Yea or maybe those countries did it because it was in the best interest of their country and had to put their so called "friends" aside to do what was best for them.  Just maybe people in NATO or the UN dont want other people in the counsel to do good.  Maybe just maybe they are our enemies.  Should we uphold what they say if it means destroy those exact liberties they want to destroy?  Not so simple in the end is it?  Well you seem to know everything so im sure it is.  Shoplifting?  Poor example.



Should an American soldier be sent to a war that he thinks is against Americas best interest?  If he signed up for the military, then the answer is yes.  When you sign your name to something, you take your chances.  If you are afraid of what the club might do in the future, then dont join the club.  It is as simple as that.  That is the right thing to do.

Is there a way by which the USA can secede from the UN?  If so, then perhaps it should do so.  Then it does not have to answer to the UN.  I dont think that it is right for us to on the one hand, be members and on the other hand, make practically unilateral decisions without the UNs express condonation.


----------



## Teri B.

Kathianne said:


> Not everyone agrees with that assessment, more than a few think Tenet just wanted to sell his book and deflect blame:



Of course that's one way to look at it.  If we ever had a full investigation, perhaps we'd find the truth.  Between what Powell, Tenet, and other CIA officers have said (see CNN's _Dead Wrong_), I think Cheney had a very powerful hand in it.  And a lot of CIA analysts were telling Tenet that Curveball was not reliable source, but they used him anyway because he was saying what they wanted to hear.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

mattskramer said:


> Should an American soldier be sent to a war that he thinks is against Americas best interest?  If he signed up for the military, then the answer is yes.  When you sign your name to something, you take your chances.  If you are afraid of what the club might do in the future, then dont join the club.  It is as simple as that.  That is the right thing to do.
> 
> Is there a way by which the USA can secede from the UN?  If so, then perhaps it should do so.  Then it does not have to answer to the UN.  I dont think that it is right for us to on the one hand, be members and on the other hand, make practically unilateral decisions without the UNs express condonation.



What Unilateral decision? We had 16 or more Nations with us when we invaded Iraq. More of Europe was with us then against us. Come on if your gonna make complaints at least make legit ones.


Further we cited the relevant portions of the UN Charter that allowed us to act. The UN has not disagreed with those assessments. Thus we observed our treaty obligations and acted with in the frame work of the UN.


----------



## Teri B.

The UN certainly didn't support it.



> Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan
> 
> The Guardian, Thursday September 16 2004
> 
> The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.
> 
> Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter. In an interview with the BBC World Service broadcast last night, he was asked outright if the war was illegal. He replied: "Yes, if you wish."
> 
> He then added unequivocally: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal."
> 
> Mr Annan has until now kept a tactful silence and his intervention at this point undermines the argument pushed by Tony Blair that the war was legitimised by security council resolutions.
> 
> Mr Annan also questioned whether it will be feasible on security grounds to go ahead with the first planned election in Iraq scheduled for January. "You cannot have credible elections if the security conditions continue as they are now," he said.
> 
> His remarks come amid a marked deterioration of the situation on the ground, an upsurge of violence that has claimed 200 lives in four days and raised questions over the ability of the interim Iraqi government and the US-led coalition to maintain control over the country.
> 
> They also come as Mr Blair is trying to put the controversy over the war behind him in the run-up to the conference season, a new parliamentary term and next year's probable general election.
> 
> The UN chief had warned the US and its allies a week before the invasion in March 2003 that military action would violate the UN charter. But he has hitherto refrained from using the damning word "illegal".
> 
> Both Mr Blair and the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, claim that Saddam Hussein was in breach of security council resolution 1441 passed late in 2002, and of previous resolutions calling on him to give up weapons of mass destruction. France and other countries claimed these were insufficient.
> 
> No immediate comment was available from the White House late last night, but American officials have defended the war as an act of self-defence, allowed under the UN charter, in view of Saddam Hussein's supposed plans to build weapons of mass destruction.
> 
> However, last September, Mr Annan issued a stern critique of the notion of pre-emptive self-defence, saying it would lead to a breakdown in international order. Mr Annan last night said that there should have been a second UN resolution specifically authorising war against Iraq. Mr Blair and Mr Straw tried to secure this second resolution early in 2003 in the run-up to the war but were unable to convince a sceptical security council.
> 
> Mr Annan said the security council had warned Iraq in resolution 1441 there would be "consequences" if it did not comply with its demands. But he said it should have been up to the council to determine what those consequences were.
> 
> guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq


----------



## jreeves

Teri B. said:


> And then there's The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 amended the National Security Act to provide for a Director of National Intelligence who would assume some of the roles formerly fulfilled by the DCI, with a separate Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, which gave the President even more power over the CIA.  Apparently, I don't have permission to post URLs yet.
> 
> But let's make it simple, you don't think that Bush/Cheney directed George Tenet regarding the intelligence that got us into the Iraq War?  Cause Tenet seems to disagree.



I don't, George Tenet is going to say that in order to get the heat off of his own butt. Congress through its oversight committee had every oppurtunity to question the validity of the evidence as the President did.


----------



## Teri B.

jreeves said:


> I don't, George Tenet is going to say that in order to get the heat off of his own butt. Congress through its oversight committee had every oppurtunity to question the validity of the evidence as the President did.



Well until the Congress does do some oversight and investigate, it's just a bunch of opinions, either way.


----------



## jreeves

Teri B. said:


> The UN certainly didn't support it.



No, because a resolution for the war would have been vetoed by the permanant security members in Russia and China. So what your telling me is that you want China and Russia dictating U.S. foriegn policy?


----------



## mattskramer

Teri B. said:


> The UN certainly didn't support it.



Thank you.  Those are my sentiments exactly.  I could not have explained it better myself.


----------



## jreeves

Teri B. said:


> Well until the Congress does do some oversight and investigate, it's just a bunch of opinions, either way.



There was intelligence oversight hearings before the war.


----------



## Teri B.

jreeves said:


> There was intelligence oversight hearings before the war.



 I supoose you could call it that.


----------



## mattskramer

jreeves said:


> No, because a resolution for the war would have been vetoed by the permanant security members in Russia and China. So what your telling me is that you want China and Russia dictating U.S. foriegn policy?



If that is what it comes down to, yes.  The UN stands for United Nations - not US Dictatorship.  If the structure and bylaws of the UN results in China and Russia having too much influence over foreign policy than we like, then the US should work within the UN to change the rules or perhaps the US should leave.  We should stay and play by the rules or quit the game.  

This reminds me of a club that I and some friends tried to form.  We decided to play tic-tac-toe to determine who would be the leader of the club.  I won.  One of my friends decided that she did not want me to be the leader.  She resigned from the club.  Oh.  Are you going to call this a faulty premise too?


----------



## Teri B.

jreeves said:


> No, because a resolution for the war would have been vetoed by the permanant security members in Russia and China. So what your telling me is that you want China and Russia dictating U.S. foriegn policy?



That's exactly what the purpose of the resolution was, so that the UN wouldn't be able to dictate.  How it was used is another matter.  But you're the one who keeps bringing up the UN, as if it was on board with this "coalition," which aside from Great Brittan, was pretty thin.  The UN most emphatically wasn't.


----------



## jreeves

Teri B. said:


> That's exactly what the purpose of the resolution was, so that the UN wouldn't be able to dictate.  How it was used is another matter.  But you're the one who keeps bringing up the UN, as if it was on board with this "coalition," which aside from Great Brittan, was pretty thin.  The UN most emphatically wasn't.



I don't think I have ever in this thread brought up the UN resolutions without defending my position. I may be wrong, if I have please bring it to my attention. Cause I don't believe other nations should be dictating U.S. policies, hence I don't believe in our membership in the U.N. As I have stated over and over, the reason we were justified to go to war against Saddam is because we were under the belief he had both chemical and biological weapons and coveted nuclear weapons and Saddam's past history. My position hasn't changed. I believe Bush made mistakes with the execution of the war, not with the justification.


----------



## jreeves

mattskramer said:


> Do you have links to claims that since anti-apartheid has ended, whites are being slaughtered in accordance with the new laws of Zimbabwe and South Africa?
> 
> If that is what it comes down to, yes.  The UN stands for United Nations - not US Dictatorship.  If the structure and bylaws of the UN results in China and Russia having too much influence over foreign policy than we like, then the US should work within the UN to change the rules or perhaps the US should leave.  We should stay and play by the rules or quit the game.
> 
> This reminds me of a club that I and some friends tried to form.  We decided to play tic-tac-toe to determine who would be the leader of the club.  I won.  One of my friends decided that she did not want me to be the leader.  She resigned from the club.  Oh.  Are you going to call this a faulty premise too?



Here you go again comparing your tic-tac-toe club with a league of nations.....false premise Stick to the facts.


----------



## jreeves

jreeves said:


> I don't think I have ever in this thread brought up the UN resolutions without defending my position. I may be wrong, if I have please bring it to my attention. Cause I don't believe other nations should be dictating U.S. policies, hence I don't believe in our membership in the U.N. As I have stated over and over, the reason we were justified to go to war against Saddam is because we were under the belief he had both chemical and biological weapons and coveted nuclear weapons and Saddam's past history. My position hasn't changed. I believe Bush made mistakes with the execution of the war, not with the justification.



Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and Uzbekistan. 

Source: US State Department


----------



## maineman

I think you forgot Micronesia....they were a part of the coalition of the "billing" as well.  I think they sent six messcooks and a microwave.


----------



## jreeves

jreeves said:


> Here you go again comparing your tic-tac-toe club with a league of nations.....false premise Stick to the facts.




A false premise is an incorrect proposition that forms the basis of a logical syllogism. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_premise

Just so you know what it is....wow


----------



## jreeves

maineman said:


> I think you forgot Micronesia....they were a part of the coalition of the "billing" as well.  I think they sent six messcooks and a microwave.



According to you, the CIA operates in the Executive branch....LOL


----------



## jreeves

maineman said:


> I think you forgot Micronesia....they were a part of the coalition of the "billing" as well.  I think they sent six messcooks and a microwave.



As you can tell from this board not everyone agrees, Imagine that would hold true for all the nations in the world. But that is a substainal amount of countries.....guess we should support our set our foriegn policy on how many nations sign off on it, is that what you are saying? Lets set the benchmark at what? According to Maineman....


----------



## maineman

jreeves said:


> As you can tell from this board not everyone agrees, Imagine that would hold true for all the nations in the world. But that is a substainal amount of countries.....guess we should support our set our foriegn policy on how many nations sign off on it, is that what you are saying? Lets set the benchmark at what? According to Maineman....



I personally think that invading, conquering, and occupying Iraq has been counterproductive to the overarching goal of fighting and defeating Islamic extremism. You differ in that opinion.  So be it.


----------



## jreeves

maineman said:


> I personally think that invading, conquering, and occupying Iraq has been counterproductive to the overarching goal of fighting and defeating Islamic extremism. You differ in that opinion.  So be it.



I'm sorry I don't agree, just cause you have one enemy in Islamic etremism, doesn't mean that is the only enemy in the world. For example, a man that has attacked their neighbors, coveted nuclear weapons, developed chemical and biological weapons, showed disregard with proving they are WMD free. But if your fine with that then fine.


----------



## DeadCanDance

jreeves said:


> According to you, the CIA operates *in the Executive branch....LOL*





> *Federal Executive Branch*
> 
> source:   http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/Federal/Executive.shtml
> 
> Executive Office of the President
> 
> * The President
> * The Vice President
> * The White House Home Page
> * Offices within the Executive Office of the President
> * The President's Cabinet
> 
> Executive Departments
> 
> * Department of Agriculture (USDA)
> * Department of Commerce (DOC)
> * Department of Defense (DOD)
> * Department of Education (ED)
> * Department of Energy (DOE)
> * Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
> * Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
> * Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
> * Department of Justice (DOJ)
> * Department of Labor (DOL)
> * Department of State (DOS)
> * Department of the Interior (DOI)
> * Department of the Treasury
> * Department of Transportation (DOT)
> * Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
> 
> 
> Independent Agencies and Government Corporations
> 
> *Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)*
> Commission on Civil Rights
> Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
> Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
> etc
> etc.




CIA, Environmental Protection Agency, SEC are "independent" agencies, because they don't fall under one of the traditional Executive Branche _DEPARTMENTS_ like Defense, Treasury, or Commerce.  Because they were formed with a specifiic purpose in mind, which doesn't fall under on of the traditional branches. 

CIA is still under the Executive Branch, and Bush appoints and chooses all the leadership positions for CIA.  Just as he does with the Environmental Protection Agency.  

If CIA was "Independent" in your understanding of the word, why is Bush picking their leadership?  Why isn't their leadership chosen by an independent, non-partisan body???


----------



## maineman

jreeves said:


> I'm sorry I don't agree, just cause you have one enemy in Islamic etremism, doesn't mean that is the only enemy in the world. For example, a man that has attacked their neighbors, coveted nuclear weapons, developed chemical and biological weapons, showed disregard with proving they are WMD free. But if your fine with that then fine.




Again...an analogy:  MY wife has set my kithen on fire cooking bacon, my son has cut his fingers off on the table saw in the garage, my daughter is getting gang raped by a motorcycle gang in the front yard, and I have termites.

Bush's response, were he in my shoes:  Call Terminex!!!!  The fact that you side with Bush in this prioritization is all we really need to know.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Teri B. said:


> The UN certainly didn't support it.



Other than a comment by Annan be so kind as to provide us with the UN sanctions, the UN declaration of illegal activity, the UN paper work declaring the US and ALL her allies acted against the UN charter. I know you can not, because none of those things occured.

Now if your going to claim because the Senior person in the UN made a comment that makes it official, then I guess we get to remind you of all the things Bush has said and claim thats all it takes to make it official.

Annan called for NO action because he knew he was talking out of his ass.


----------



## steeliniraq

mattskramer said:


> Should an American soldier be sent to a war that he thinks is against Americas best interest?  If he signed up for the military, then the answer is yes.  When you sign your name to something, you take your chances.  If you are afraid of what the club might do in the future, then dont join the club.  It is as simple as that.  That is the right thing to do.
> 
> Is there a way by which the USA can secede from the UN?  If so, then perhaps it should do so.  Then it does not have to answer to the UN.  I dont think that it is right for us to on the one hand, be members and on the other hand, make practically unilateral decisions without the UNs express condonation.



  Ummmm I agree 100%.  I dont really know how my quote meant that american soldiers should run if they are afraid of what the next club might do in the future.  My point was I think countries should be able to do what is in their best interest without having to ask anyone for permission.


----------



## mattskramer

jreeves said:


> Here you go again comparing your tic-tac-toe club with a league of nations.....false premise Stick to the facts.



LOL.  I know what a false premise is.  Ive learned college level logic courses for years.  The examples that I give are not false premises.   They are reasonable comparisons.   Care to refute them.

The facts are that the UN Security Council consists of 5 nations.  The Republic of China, French Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland along with the United States of America. Like it or not, Russia and China are members of the Security Council.  As I see it, you have three choices:  

Stay a member and try to change it. (If the UN does not change, then it is just too bad.) 

Stay a member and accept it.

Leave.


----------



## mattskramer

steeliniraq said:


> Ummmm I agree 100%.  I dont really know how my quote meant that american soldiers should run if they are afraid of what the next club might do in the future.  My point was I think countries should be able to do what is in their best interest without having to ask anyone for permission.



Then the USA should leave the UN.


----------



## mattskramer

RetiredGySgt said:


> Other than a comment by Annan be so kind as to provide us with the UN sanctions, the UN declaration of illegal activity, the UN paper work declaring the US and ALL her allies acted against the UN charter. I know you can not, because none of those things occured.
> 
> Now if your going to claim because the Senior person in the UN made a comment that makes it official, then I guess we get to remind you of all the things Bush has said and claim thats all it takes to make it official.
> 
> Annan called for NO action because he knew he was talking out of his ass.



No. Annan called for no action because he would be fighting against one of the most powerful nations on earth.


----------



## Teri B.

jreeves said:


> Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and Uzbekistan.
> 
> Source: US State Department



If we measure their support of this invasion by the number of troops they sent, then I'd say it wasn't just thin, it was practically non-existence: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_coalition.htm


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Teri B. said:


> If we measure their support of this invasion by the number of troops they sent, then I'd say it wasn't just thin, it was practically non-existence: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_coalition.htm



Usual response when forced to face the fact it was NOT UNILATERAL. Just another talking point lie of the left and anti war crowd. Just like the claim all those nations violated the UN charter, yet no action was taken.

Here lets play Maineman's game. Clinton was never convicted of perjury there fore he never committed it. Now ask him if the US violated the UN charter.


----------



## Teri B.

RetiredGySgt said:


> Other than a comment by Annan be so kind as to provide us with the UN sanctions, the UN declaration of illegal activity, the UN paper work declaring the US and ALL her allies acted against the UN charter. I know you can not, because none of those things occured.
> 
> Now if your going to claim because the Senior person in the UN made a comment that makes it official, then I guess we get to remind you of all the things Bush has said and claim thats all it takes to make it official.
> 
> Annan called for NO action because he knew he was talking out of his ass.



The lack of those things doesn't signify the UN's endorsement.  What good would it have done anyway?  It would have been a totally symbolic gesture, as was Annan's statement.


----------



## Teri B.

RetiredGySgt said:


> Usual response when forced to face the fact it was NOT UNILATERAL. Just another talking point lie of the left and anti war crowd. Just like the claim all those nations violated the UN charter, yet no action was taken.
> 
> Here lets play Maineman's game. Clinton was never convicted of perjury there fore he never committed it. Now ask him if the US violated the UN charter.



Lol, whatever you say.  Where's all that support now?  And who's been footing the bill?  I can't believe lying us into a war even brings out the Clinton BJ card. Is that all ya got?  What about the Bosnia card?  Or the Somalia card?  I can't do all the work here.


----------



## Teri B.

DeadCanDance said:


> CIA, Environmental Protection Agency, SEC are "independent" agencies, because they don't fall under one of the traditional Executive Branche _DEPARTMENTS_ like Defense, Treasury, or Commerce.  Because they were formed with a specifiic purpose in mind, which doesn't fall under on of the traditional branches.
> 
> CIA is still under the Executive Branch, and Bush appoints and chooses all the leadership positions for CIA.  Just as he does with the Environmental Protection Agency.
> 
> If CIA was "Independent" in your understanding of the word, why is Bush picking their leadership?  Why isn't their leadership chosen by an independent, non-partisan body???



Uh huh.  Who appoints the head of the CIA?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

You do NOT get to claim that because the UN did not pass a resolution FOR the Invasion, the Invasion was in violation of the UN charter. Only the UN gets to make that charge and guess what? They have NOT. You can not even claim that the US and her allies prevented the action, since no motion to do so was EVER made at all.

The US laid out why the Invasion met the requirements of the relevant UN treaties we are signed up to. Thus eliminating the claim it was an illegal action. Unless the UN takes official action then the simple fact is the US did NOT violate the treaties we are signed with at the UN.

The US STATED why the invasion met the UN charter and unless the UN takes official action to declare and justify those claims are false, they STAND. END of STORY.


----------



## JimH52

Shouldn't I get an award for beginning the "Never Ending Thread."


AAAAAARRRRGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Teri B. said:


> Uh huh.  Who appoints the head of the CIA?



The head of the CIA does not gather nor collect nor correlate or decipher intelligence assets or intercepts. He simply insures the Agency has a boss. And the CIA head up to and after the US invasion was not even a Bush appointee. He was appointed by Clinton.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> Usual response when forced to face the fact it was NOT UNILATERAL. Just another talking point lie of the left and anti war crowd. Just like the claim all those nations violated the UN charter, yet no action was taken.
> 
> Here lets play Maineman's game. Clinton was never convicted of perjury there fore he never committed it. Now ask him if the US violated the UN charter.




I never had suggested that Clinton did not lie under oath...only that he is not guilty of the crime of perjury - anymore that Teddy Kennedy is guilty of the crime of murder....both crimes your repeatedly claim they are guilty of.

Republicans bitch 24/7 about how useless the United Nations is, yet use UN resolutions as justification for going to war to disarm a guy who had no arms.

go figure.


----------



## Teri B.

RetiredGySgt said:


> You do NOT get to claim that because the UN did not pass a resolution FOR the Invasion, the Invasion was in violation of the UN charter. Only the UN gets to make that charge and guess what? They have NOT. You can not even claim that the US and her allies prevented the action, since no motion to do so was EVER made at all.
> 
> The US laid out why the Invasion met the requirements of the relevant UN treaties we are signed up to. Thus eliminating the claim it was an illegal action. Unless the UN takes official action then the simple fact is the US did NOT violate the treaties we are signed with at the UN.
> 
> The US STATED why the invasion met the UN charter and unless the UN takes official action to declare and justify those claims are false, they STAND. END of STORY.



So you get to claim that the UN, by its inaction, DID approve it or at least that it's legal for that reason, regardless of Annan's statement?  

The UN has sanctioned Israel, 66 times, and every time the US was the sole veto.  So, they're going to waste their time sanctioning the US?  There's a certain amount of common sense you have to apply to this proposition.  

The UN is pretty much irrelevant when it comes to this war.  I bet we can agree on that.


----------



## Teri B.

RetiredGySgt said:


> The head of the CIA does not gather nor collect nor correlate or decipher intelligence assets or intercepts. He simply insures the Agency has a boss. And the CIA head up to and after the US invasion was not even a Bush appointee. He was appointed by Clinton.



Yes he was, and he was fruiously kissing ass to keep his job - earned him medal of freedom.  Are we really going to lay out the job description and powers of the the director of the CIA now? He has the power to hire, fire, and direct how, who and what will be investigated.  If appointing the CIA director doesn't give the president power over the CIA, what else could?  It's kind of like appointing Gonzo head of the Justice Dept., who certainly did Bush's bidding.


----------



## Zoomie1980

mattskramer said:


> It is a parallel and fine comparison.



It's moronic, posted by a person with a brain smaller than a walnut.

Iraq is probably THE most VITAL strategic location on earth.  It sits at the top of the most vital waterway in the world and next to world's biggest threat to that waterway.

The fact you don't get that proves you have no cognitive thinking ability at all.

Now go do something you can actually do....like pick your own naval lint.


----------



## jreeves

DeadCanDance said:


> CIA, Environmental Protection Agency, SEC are "independent" agencies, because they don't fall under one of the traditional Executive Branche _DEPARTMENTS_ like Defense, Treasury, or Commerce.  Because they were formed with a specifiic purpose in mind, which doesn't fall under on of the traditional branches.
> 
> CIA is still under the Executive Branch, and Bush appoints and chooses all the leadership positions for CIA.  Just as he does with the Environmental Protection Agency.
> 
> If CIA was "Independent" in your understanding of the word, why is Bush picking their leadership?  Why isn't their leadership chosen by an independent, non-partisan body???



The CIA director is appointed by the President by the advisement and confirmation of the Senate.


----------



## maineman

jreeves said:


> The CIA director is appointed by the President by the advisement and confirmation of the Senate.



as is the secretary of agriculture.  your pont?


----------



## Teri B.

jreeves said:


> The CIA director is appointed by the President by the advisement and confirmation of the Senate.



And that Republican rubber-stamp congress constantly fought everything Bush wanted didn't they?


----------



## jreeves

DeadCanDance said:


> CIA, Environmental Protection Agency, SEC are "independent" agencies, because they don't fall under one of the traditional Executive Branche _DEPARTMENTS_ like Defense, Treasury, or Commerce.  Because they were formed with a specifiic purpose in mind, which doesn't fall under on of the traditional branches.
> 
> CIA is still under the Executive Branch, and Bush appoints and chooses all the leadership positions for CIA.  Just as he does with the Environmental Protection Agency.
> 
> If CIA was "Independent" in your understanding of the word, why is Bush picking their leadership?  Why isn't their leadership chosen by an independent, non-partisan body???



That would be your opinion right, not based upon facts correct?


----------



## Zoomie1980

maineman said:


> I never had suggested that Clinton did not lie under oath...only that he is not guilty of the crime of perjury - anymore that Teddy Kennedy is guilty of the crime of murder....both crimes your repeatedly claim they are guilty of.
> 
> Republicans bitch 24/7 about how useless the United Nations is, yet use UN resolutions as justification for going to war to disarm a guy who had no arms.
> 
> go figure.



That actual legality of going back into Iraq was the violation of the cease fire.  Sadaam did that over 1000 times.  One was enough under international law to resume hostilities.  UN resolutions and even congressional approval were irrelevant. The ORIGINAL congressional resolution from 1990 was enough, as the conflict it authorized was never concluded, only PAUSED under mutual agreement, and agreement Sadaam violated over 1000 times.


----------



## maineman

Zoomie1980 said:


> It's moronic, posted by a person with a brain smaller than a walnut.
> 
> Iraq is probably THE most VITAL strategic location on earth.  It sits at the top of the most vital waterway in the world and next to world's biggest threat to that waterway.
> 
> The fact you don't get that proves you have no cognitive thinking ability at all.
> 
> Now go do something you can actually do....like pick your own naval lint.




anyone who professes that Al Qaeda are shiites really should not be participating in this discussion and should go back to the kid's table to talk about their favorite boy bands.


----------



## Teri B.

jreeves said:


> That would be your opinion right, not based upon facts correct?



No, those would be facts.


----------



## jreeves

maineman said:


> Again...an analogy:  MY wife has set my kithen on fire cooking bacon, my son has cut his fingers off on the table saw in the garage, my daughter is getting gang raped by a motorcycle gang in the front yard, and I have termites.
> 
> Bush's response, were he in my shoes:  Call Terminex!!!!  The fact that you side with Bush in this prioritization is all we really need to know.



Here you go...another false premise see the previous post. Round and Round we go, in circles without facts and support....


----------



## maineman

Zoomie1980 said:


> That actual legality of going back into Iraq was the violation of the cease fire.  Sadaam did that over 1000 times.  One was enough under international law to resume hostilities.  UN resolutions and even congressional approval were irrelevant. The ORIGINAL congressional resolution from 1990 was enough, as the conflict it authorized was never concluded, only PAUSED under mutual agreement, and agreement Sadaam violated over 1000 times.




and in the post 9/11 world, holding Saddam accountable for decades old UN sanctions was more important than rooting out and destroying the islamic extremists that attacked us??????


----------



## Teri B.

Zoomie1980 said:


> That actual legality of going back into Iraq was the violation of the cease fire.  Sadaam did that over 1000 times.  One was enough under international law to resume hostilities.  UN resolutions and even congressional approval were irrelevant. The ORIGINAL congressional resolution from 1990 was enough, as the conflict it authorized was never concluded, only PAUSED under mutual agreement, and agreement Sadaam violated over 1000 times.



To bad that wasn't their reason for invading.  THAT would have had substance.


----------



## DeadCanDance

jreeves said:


> That would be your opinion right, not based upon facts correct?



CIA is listed on the official US Government site I gave you, as part of the Executive Branch. 

That would make it a FACT.


----------



## jreeves

Teri B. said:


> No, those would be facts.



Proof please, without a reference to your mother being raped,termites, your belonging to a tic-tac-toe club, should I go on or do you get the point.....LOL


----------



## Zoomie1980

maineman said:


> and in the post 9/11 world, holding Saddam accountable for decades old UN sanctions was more important than rooting out and destroying the islamic extremists that attacked us??????



Yes, every bit.  We did both.  Iran is next.  Enjoy the ride.


----------



## Teri B.

maineman said:


> and in the post 9/11 world, holding Saddam accountable for decades old UN sanctions was more important than rooting out and destroying the islamic extremists that attacked us??????



WHAT?  In what universe did islamic extremists who attacked us come from Iraq?  Even Cheney admits there's no connection!

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QWdq7hg4dLU&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QWdq7hg4dLU&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

AND

The 9/11 Commission confirmed there was no Al Qaeda in Iraq.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

The only one Bin Laden hated more than the US was Sadam.


----------



## DeadCanDance

> Originally Posted by maineman View Post
> 
> and in the post 9/11 world, *holding Saddam accountable for decades old UN sanctions was more important than rooting out and destroying the islamic extremists that attacked us*??????






Zoomie1980 said:


> *Yes, every bit*.  We did both.  Iran is next.  Enjoy the ride.




LOL


----------



## jreeves

Teri B. said:


> Yes he was, and he was fruiously kissing ass to keep his job - earned him medal of freedom.  Are we really going to lay out the job description and powers of the the director of the CIA now? He has the power to hire, fire, and direct how, who and what will be investigated.  If appointing the CIA director doesn't give the president power over the CIA, what else could?  It's kind of like appointing Gonzo head of the Justice Dept., who certainly did Bush's bidding.



Who do you work for your employer right, who's your boss, who pays you right, well that's Congress's job not the President.


----------



## DeadCanDance

jreeves said:


> Who do you work for your employer right, who's your boss, who pays you right, well that's Congress's job not the President.




I gave you the official US Government website, that said CIA was in the Executive Branch. 

You gonna admit you were wrong?




> Originally Posted by jreeves
> 
> According to you, the *CIA operates in the Executive branch....LOL*


----------



## Teri B.

jreeves said:


> Proof please, without a reference to your mother being raped,termites, your belonging to a tic-tac-toe club, should I go on or do you get the point.....LOL



First of all, I didn't say any of that.  Clean your glasses will ya?  Second, he/she already gave you the link.  I'm not sure what other proof you need.


----------



## maineman

Zoomie1980 said:


> Yes, every bit.  We did both.  Iran is next.  Enjoy the ride.



so..while we have 150K americans in Iraq, the REAL bad guys can hold a televised outdoor graduation ceremony for 300 suicide bombers in Afghanistan and we are so weakly represented there that not only do we not respond by killing everyone present, we don't even KNOW about it til the day after it happened?  NO...we are NOT doing both.  Put down the koolaid and wake the fuck up!


----------



## jreeves

DeadCanDance said:


> I gave you the official US Government website, that said CIA was in the Executive Branch.
> 
> You gonna admit you were wrong?



Send the link on over...


----------



## Teri B.

jreeves said:


> Who do you work for your employer right, who's your boss, who pays you right, well that's Congress's job not the President.



The last time congress tried to use the purse strings against a president, was Eisenhower, who also, ironically, tried to invoke this unitary executive theory.  It didn't work.  The Supreme Court made them pay.  

But you're going to extremes here to make a case that the Congress controls the CIA.  Does that mean they control every other government agency and employee, including the President, under your premise?


----------



## jreeves

jreeves said:


> Send the link on over...



The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is an independent US Government agency responsible for providing national security intelligence to senior US policymakers.

www.cia.gov


----------



## Zoomie1980

Teri B. said:


> To bad that wasn't their reason for invading.  THAT would have had substance.



It was one of many reasons.  But the primary reason had nothing to do with any of the arguments posted in this marathon thread.  We are there for STRATEGIC reasons that go way beyond pointless things like WMD's, Bush's revenge, bringing democracy to the people of Iraq.  

All those things were to sell it all to the clueless American citizens who are, for the most part, disconnected with just about everything in the world that doesn't have to do with the latest Brittany Spears meltdown or next X-Box 360 title coming out.

If you doubt that, get out a map.  Locate the most vital region on the planet.  It's called the Persian Gulf.  It must remain open for commerce at ALL costs.  Look at where the most dangerous threat to that waterway sits.  Look at where Iraq and Afgahnistan sit in relation to that threat.  

Then look at the next great resource region on the planet.  The Caspian-Aral Sea oil and gas fields.  Look where Iraq an Aghanistan sit in relation to that?

Add 2+2 and see if you can get 4.  It's easy.  THAT;s why we are where we are today and why we will be there for the duration of your lifetime, REGARDLESS of which political party controls congress or the white house.

The reason Bush and Clinton before Bush and Bush before Clinton had to use all these other platitudes is what the Russians call "maskarovka".  The stupid people of this country can't understand or fathom 100 year long strategy and geo-polotik, they think in terms of only tomorrow and next week, not next decade, next 50-100 years.  So they have to be "sold" like the largely dunderheaded sheep they are, so they can get back to their celebrity worship and video games.


----------



## DeadCanDance

jreeves said:


> Send the link on over...





jreeves said:


> According to you, the CIA operates *in the Executive branch....LOL*





> Official CIA Website:
> 
> The CIA's policy, *as with many other Executive Branch agencies,* is to automatically handle PA requests under the provisions of both the PA and the FOIA.
> 
> http://www.foia.cia.gov/privacy_tips.asp






> *Federal Executive Branch*
> 
> source:   http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/Federal/Executive.shtml
> 
> Executive Office of the President
> 
> * The President
> * The Vice President
> * The White House Home Page
> * Offices within the Executive Office of the President
> * The President's Cabinet
> 
> Executive Departments
> 
> * Department of Agriculture (USDA)
> * Department of Commerce (DOC)
> * Department of Defense (DOD)
> * Department of Education (ED)
> * Department of Energy (DOE)
> * Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
> * Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
> * Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
> * Department of Justice (DOJ)
> * Department of Labor (DOL)
> * Department of State (DOS)
> * Department of the Interior (DOI)
> * Department of the Treasury
> * Department of Transportation (DOT)
> * Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
> 
> 
> Independent Agencies and Government Corporations
> 
> *Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)*
> Commission on Civil Rights
> Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
> Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
> etc
> etc.


.


----------



## jreeves

Teri B. said:


> The last time congress tried to use the purse strings against a president, was Eisenhower, who also, ironically, tried to invoke this unitary executive theory.  It didn't work.  The Supreme Court made them pay.
> 
> But you're going to extremes here to make a case that the Congress controls the CIA.  Does that mean they control every other government agency and employee, including the President, under your premise?



No as I stated in an earlier post the CIA controls the CIA, not Congress or the President....But if you want to draw infrences then you would have to say Congress does because they pay them


----------



## Teri B.

jreeves said:


> The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is an independent US Government agency responsible for providing national security intelligence to senior US policymakers.
> 
> www.cia.gov



AND THE PRESIDENT APPOINTS THE HEAD OF THE CIA!  Are circular arguments your forte?


----------



## jreeves

DeadCanDance said:


> .



This is the website layout;

The President
The Vice President
The White House Home Page
Offices within the Executive Office of the President
The President's Cabinet
Executive Departments
Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Department of Commerce (DOC)
Department of Defense (DOD)
Department of Education (ED)
Department of Energy (DOE)
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
Department of Justice (DOJ)
Department of Labor (DOL)
Department of State (DOS)
Department of the Interior (DOI)
Department of the Treasury
Department of Transportation (DOT)
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
Back to Top &#8593;
Independent Agencies and Government Corporations
Independent Agencies and Government Corporations


----------



## DeadCanDance

jreeves said:


> This is the website layout;
> 
> The President
> The Vice President
> The White House Home Page
> Offices within the Executive Office of the President
> The President's Cabinet
> Executive Departments
> Department of Agriculture (USDA)
> Department of Commerce (DOC)
> Department of Defense (DOD)
> Department of Education (ED)
> Department of Energy (DOE)
> Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
> Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
> Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
> Department of Justice (DOJ)
> Department of Labor (DOL)
> Department of State (DOS)
> Department of the Interior (DOI)
> Department of the Treasury
> Department of Transportation (DOT)
> Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
> Back to Top &#8593;
> Independent Agencies and Government Corporations
> Independent Agencies and Government Corporations




Learn how to use the Web. 

The hyperlink to the Independent Executive Branch Agencies, show that CIA, Environmental Protection Agency, Securities and Exchange Commission, and many other agencies are part of the Executive Branch.


----------



## Teri B.

jreeves said:


> No as I stated in an earlier post the CIA controls the CIA, not Congress or the President....But if you want to draw infrences then you would have to say Congress does because they pay them


----------



## Zoomie1980

maineman said:


> so..while we have 150K americans in Iraq, the REAL bad guys can hold a televised outdoor graduation ceremony for 300 suicide bombers in Afghanistan and we are so weakly represented there that not only do we not respond by killing everyone present, we don't even KNOW about it til the day after it happened?  NO...we are NOT doing both.  Put down the koolaid and wake the fuck up!



The biggest problem in Afghanistan is that all the member nations of NATO are not upholding their troop commitments so things are a bit thin there.  As soon as the draw down in Iraq begins, most of it, unfortunately, will have to be shunted off to Afghanistan because you cowardly, worthless Euroweenie allies are, well...useless cowards, the UK excepted, of course.


----------



## DeadCanDance

Forget it. 

You're a flat out liar, that is so drunk on bush worship, that you can't admit you were wrong.   I'm wasting my time


----------



## jreeves

Teri B. said:


> AND THE PRESIDENT APPOINTS THE HEAD OF THE CIA!  Are circular arguments your forte?



Damn your dumb, the President appoints the DCI under "advisement" of Congress and is confirmed by the Senate.....


----------



## Teri B.

DeadCanDance said:


> Learn how to use the Web.
> 
> The hyperlink to the Independent Executive Branch Agencies, show that CIA, Environmental Protection Agency, Securities and Exchange Commission, and many other agencies are part of the Executive Branch.



If that's how simplistic your view is, that the person who selects the head of that agency has no power at all, then I don't see the point in discussing this further.


----------



## maineman

Zoomie1980 said:


> The biggest problem in Afghanistan is that all the member nations of NATO are not upholding their troop commitments so things are a bit thin there.  As soon as the draw down in Iraq begins, most of it, unfortunately, will have to be shunted off to Afghanistan because you cowardly, worthless Euroweenie allies are, well...useless cowards, the UK excepted, of course.


and if we hadn't fucked up by invading Iraq when we didn't HAVE to, we would have had SHITLOADS of assets to throw into Afghanistan.

That is the point.


----------



## Teri B.

jreeves said:


> Damn your dumb, the President appoints the DCI under "advisement" of Congress and is confirmed by the Senate.....



Name calling.  I see, another compelling argument.


----------



## jreeves

DeadCanDance said:


> Forget it.
> 
> You're a flat out liar, that is so drunk on bush worship, that you can't admit you were wrong.   I'm wasting my time



Go there it will tell you, and they should know best, they are an independent agency, not an executive branch agency.....


----------



## Zoomie1980

Teri B. said:


>



Ugh....this is about at pointless an argument as I have seen here.  Who the hell cares?  The CIA director is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate.  But 99.9% of it is run by career, civil service, bureaucrats.  Pretty much the same as every other Federal Agency.


----------



## jreeves

DeadCanDance said:


> Learn how to use the Web.
> 
> The hyperlink to the Independent Executive Branch Agencies, show that CIA, Environmental Protection Agency, Securities and Exchange Commission, and many other agencies are part of the Executive Branch.



there are many executive branch agencies but the CIA isn't one of them....Lmao


----------



## jreeves

Teri B. said:


> Name calling.  I see, another compelling argument.



Sorry for the name calling but I showed you guys right off the CIA's website where it shows they are an independent agency and it's like it doesn't sink in.

But seriously I am sorry for calling you dumb.


----------



## maineman

jreeves said:


> there are many executive branch agencies but the CIA isn't one of them....Lmao




actually..it is.  the DCIA reports directly to the Director of National Intelligence who reports directly to the president.


----------



## jreeves

maineman said:


> actually..it is.  the DCIA reports directly to the Director of National Intelligence who reports directly to the president.



Congress as well my friend


----------



## Zoomie1980

maineman said:


> and if we hadn't fucked up by invading Iraq when we didn't HAVE to, we would have had SHITLOADS of assets to throw into Afghanistan.
> 
> That is the point.



Going IN to Iraq was not the mistake.  That was one of the most brilliant military campaigns in all of of human history.

It was Rumsfeld's idocy AFTER that, that was the big mess.  Sen Chuck Hagel warned them they had no adequate plan for AFTER the fall Sadaam and were relying on unrealistic expectations from the Iraqi's themselves....all which proved to be correct.  

Basically, we failed to secure and disarm the country in the year after toppling the government.  To do that we would have to be almost as brutal to the populace as Sadaam was, much as we were in Japan following WWII.  But we weren't.  ANd THAT was the screw up.  Not the toppling of the regime.


----------



## Teri B.

jreeves said:


> Sorry for the name calling but I showed you guys right off the CIA's website where it shows they are an independent agency and it's like it doesn't sink in.
> 
> But seriously I am sorry for calling you dumb.



Sokay.  Maybe I'll pay ya back later.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




I realize that the CIA is listed as an "independent" agency.  We agree on that, but the point I've been trying to pound in is that the President picks the director, yes with congressional approval - when that's actually a factor.  The president is naturally going to pick someone who will do his bidding and run it the way he wants it run, correct?  And no, he didn't pick Tenet, but he could have replaced Tenet any time he wanted, so Tenet, as he admits, was eager to please the president.


----------



## jreeves

jreeves said:


> Congress as well my friend



The DNI position wasn't established until after the war had started right?


----------



## jreeves

Teri B. said:


> Sokay.  Maybe I'll pay ya back later.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I realize that the CIA is listed as an "independent" agency.  We agree on that, but the point I've been trying to pound in is that the President picks the director, yes with congressional approval - when that's actually a factor.  The president is naturally going to pick someone who will do his bidding and run it the way he wants it run, correct?



I am sure that Congress isn't confirm anybody they don't agree with, do we have to even mention that, Judicial appointees.


----------



## Zoomie1980

Teri B. said:


> Sokay.  Maybe I'll pay ya back later.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I realize that the CIA is listed as an "independent" agency.  We agree on that, but the point I've been trying to pound in is that the President picks the director, yes with congressional approval - when that's actually a factor.  The president is naturally going to pick someone who will do his bidding and run it the way he wants it run, correct?



The effectiveness of any political appointee over a Federal Agency is usually VERY minimal.  They run themselves and only on rare occasion does an appointee posses the charisma and perseverance to change things in these massive bureaucracies.  The agencies are run by career civil service who there long before the current administration and will be there long AFTER it leaves.  They most ignore their politically appointed bosses because, in most cases, they never last more than two or three years.


----------



## maineman

Zoomie1980 said:


> Going IN to Iraq was not the mistake.  That was one of the most brilliant military campaigns in all of of human history.
> 
> It was Rumsfeld's idocy AFTER that, that was the big mess.  Sen Chuck Hagel warned them they had no adequate plan for AFTER the fall Sadaam and were relying on unrealistic expectations from the Iraqi's themselves....all which proved to be correct.
> 
> Basically, we failed to secure and disarm the country in the year after toppling the government.  To do that we would have to be almost as brutal to the populace as Sadaam was, much as we were in Japan following WWII.  But we weren't.  ANd THAT was the screw up.  Not the toppling of the regime.



that  is your opinion.  Please do not denigrate MY patriotism if I do not agree.


----------



## Annie

jreeves said:


> The DNI position wasn't established until after the war had started right?



at least after 9/11:

http://www.dni.gov/aboutODNI/history.htm


----------



## jreeves

jreeves said:


> I am sure that Congress isn't confirm anybody they don't agree with, do we have to even mention that, Judicial appointees.



General Michael V. Hayden, USAF, became the 18th Director of the Central Intelligence Agency on 30 May 2006.

Seems if it was so easy to replace them there would be more than 18 in 61 years...right?


----------



## Teri B.

jreeves said:


> I am sure that Congress isn't confirm anybody they don't agree with, do we have to even mention that, Judicial appointees.



It depends on the make up of the Congress.  The Congress was Republican dominated till 2006, and they across the board gave Bush pretty much whatever he wanted.  But we're specifically talking about Tenet, and he's written a book on the subject, and what the Bush administration wanted from him - they got.


----------



## jreeves

Kathianne said:


> at least after 9/11:
> 
> http://www.dni.gov/aboutODNI/history.htm



I will admit when I'm wrong I was thinking of the NID..


----------



## Teri B.

Zoomie1980 said:


> The effectiveness of any political appointee over a Federal Agency is usually VERY minimal.  They run themselves and only on rare occasion does an appointee posses the charisma and perseverance to change things in these massive bureaucracies.  The agencies are run by career civil service who there long before the current administration and will be there long AFTER it leaves.  They most ignore their politically appointed bosses because, in most cases, they never last more than two or three years.



Like they ignored Gonzales in the Justice Dept.?

Look, you don't have to take my word for any of it.  

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5zW20m1-OJc&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5zW20m1-OJc&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>


----------



## jreeves

Teri B. said:


> It depends on the make up of the Congress.  The Congress was Republican dominated till 2006, and they across the board gave Bush pretty much whatever he wanted.  But we're specifically talking about Tenet, and he's written a book on the subject, and what the Bush administration wanted from him - they got.



Tenet was looking to get out of the kitchen cause it was too hot. As I stated several times the CIA is an independent agency, I think I proved it with the CIA's website. Then you get people saying that the CIA is an executive indepedent agency that is an oxymoron.


----------



## Zoomie1980

Teri B. said:


> Like they ignored Gonzales in the Justice Dept.?
> 
> Look, you don't have to take my word for any of it.
> 
> <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5zW20m1-OJc&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5zW20m1-OJc&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>



Justice Department is a bit unique, at least at the attorney level.  That's a fairly small community.  The big departments like defense, state, education, commerce, interior, and especially intelligence, for the most part, pay lip service to their political appointee bosses.  The day-in, day-out operations barely notice nor care who's at the top.  Intel works much today as it did 20 years ago.  Aircrews fly and ground crews maintain pretty much as they have for 85 years of military aviation.  The FAA does it's thing much the same now as it did under Clinton.  The IRS does what it does, regardless of who runs it at the tip.  My local USDA field office functions today much like it did 50 years ago, just more automated now.....etc....


----------



## Teri B.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/p9zhpdsbrxs&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/p9zhpdsbrxs&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-b32CpmZVYc&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-b32CpmZVYc&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>


----------



## DeadCanDance

jreeves said:


> Tenet was looking to get out of the kitchen cause it was too hot. As I stated several times the CIA is an independent agency, I think I proved it with the CIA's website. Then you get people saying that the CIA is an executive indepedent agency that is an oxymoron.





You're actually quite slow and dim witted, so let me explain this again.  Try moving your lips while you read, for greater comprehenstion. 

The Executive Branch of the Federal Government consists of 1) The Office of the Presidency.  2) The Executive _Departments_, like Department of Defense, Department of Treasury, etc., 3) And Independent _Agencies_.  "Independent" does not mean their outside the Executive Branch of government.  It means they are "independent", in that they are not within one of the Federal Executive _Departments_.  They are not some fourth, "indepedent" branch of governement.  They are still in the Executive branch of the federal government.   Agencies and Departments are two separate government functions, but they are both in the Executive Branch. 




> *Independent agencies of the United States government*
> 
> Independent agencies of the United States government are those that exist outside of the _departments_ (Treasury, Defense, Commerce) of the executive branch. Established through separate statutes passed by the U.S. Congress, each respective statutory grant of authority defines the goals the agency must work towards, as well as what substantive areas, if any, it may have the power of rulemaking over.
> 
> The executive _departments_ are the major operating units of the U.S. federal government, but many other _agencies_ have important responsibilities for serving the public interest and carrying out government operations. *Executive branch independent agencies are not part of a fourth branch of government; they are part of the executive branch, but are not part of a specific executive department (e.g. Defense, Treasury, Commerce). *
> 
> Examples of independent agencies
> 
> * *The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)* coordinates the intelligence activities of certain government departments and agencies; collects, correlates, and evaluates intelligence information relating to national security; and makes recommendations to the National Security Council within the Office of the President.
> 
> * The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) regulates commodity futures and option markets in the United States. The agency protects market participants against manipulation, abusive trade practices and fraud. Through effective oversight and regulation, the CFTC enables the markets to serve better their important functions in the nation's economy providing a mechanism for price discovery and a means of offsetting price risk.
> 
> * The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) works with state and local governments throughout the United States to control and abate pollution in the air and water and to deal with problems related to solid waste, pesticides, radiation, and toxic substances. EPA sets and enforces standards for air and water quality, evaluates the impact of pesticides and chemical substances, and manages the "Superfund" program for cleaning toxic waste sites.
> 
> * The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire,
> satellite, and cable. It licenses radio and television broadcast stations, assigns radio frequencies, and enforces regulations designed to ensure that cable rates are reasonable. The FCC regulates common carriers, such as telephone and telegraph companies, as well as wireless telecommunications service providers.
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_United_States_government






> *Independent Agencies of the Federal Executive Branch*
> 
> source usa.gov
> 
> http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/Federal/Executive.shtml
> *http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/Federal/Independent.shtml*


----------



## Teri B.

Some Iraq Analysts Felt Pressure From Cheney Visits

By Walter Pincus and Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, June 5, 2003; Page A01 

Vice President Cheney and his most senior aide made multiple trips to the CIA over the past year to question analysts studying Iraq's weapons programs and alleged links to al Qaeda, creating an environment in which some analysts felt they were being pressured to make their assessments fit with the Bush administration's policy objectives, according to senior intelligence officials. 

With Cheney taking the lead in the administration last August in advocating military action against Iraq by claiming it had weapons of mass destruction, the visits by the vice president and his chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, "sent signals, intended or otherwise, that a certain output was desired from here," one senior agency official said yesterday. 

Other agency officials said they were not influenced by the visits from the vice president's office, and some said they welcomed them. But the disclosure of Cheney's unusual hands-on role comes on the heels of mounting concern from intelligence officials and members of Congress that the administration may have exaggerated intelligence it received about Iraq to build a case for war. 

While visits to CIA headquarters by a vice president are not unprecedented, they are unusual, according to intelligence officials. The exact number of trips by Cheney to the CIA could not be learned, but one agency official described them as "multiple." They were taken in addition to Cheney's regular attendance at President Bush's morning intelligence briefings and the special briefings the vice president receives when he is at an undisclosed location for security reasons. 

A spokeswoman for Cheney would not discuss the matter yesterday. "The vice president values the hard work of the intelligence community, but his office has a practice of declining to comment on the specifics of his intelligence briefings," said Cathie Martin, the vice president's public affairs director. 

Concern over the administration's prewar claims about Iraq has been growing in Congress and among intelligence officials as a result of the failure to uncover any weapons of mass destruction two months after the collapse of the Iraqi government. Similar ferment is building in Britain, where Prime Minister Tony Blair is under pressure from within the Labor Party to explain whether British intelligence may have overstated the case of Iraq's covert weapons programs. Blair pledged yesterday to cooperate with a parliamentary probe of the government's use of intelligence material. 

In a signal of administration concern over the controversy, two senior Pentagon officials yesterday held a news conference to challenge allegations that they pressured the CIA or other agencies to slant intelligence for political reasons. "I know of no pressure," said Douglas J. Feith, undersecretary for policy. "I know of nobody who pressured anybody." 

Feith said a special Pentagon office to analyze intelligence in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks did not necessarily focus on Iraq but came up with "some interesting observations about the linkages between Iraq and al Qaeda." 

Officials in the intelligence community and on Capitol Hill, however, have described the office as an alternative source of intelligence analysis that helped the administration make its case that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat. 

Government sources said CIA analysts were not the only ones who felt pressure from their superiors to support public statements by Bush, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and others about the threat posed by Hussein. 

Former and current intelligence officials said they felt a continual drumbeat, not only from Cheney and Libby, but also from Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, Feith, and less so from CIA Director George J. Tenet, to find information or write reports in a way that would help the administration make the case that going into Iraq was urgent. 

"They were the browbeaters," said a former defense intelligence official who attended some of the meetings in which Wolfowitz and others pressed for a different approach to the assessments they were receiving. "In interagency meetings," he said, "Wolfowitz treated the analysts' work with contempt." 

Others saw the intervention of senior officials as being more responsible. Libby, who helped prepare intelligence analysis for the vice president, made several trips to the CIA with National Security Council officials during preparations for Powell's Feb. 5 presentation to the U.N. Security Council, officials said. He was described by one senior analyst as "an avid consumer of intelligence and the asker of many questions." 

Such visits permitted Cheney and Libby to have direct exchanges with analysts, rather than asking questions of their daily briefers, who direct others to prepare responses that result in additional papers, senior administration sources said. Their goal was to have a free flow of information and not to intimidate the analysts, although some may well have misinterpreted questions as directives, said some sources sympathetic to their approach. 

A senior defense official also defended Wolfowitz's questioning: "Does he ask hard questions? Absolutely. I don't think he was trying to get people to come up with answers that weren't true. He's looking for data and answers and he gets frustrated with a lack of answers and diligence and with things that can't be defended." 

A major focus for Wolfowitz and others in the Pentagon was finding intelligence to prove a connection between Hussein and Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda terrorist network. 

On the day of the attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center,Wolfowitz told senior officials at the Pentagon that he believed Iraq might have been responsible. "I was scratching my head because everyone else thought of al Qaeda," said a former senior defense official who was in one such meeting. Over the following year, "we got taskers to review the link between al Qaeda and Iraq. There was a very aggressive search." 

In the winter of 2001-02, officials who worked with Wolfowitz sent the Defense Intelligence Agency a message: Get hold of Laurie Mylroie's book, which claimed Hussein was behind the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, and see if you can prove it, one former defense official said. 

The DIA's Middle East analysts were familiar with the book, "Study of Revenge: The First World Trade Center Attack and Saddam Hussein's War Against America." But they and others in the U.S. intelligence community were convinced that radical Islamic fundamentalists, not Iraq, were involved. "The message was, why can't we prove this is right?" said the official. 

Retired Vice Adm. Thomas R. Wilson, then director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, directed his Middle East analysts to go through the book again, check all the allegations and see if they could be substantiated, said one current and one former intelligence official familiar with the request. The staff was unable to make the link. 

This recounting of the book incident was disputed by a defense official who, like many others interviewed, requested anonymity. 

Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.), chairman of the House intelligence committee, said there is no indication that analysts at the DIA or CIA changed their analysis to fit what they perceived as the desire of the administration officials. Goss and other members of the intelligence oversight panels said they have received no whistle-blower complaints from the CIA or other intelligence agencies on the issue. 

Tenet has asked four retired senior CIA analysts to review all the major prewar intelligence analyses of Hussein's weapons of mass destruction distributed to top policymakers before March 20, when the fighting began. They plan to compare what was written with postwar intelligence data. 

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John W. Warner (R-Va.) reiterated his desire to hold hearings on the administration's handling of the intelligence on Iraq despite divisions among congressional Republicans over whether an investigation, including public hearings, is necessary. Cheney privately briefed GOP senators on the weapons intelligence Tuesday. 

Warner is discussing a joint probe with intelligence committee Chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kan.).


----------



## jreeves

Teri B. said:


> Sokay.  Maybe I'll pay ya back later.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I realize that the CIA is listed as an "independent" agency.  We agree on that, but the point I've been trying to pound in is that the President picks the director, yes with congressional approval - when that's actually a factor.  The president is naturally going to pick someone who will do his bidding and run it the way he wants it run, correct?  And no, he didn't pick Tenet, but he could have replaced Tenet any time he wanted, so Tenet, as he admits, was eager to please the president.



9/11, the first gulf war there was less soliders in Kuwait than we anticipated, North Korea come on there is a long list....does that mean Bush was responsible for all of these...LOL


----------



## jreeves

DeadCanDance said:


> You're actually quite slow and dim witted, so let me explain this again.  Try moving your lips while you read, for greater comprehenstion.
> 
> The Executive Branch of the Federal Government consists of 1) The Office of the Presidency.  2) The Executive _Departments_, like Department of Defense, Department of Treasury, etc., 3) And Independent _Agencies_.  "Independent" does not mean their outside the Executive Branch of government.  It means they are "independent", in that they are not within one of the Federal Executive _Departments_.  They are not some fourth, "indepedent" branch of governement.  They are still in the Executive branch of the federal government.   Agencies and Departments are two separate government functions, but they are both in the Executive Branch.



It is independent...that influences major US policymakers


----------



## jreeves

jreeves said:


> It is independent...that influences major US policymakers



Tenet joined President-elect Bill Clinton's national security transition team. Clinton appointed Tenet Senior Director for Intelligence Programs at the National Security Council (1993-1995).[7][8]


Sounds as though he was a Bushie


----------



## DeadCanDance

jreeves said:


> It is independent...that influences major US policymakers




I guess this is as close as you'll ever get to admitting you were wrong. 

The CIA IS in the Executive Branch of the Federal Government. 

Of course, they are supposed to give non-partisan, indepedent analyses of intelligence.  Just like the Environmental Protection Agency is supposed to give non-partisan, independent analysis of environmental issues. 

But, they are in the Executive Branch, report to the President, and their performance is managed by, and accountable to, people that Bush appointed to manage those agencies.


----------



## jreeves

DeadCanDance said:


> I guess this is as close as you'll ever get to admitting you were wrong.
> 
> The CIA IS in the Executive Branch of the Federal Government.
> 
> Of course, they are supposed to give non-partisan, indepedent analyses of intelligence.  Just like the Environmental Protection Agency is supposed to give non-partisan, independent analysis of environmental issues.
> 
> But, they are in the Executive Branch, report to the President, and their performance is managed by, and accountable to, people that Bush appointed to manage those agencies.



It is an independent agency that collects information for the executive branch as well as Congress.


----------



## jreeves

DeadCanDance said:


> I guess this is as close as you'll ever get to admitting you were wrong.
> 
> The CIA IS in the Executive Branch of the Federal Government.
> 
> Of course, they are supposed to give non-partisan, indepedent analyses of intelligence.  Just like the Environmental Protection Agency is supposed to give non-partisan, independent analysis of environmental issues.
> 
> But, they are in the Executive Branch, report to the President, and their performance is managed by, and accountable to, people that Bush appointed to manage those agencies.



He wasn't appointed by Bush...he was appointed by Clinton


----------



## jreeves

jreeves said:


> He wasn't appointed by Bush...he was appointed by Clinton



http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/06/opinion/edrashid.php


----------



## jreeves

DeadCanDance said:


> I guess this is as close as you'll ever get to admitting you were wrong.
> 
> The CIA IS in the Executive Branch of the Federal Government.
> 
> Of course, they are supposed to give non-partisan, indepedent analyses of intelligence.  Just like the Environmental Protection Agency is supposed to give non-partisan, independent analysis of environmental issues.
> 
> But, they are in the Executive Branch, report to the President, and their performance is managed by, and accountable to, people that Bush appointed to manage those agencies.



CIAs primary mission is to collect, analyze, evaluate, and disseminate foreign intelligence to assist the President and senior US government policymakers in making decisions relating to national security. This is a very complex process and involves a variety of steps.

First, we have to identify a problem or an issue of national security concern to the US government. In some cases, CIA is directed to study an intelligence issuesuch as what activities terrorist organizations are planning, or how countries that have biological or chemical weapons plan to use these weaponsthen we look for a way to collect information about the problem.

There are several ways to collect information. Translating foreign newspaper and magazine articles and radio and television broadcasts provides open-source intelligence. Imagery satellites take pictures from space, and imagery analysts write reports about what they seefor example, how many airplanes are at a foreign military base. Signals analysts work to decrypt coded messages sent by other countries. Operations officers recruit foreigners to give information about their countries.

After the information is collected, intelligence analysts pull together the relevant information from all available sources and assess what is happening, why it is happening, what might occur next, and what it means for US interests. The result of this analytic effort is timely and objective assessments, free of any political bias, provided to senior US policymakers in the form of finished intelligence products that include written reports and oral briefings. One of these reports is the Presidents Daily Brief (PDB), an Intelligence Community product, which the US president and other senior officials receive each day.

It is important to know that CIA analysts only report the information and do not make policy recommendationsmaking policy is left to agencies such as the State Department and Department of Defense. These policymakers use the information that CIA provides to help them formulate US policy toward other countries. It is also important to know that CIA is not a law enforcement organization. That is the job of the FBI; however, the CIA and the FBI cooperate on a number of issues, such as counterintelligence and counterterrorism. Additionally, the CIA may also engage in covert action at the Presidents direction and in accordance with applicable law.

The US Congress has had oversight responsibility of the CIA since the Agency was established in 1947. However, prior to the mid-1970s, oversight was less formal. The 1980 Intelligence Oversight Act charged the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) with authorizing the programs of the intelligence agencies and overseeing their activities.


----------



## jillian

jreeves said:


> He wasn't appointed by Bush...he was appointed by Clinton



And retained by Bush who gave him the Presidential Medal of Freedom.


----------



## jreeves

jreeves said:


> CIAs primary mission is to collect, analyze, evaluate, and disseminate foreign intelligence to assist the President and senior US government policymakers in making decisions relating to national security. This is a very complex process and involves a variety of steps.
> 
> First, we have to identify a problem or an issue of national security concern to the US government. In some cases, CIA is directed to study an intelligence issuesuch as what activities terrorist organizations are planning, or how countries that have biological or chemical weapons plan to use these weaponsthen we look for a way to collect information about the problem.
> 
> There are several ways to collect information. Translating foreign newspaper and magazine articles and radio and television broadcasts provides open-source intelligence. Imagery satellites take pictures from space, and imagery analysts write reports about what they seefor example, how many airplanes are at a foreign military base. Signals analysts work to decrypt coded messages sent by other countries. Operations officers recruit foreigners to give information about their countries.
> 
> After the information is collected, intelligence analysts pull together the relevant information from all available sources and assess what is happening, why it is happening, what might occur next, and what it means for US interests. The result of this analytic effort is timely and objective assessments, free of any political bias, provided to senior US policymakers in the form of finished intelligence products that include written reports and oral briefings. One of these reports is the Presidents Daily Brief (PDB), an Intelligence Community product, which the US president and other senior officials receive each day.
> 
> It is important to know that CIA analysts only report the information and do not make policy recommendationsmaking policy is left to agencies such as the State Department and Department of Defense. These policymakers use the information that CIA provides to help them formulate US policy toward other countries. It is also important to know that CIA is not a law enforcement organization. That is the job of the FBI; however, the CIA and the FBI cooperate on a number of issues, such as counterintelligence and counterterrorism. Additionally, the CIA may also engage in covert action at the Presidents direction and in accordance with applicable law.
> 
> The US Congress has had oversight responsibility of the CIA since the Agency was established in 1947. However, prior to the mid-1970s, oversight was less formal. The 1980 Intelligence Oversight Act charged the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) with authorizing the programs of the intelligence agencies and overseeing their activities.



https://www.cia.gov/about-cia/todays-cia/what-we-do/index.html


----------



## jreeves

jillian said:


> And retained by Bush who gave him the Presidential Medal of Freedom.



Just so you know I was responding to this post from DCD;
But, they are in the Executive Branch, report to the President, and their performance is managed by, and accountable to, people that Bush appointed to manage those agencies.


----------



## jreeves

jreeves said:


> Just so you know I was responding to this post from DCD;
> But, they are in the Executive Branch, report to the President, and their performance is managed by, and accountable to, people that Bush appointed to manage those agencies.



Bob Woodward, in his book Plan of Attack,[32] wrote that Tenet privately lent his personal authority to the intelligence reports about weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq. At a meeting on December 12, 2002, he assured Bush that the evidence against Saddam Hussein amounted to a "slam dunk case." After several months of refusing to confirm this statement, Tenet later stated that this remark was taken out of context.


----------



## Teri B.

jreeves said:


> 9/11, the first gulf war there was less soliders in Kuwait than we anticipated, North Korea come on there is a long list....does that mean Bush was responsible for all of these...LOL









You've completely lost me.  What in the world does this have to do with whether the President picks someone to head the CIA who will do his bidding?


----------



## jreeves

Teri B. said:


> You've completely lost me.  What in the world does this have to do with whether the President picks someone to head the CIA who will do his bidding?



The inference is this, if the President controls the CIA then he could have cooked up intelligence for his political purposes. Well my point by the previous post was the President responsible for cooking those intelligence failures as well?


----------



## Teri B.

jreeves said:


> The inference is this, if the President controls the CIA then he could have cooked up intelligence for his political purposes. Well my point by the previous post was the President responsible for cooking those intelligence failures as well?



I guess they'd have to be examined on an individual basis.  But 9/11 was perpetrated by Al Qaeda, not Iraq, per the 9/11 Commission, and since we all saw the buildings fall, I'm pretty sure there's no confusion about that intelligence.  The first Gulf War was triggered by Sadam's invasion of Kuwait, which was pretty evident, since Kuwait didn't have to surmise they were invaded.   Korea was before I was born, and admittedly I'm woefully ignorant about that.

Look, I'm not saying that there weren't suspicions and even intelligence that suggested Sadam might have WMDs, but a large portion of the intelligence that was used to make the case for war was bogus, like the yellow cake, the mobile labs, Curveball, etc., and Bush was warned the intelligence wasn't reliable.  The Admin. ignored what they didn't want to acknowledge, and THEY MADE A CONNECTION TO 9/11 THAT DID NOT EXIST.


----------



## jreeves

Teri B. said:


> I guess they'd have to be examined on an individual basis.  But 9/11 was perpetrated by Al Qaeda, not Iraq, per the 9/11 Commission, and since we all saw the buildings fall, I'm pretty sure there's no confusion about that intelligence.  The first Gulf War was triggered by Sadam's invasion of Kuwait, which was pretty evident, since Kuwait didn't have to surmise they were invaded.   Korea was before I was born, and admittedly I'm woefully ignorant about that.
> 
> Look, I'm not saying that there weren't suspicions and even intelligence that suggested Sadam might have WMDs, but a large portion of the intelligence that was used to make the case for war was bogus, like the yellow cake, the mobile labs, Curveball, etc., and Bush was warned the intelligence wasn't reliable.  The Admin. ignored what they didn't want to acknowledge, and THEY MADE A CONNECTION TO 9/11 THAT DID NOT EXIST.



I think you misunderstood, the intelligence failures in those three that I cited, are this; before 9/11 the intelligence community failed to notify the President and Congress that there was an immeninent attack from AQ, in the first Gulf War the intelligence community failed in its calculation of Iraqi troops in Kuwait(less troops than they believed), regarding North Korea the intelligence community believed they were years away from developing an actual Nuke. That's my point, intelligence failures happen all the time, it doesn't mean there is a consiparcy theory that the President is dictating policy through the CIA.


----------



## Teri B.

jreeves said:


> I think you misunderstood, the intelligence failures in those three that I cited, are this; before 9/11 the intelligence community failed to notify the President and Congress that there was an immeninent attack from AQ, in the first Gulf War the intelligence community failed in its calculation of Iraqi troops in Kuwait(less troops than they believed), regarding North Korea the intelligence community believed they were years away from developing an actual Nuke. That's my point, intelligence failures happen all the time, it doesn't mean there is a consiparcy theory that the President is dictating policy through the CIA.



Wrong.  They WERE warned about 9/11:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E5D9143AF931A25751C0A9639C8B63

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/index.htm

But where the really big lie comes in, is the Admin. connecting this war to 9/11, without a shred of evidence.  That part, the part that was compelling to the American people and the Congress, was completely fabricated.


----------



## steeliniraq

So if I understand this all right Bush is wrong and lied and didnt do the right thing.  IF THAT IS THE CASE SHOULD THE AMERICAN PEOPLE NOT BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR ELECTING A EVIL, LYING, PRESIDENT AFTER HE LIED TO START A WAR?


----------



## jreeves

Teri B. said:


> Wrong.  They WERE warned about 9/11:
> 
> http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E5D9143AF931A25751C0A9639C8B63
> 
> http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/index.htm
> 
> But where the really big lie comes in, is the Admin. connecting this war to 9/11, without a shred of evidence.  That part, the part that was compelling to the American people and the Congress, was completely fabricated.



Under the heading ''the next three to five years,'' Mr. Clarke spelled out a series of steps building on groundwork that he said had already been laid, adding that ''success can only be achieved if the pace and resource levels of the programs continue to grow as planned.'' 

As far as Clinton goes he failed to combat terrorism, USS Cole bombing, African embassy bombings and cutting and running from Somali all proved to the terrorists that we were a paper tiger as I seem to remember Bin Laden saying.
The strategy paper recounted past Qaeda plots against Americans abroad and at home and said an informant had reported ''that an extensive network of al Qida 'sleeper' agents currently exists in the U.S.'' After reviewing steps taken since 1996 to combat Al Qaeda, the document listed further actions required to make the network ''not a serious threat'' within three to five years. 
Mr. O'Hanlon called Mr. Clarke's memorandums a set of ''very dry data points. There's not a heightened sense of, 'Now our homeland is at risk.''' 

Mr. Clarke did not respond to a request for comment.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

The President DID NOT link Iraq with the 9/11 attacks. In fact he specifically stated over and over there WAS NO LINK. Another talking point liberal lie.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> The President DID NOT link Iraq with the 9/11 attacks. In fact he specifically stated over and over there WAS NO LINK. Another talking point liberal lie.



Cheney most certainly linked Iraq with Atta ....  that IS linking Iraq with 9/11.  period.


----------



## DeadCanDance

RetiredGySgt said:


> The President DID NOT link Iraq with the 9/11 attacks. In fact he specifically stated over and over there WAS NO LINK. Another talking point liberal lie.



BushCo. never directly linked the Taliban to 9/11 either.  There is no evidence the Taliban knew about the 9/11 attack in advance, or assisted in executing it.    Bush merely told us that the Taliban were harboring and aiding those who attacked us on 9/11.  WHICH WAS TRUE.  

Then, BushCo. told us that Saddam was harboring, aiding, and training al qaeda.  And that the lead 9/11 hijacker met with Iraqi intelligence agents.  WHICH WERE FALSE.

The 2006 Iraq Intelligence review explicity stated that Saddam considered radical global islamic jihadists a threat to his own regime.  That he never trained or harbored them.  In addition, the 2002 NIE stated that Saddam would be unlikely to ever give WMD to Al Qaeda, unless he were attacked or invaded by the US.  

The falsehoods, innuendo, and lies that you, Bush, Cheney, etc told us about Saddam and Al Qaeda were false, yet were used as justification to send thousands of americans to their deaths.  And to spend upwards of  a trillion dollars of taxpayer money.   Shameful.


----------



## Teri B.

RetiredGySgt said:


> The President DID NOT link Iraq with the 9/11 attacks. In fact he specifically stated over and over there WAS NO LINK. Another talking point liberal lie.



Seriously?  Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Powell had been said this repeatedly.  I already posted a clip of Tim Russert getting Cheney to finally admit there was no connection.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/12/kerry.powell.iraq/index.html

I honestly can't believe y'all are still arguing about this.  This is so 3 yrs. ago.


----------



## mattskramer

RetiredGySgt said:


> The President DID NOT link Iraq with the 9/11 attacks. In fact he specifically stated over and over there WAS NO LINK. Another talking point liberal lie.



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.

Examples are listed here:

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


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> Cheney most certainly linked Iraq with Atta ....  that IS linking Iraq with 9/11.  period.



Wrong ...and as stated close to a lie in its implication...

A foreign intell service linked Iraq to Atta....Cheney repeated that claim, stating "we just don't know".....

so put Cheney's comment into context....


----------



## Shogun

for real.. put it on a t shirt and wear it to the polls later this year.  I want you to make that case to every voter you pass on the sidewalk leading into the voting booth.


----------



## Alpha1

DeadCanDance said:


> BushCo. never directly linked the Taliban to 9/11 either.  There is no evidence the Taliban knew about the 9/11 attack in advance, or assisted in executing it.    Bush merely told us that the Taliban were harboring and aiding those who attacked us on 9/11.  WHICH WAS TRUE.
> 
> Then, BushCo. told us that Saddam was harboring, aiding, and training al qaeda.
> *OUR intell and foreign told Bush and the US this....*
> 
> And that the lead 9/11 hijacker met with Iraqi intelligence agents.  WHICH WERE FALSE.
> *Czech intell made these claims, not Bush and not Cheney...Czech intell*
> 
> The 2006 Iraq Intelligence review explicity stated that Saddam considered radical global islamic jihadists a threat to his own regime.  That he never trained or harbored them.
> *What was learned in 2006 in irrelevant to decisions made in 2001/2002*
> 
> In addition, the 2002 NIE stated that Saddam would be unlikely to ever give WMD to Al Qaeda, unless he were attacked or invaded by the US.
> 
> *The NIE of 10/2002 also plainly stated, "BAGHDAD HAS BW AND CW" and giving it to others ? So what? Your just as dead no matter where it comes from...*
> 
> The falsehoods, innuendo, and lies that you, Bush, Cheney, etc told us about Saddam and Al Qaeda were false, yet were used as justification to send thousands of americans to their deaths.  And to spend upwards of  a trillion dollars of taxpayer money.   Shameful.



Some of what EVERYONE told you about Saddam and AQ were false...Clinton, Gore, Peloci, Bush, Cheney, etc....what prevents you assholds from telling the truth and in context...???


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> Wrong ...and as stated close to a lie in its implication...
> 
> A foreign intell service linked Iraq to Atta....Cheney repeated that claim, stating "we just don't know".....
> 
> so put Cheney's comment into context....



His repeating the claim DID link Iraq and 9/11.


----------



## DeadCanDance

Alpha1 said:


> Some of what *EVERYONE* told you about Saddam and AQ were false...Clinton, Gore, Peloci, Bush, Cheney, etc....what prevents you assholds from telling the truth and in context...???



Everyone?  LOL.  It may be that you were fooled into thinking that Saddam was aiding, harboring, and training Al Qaeda.  You get your news from Matt Drudge and the RNC website. 

Me?  I wasn't fooled like you were.  I get my information from multiple sources, including credible middle east experts.  And unlike you, I was fully aware in 2003 that Saddam was very, very unlikely to harbor, train, and assist Al Qaeda.  Lots of people (not you apparently) knew in 2003 that the alleged ties between Saddam and al qaeda were tenuous at best, outright exaggerations and falsehoods at worst.


----------



## jreeves

DeadCanDance said:


> BushCo. never directly linked the Taliban to 9/11 either.  There is no evidence the Taliban knew about the 9/11 attack in advance, or assisted in executing it.    Bush merely told us that the Taliban were harboring and aiding those who attacked us on 9/11.  WHICH WAS TRUE.
> 
> Then, BushCo. told us that Saddam was harboring, aiding, and training al qaeda.  And that the lead 9/11 hijacker met with Iraqi intelligence agents.  WHICH WERE FALSE.
> 
> The 2006 Iraq Intelligence review explicity stated that Saddam considered radical global islamic jihadists a threat to his own regime.  That he never trained or harbored them.  In addition, the 2002 NIE stated that Saddam would be unlikely to ever give WMD to Al Qaeda, unless he were attacked or invaded by the US.
> 
> The falsehoods, innuendo, and lies that you, Bush, Cheney, etc told us about Saddam and Al Qaeda were false, yet were used as justification to send thousands of americans to their deaths.  And to spend upwards of  a trillion dollars of taxpayer money.   Shameful.



Ok, if Bush misled the U.S people with false intelligence what was the purpose for 1? Second of all how did he also get other countries to say that Saddam had WMD's? Remember your the one's saying that the coalition was non-exstient. Anyone?


----------



## jreeves

maineman said:


> Cheney most certainly linked Iraq with Atta ....  that IS linking Iraq with 9/11.  period.



Even if Bush stated there was no connection. Sounds as though you were connecting dots that weren't there hardly Bush's fault.


----------



## maineman

jreeves said:


> Even if Bush stated there was no connection. Sounds as though you were connecting dots that weren't there hardly Bush's fault.


It was indeed the fault of the Bush administration...

If I were to say in an interview:  "I have heard from jreeves' neighbor, that he has been seen out in his back yard having sex with sheep, but we can't be absolutely sure"....

are you suggesting that I would NOT have made a connection between you and the crime of sodomy with animals?


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> It was indeed the fault of the Bush administration...
> 
> If I were to say in an interview:  "I have heard from jreeves' neighbor, that he has been seen out in his back yard having sex with sheep, but we can't be absolutely sure"....
> 
> are you suggesting that I would NOT have made a connection between you and the crime of sodomy with animals?



I don't know what your problem is, but I'll bet its hard to pronounce...


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> I don't know what your problem is, but I'll bet its hard to pronounce...



just address the validity of the analogy, if you would.


----------



## -Cp

Bush Lied About Weapons of Mass Destruction????????????????????????? 

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." 
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." 
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here.  For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." 
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998 

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."   
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." 
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998 

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." 
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." 
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs.  Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status.  In addition, Saddam continues 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, December 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 mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the 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 

"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 

SO NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES??? 
  HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM...........


----------



## Shogun

Pt it on a t shirt and wear it to the polls, dude.   See how far it gets you this side of the 04 election.


----------



## mattskramer

-Cp said:


> Bush Lied About Weapons of Mass Destruction?????????????????????????
> 
> "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
> - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
> 
> "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
> - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
> 
> "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here.  For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
> - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
> 
> "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
> - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
> 
> "We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
> - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
> 
> "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
> - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
> 
> "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
> - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
> 
> "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs.  Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status.  In addition, Saddam continues 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, December 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 mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the 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
> 
> "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
> 
> SO NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES???
> HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM...........



So those Democrats who claimed that Saddam had WMD were evidently wrong.  They may have even lied too.  Yet, they did not have the responsibility of pushing the red button.


----------



## -Cp

mattskramer said:


> So those Democrats who claimed that Saddam had WMD were evidently wrong.  They may have even lied too.  Yet, they did not have the responsibility of pushing the red button.



actually.. they DID have the responsibility... they (Congress) VOTED for it - I can't believe how many people don't understand the way our government works.... 

No President can start a way w/o the approval from Congress...


----------



## maineman

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." 
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 
*no statement of certainty that Saddam actually HAD any stockpiles of WMD's*

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." 
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 
*no statement of certainty that Saddam actually HAD any stockpiles of WMD's*

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here.  For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." 
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998 
*no statement of certainty that Saddam actually HAD any stockpiles of WMD's*


"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."   
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 
*no statement of certainty that Saddam actually HAD any stockpiles of WMD's*


"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." 
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998 
*no statement of certainty that Saddam actually HAD any stockpiles of WMD's*


"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." 
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 
*no statement of certainty that Saddam actually HAD any stockpiles of WMD's*


"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." 
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 
*no statement of certainty that Saddam actually HAD any stockpiles of WMD's*

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs.  Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status.  In addition, Saddam continues 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, December 5, 2001 
*no statement of certainty that Saddam actually HAD any 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 mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." 
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 
*no statement of certainty that Saddam actually HAD any 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 a true statement*

"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 
*no statement of certainty that Saddam actually HAD any 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 
*no statement of certainty that Saddam actually HAD any 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 
*not a wise statement...but confidence is still a notch below certainty*

"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 
*no statement of certainty that Saddam actually HAD any 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 
*no statement of certainty that Saddam actually HAD any stockpiles of WMD's*

"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 
*no statement of certainty that Saddam actually HAD any stockpiles of WMD's*

"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 
*no statement of certainty that Saddam actually HAD any stockpiles of WMD's*

"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 
*no statement of certainty that Saddam actually HAD any stockpiles of WMD's*

"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 
*no statement of certainty that Saddam actually HAD any stockpiles of WMD's*


----------



## maineman

-Cp said:


> actually.. they DID have the responsibility... they (Congress) VOTED for it - I can't believe how many people don't understand the way our government works....
> 
> No President can start a way w/o the approval from Congress...



a majority of congressional democrats voted against the war.

republicans in congress were nearly unanimous in their votes for the war.


----------



## -Cp

maineman said:


> "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
> - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
> *not a true statement*



All the quotes are 100% accurate:


http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp


----------



## Alpha1

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


Did you watch and listen carefully?

Cased Closed....


----------



## maineman

-Cp said:


> All the quotes are 100&#37; accurate:
> 
> 
> http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp



I never said that the quote was not accurate.  I said that Gore's statement was not a true statement.  He should not have said that.  my comments about the other quotes are equally accurate.


----------



## mattskramer

-Cp said:


> actually.. they DID have the responsibility... they (Congress) VOTED for it -



What did they vote for - authorization or war?



> No President can start a way w/o the approval from Congress...



Did congress tell the president to declare war?
Okay.  I might be wrong.  You and MM might help me understand the declaration of war thing.   Did congress authorize Bush to take action if and when he saw fit?  In other words, in a manner of speaking, did congress say practically say Okay Mr. President.  It is up to you now.  We give you permission to go to war if you want to or did congress declare war? In other words, in a manner of speaking, did congress practically say Okay.  This is war.  We are going to war.  We, the congess, the president, America is going to war!  There is a difference.


----------



## mattskramer

mattskramer said:


> What did they vote for - authorization or war?
> 
> 
> 
> Did congress tell the president to declare war?
> Okay.  I might be wrong.  You and MM might help me understand the declaration of war thing.   Did congress authorize Bush to take action if and when he saw fit?  In other words, in a manner of speaking, did congress say practically say Okay Mr. President.  It is up to you now.  We give you permission to go to war if you want to or did congress declare war? In other words, in a manner of speaking, did congress practically say Okay.  This is war.  We are going to war.  We, the congess, the president, America is going to war!  There is a difference.



It is like my allowing my brother to borrow my toys if and when he wants to borrow them or telling my brother to borrow my toys.


----------



## -Cp

maineman said:


> a majority of congressional democrats voted against the war.
> 
> republicans in congress were nearly unanimous in their votes for the war.



Really? A "Majority" of them eh? Hmmm.. there are sure TONS of "D's" in the "yea" column...

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

Grouped By Vote Position YEAs ---77 
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bond (R-MO)
Breaux (D-LA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Campbell (R-CO)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
Daschle (D-SD)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
 Edwards (D-NC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Fitzgerald (R-IL)
Frist (R-TN)
Gramm (R-TX)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Helms (R-NC)
Hollings (D-SC)
Hutchinson (R-AR)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
 McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Miller (D-GA)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Nickles (R-OK)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Santorum (R-PA)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-NH)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thompson (R-TN)
Thurmond (R-SC)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)

NAYs ---23 
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
 Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
 Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)


----------



## -Cp

maineman said:


> I never said that the quote was not accurate.  I said that Gore's statement was not a true statement.  He should not have said that.  my comments about the other quotes are equally accurate.



Your comments about stockpiles are irrelevant....


----------



## -Cp

Was Clinton Lying here when he "pushed the red button" on Iraq?

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ENAV_UoIfgc&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ENAV_UoIfgc&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>


----------



## -Cp

Or was Clinton Lying here? 

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/BnceSIxxOYg&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/BnceSIxxOYg&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>


----------



## -Cp

Was Al Gore lying here about Saddam's ties to Terrorism and had over 1400 terrorits in Iraq? 

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/eJTzKPBQZ94&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/eJTzKPBQZ94&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>


----------



## maineman

-Cp said:


> Really? A "Majority" of them eh? Hmmm.. there are sure TONS of "D's" in the "yea" column...



obviously, math is not one of your strong suits.

Do yourself a favor.  count up the number of democrats that were serving in congress when the vote was taken.

Then count up the number of democrats who voted for the resolution.

Then tell me if the second number is MORE THAN half of the first number or LESS THAN half.

I'll wait.


----------



## mattskramer

mattskramer said:


> What did they vote for - authorization or war?
> 
> 
> 
> Did congress tell the president to declare war?
> Okay.  I might be wrong.  You and MM might help me understand the declaration of war thing.   Did congress authorize Bush to take action if and when he saw fit?  In other words, in a manner of speaking, did congress say practically say Okay Mr. President.  It is up to you now.  We give you permission to go to war if you want to or did congress declare war? In other words, in a manner of speaking, did congress practically say Okay.  This is war.  We are going to war.  We, the congess, the president, America is going to war!  There is a difference.



I did not mean for my question to be rhetorical.  Would someone please explain it to me?  Did congress say that we are going to war or did they simply allow the president to take action if and when he wanted to do so?


----------



## -Cp

maineman said:


> obviously, math is not one of your strong suits.
> 
> Do yourself a favor.  count up the number of democrats that were serving in congress when the vote was taken.
> 
> Then count up the number of democrats who voted for the resolution.
> 
> Then tell me if the second number is MORE THAN half of the first number or LESS THAN half.
> 
> I'll wait.



Huh.. I see 29 D's for the war... and less than 23 against it..... 

United States Senate
Party	Ayes	Nays	No Vote
Republican	48	1	0
Democratic	29	21	0
Independent	0	1	0
TOTALS	77	23	0


one of these days, you'd serve yourself well to pull your head out of your ass...


----------



## -Cp

mattskramer said:


> I did not mean for my question to be rhetorical.  Would someone please explain it to me?  Did congress say that we are going to war or did they simply allow the president to take action if and when he wanted to do so?



Google is a wonderful tool...

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


----------



## maineman

-Cp said:


> Huh.. I see 29 D's for the war... and less than 23 against it.....
> 
> United States Senate
> Party	Ayes	Nays	No Vote
> Republican	48	1	0
> Democratic	29	21	0
> Independent	0	1	0
> TOTALS	77	23	0
> 
> 
> one of these days, you'd serve yourself well to pull your head out of your ass...



gosh...and when I took civics class, I was told that CONGRESS consisted of two chambers..the senate and the house.

now go be a good little boy and do the math problem correctly.  count up the democrats IN CONGRESS and then count up the democrats IN CONGRESS who voted for the resolution....and wipe your own shit off your neck before you do.


----------



## mattskramer

-Cp said:


> Google is a wonderful tool...
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution



_The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."_

Thanks.  I see how it could be interpreted in a couple of ways.  It would have been nice had Congress been more specific and said Go to war if they thought that we should go to war.


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> gosh...and when I took civics class, I was told that CONGRESS consisted of two chambers..the senate and the house.
> 
> now go be a good little boy and do the math problem correctly.  count up the democrats IN CONGRESS and then count up the democrats IN CONGRESS who voted for the resolution....and wipe your own shit off your neck before you do.



Seems the only thing you do is play those silly freekin' games...if it ain't numbers, its semantics. Go listen to the you tube video of Al Gore and defend him....and wipe your mouth...theres a little bullshit still around your lips...


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> Seems the only thing you do is play those silly freekin' games...if it ain't numbers, its semantics. Go listen to the you tube video of Al Gore and defend him....and wipe your mouth...theres a little bullshit still around your lips...




again... I really don't CARE about what Al Gore said.  What does Al Gore have to do with anything that happened after he left office?  Al Gore was not the president who took us to war, and Al Gore was not amongst the majority of democratic congressmen who voted against taking us to war.


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> again... I really don't CARE about what Al Gore said.  What does Al Gore have to do with anything that happened after he left office?  Al Gore was not the president who took us to war, and Al Gore was not amongst the majority of democratic congressmen who voted against taking us to war.



Again....I really don't CARE if 5 or 10 more Dims voted against the resolution than voted for it....the most important fact is that* ENOUGH DEMS in favor of the resolution to PASS IT THROUGH CONGRESS*.....its time you noticed the forest rather than thinking its important to count the trees....


----------



## -Cp

maineman said:


> again... I really don't CARE about what Al Gore said.  What does Al Gore have to do with anything that happened after he left office?  Al Gore was not the president who took us to war, and Al Gore was not amongst the majority of democratic congressmen who voted against taking us to war.



You're right! It was Bill Clinton that took us to War.... 

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ENAV_UoIfgc&rel=1&border=0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ENAV_UoIfgc&rel=1&border=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent"width="425" height="355"></embed></object>


----------



## maineman

hey  -cp

clean that shit off your collar yet? 

civics whiz!


----------



## maineman

-Cp said:


> You're right! It was Bill Clinton that took us to War....


a few missile strikes ain't a war, sonny.


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> Again....I really don't CARE if 5 or 10 more Dims voted against the resolution than voted for it....the most important fact is that* ENOUGH DEMS in favor of the resolution to PASS IT THROUGH CONGRESS*.....its time you noticed the forest rather than thinking its important to count the trees....



with damned near every republican voting for it, you only needed a handful!

you got a minority of democrats.  a majority of democrat's elected to office at the federal level opposed the war.  If you could say the same thing about republicans, there wouldn't have BEEN a goddamn war.


----------



## jillian

maineman said:


> with damned near every republican voting for it, you only needed a handful!
> 
> you got a minority of democrats.  a majority of democrat's elected to office at the federal level opposed the war.  If you could say the same thing about republicans, there wouldn't have BEEN a goddamn war.



Yeah, but they wouldn't send anything to the floor, anyway, if it needed a single democratic vote to pass.


----------



## jreeves

maineman said:


> It was indeed the fault of the Bush administration...
> 
> If I were to say in an interview:  "I have heard from jreeves' neighbor, that he has been seen out in his back yard having sex with sheep, but we can't be absolutely sure"....
> 
> are you suggesting that I would NOT have made a connection between you and the crime of sodomy with animals?



Take an intellectual debate and turn it to a personal attack....shows your pattern of thought though. I would be able to say that was asinine comment and be correct because it was.


----------



## jreeves

jreeves said:


> Ok, if Bush misled the U.S people with false intelligence what was the purpose for 1? Second of all how did he also get other countries to say that Saddam had WMD's? Remember your the one's saying that the coalition was non-exstient. Anyone?



None of you liberals, have answered this question from my previous post...


----------



## jreeves

maineman said:


> with damned near every republican voting for it, you only needed a handful!
> 
> you got a minority of democrats.  a majority of democrat's elected to office at the federal level opposed the war.  If you could say the same thing about republicans, there wouldn't have BEEN a goddamn war.



If your previous post to me didn't prove it this sure does....LOL


----------



## jreeves

jillian said:


> Yeah, but they wouldn't send anything to the floor, anyway, if it needed a single democratic vote to pass.



Just like the juidical nominees now right.....


----------



## jreeves

-Cp said:


> Really? A "Majority" of them eh? Hmmm.. there are sure TONS of "D's" in the "yea" column...
> 
> http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237
> 
> Grouped By Vote Position YEAs ---77
> Allard (R-CO)
> Allen (R-VA)
> Baucus (D-MT)
> Bayh (D-IN)
> Bennett (R-UT)
> Biden (D-DE)
> Bond (R-MO)
> Breaux (D-LA)
> Brownback (R-KS)
> Bunning (R-KY)
> Burns (R-MT)
> Campbell (R-CO)
> Cantwell (D-WA)
> Carnahan (D-MO)
> Carper (D-DE)
> Cleland (D-GA)
> Clinton (D-NY)
> Cochran (R-MS)
> Collins (R-ME)
> Craig (R-ID)
> Crapo (R-ID)
> Daschle (D-SD)
> DeWine (R-OH)
> Dodd (D-CT)
> Domenici (R-NM)
> Dorgan (D-ND)
> Edwards (D-NC)
> Ensign (R-NV)
> Enzi (R-WY)
> Feinstein (D-CA)
> Fitzgerald (R-IL)
> Frist (R-TN)
> Gramm (R-TX)
> Grassley (R-IA)
> Gregg (R-NH)
> Hagel (R-NE)
> Harkin (D-IA)
> Hatch (R-UT)
> Helms (R-NC)
> Hollings (D-SC)
> Hutchinson (R-AR)
> Hutchison (R-TX)
> Inhofe (R-OK)
> Johnson (D-SD)
> Kerry (D-MA)
> Kohl (D-WI)
> Kyl (R-AZ)
> Landrieu (D-LA)
> Lieberman (D-CT)
> Lincoln (D-AR)
> Lott (R-MS)
> Lugar (R-IN)
> McCain (R-AZ)
> McConnell (R-KY)
> Miller (D-GA)
> Murkowski (R-AK)
> Nelson (D-FL)
> Nelson (D-NE)
> Nickles (R-OK)
> Reid (D-NV)
> Roberts (R-KS)
> Rockefeller (D-WV)
> Santorum (R-PA)
> Schumer (D-NY)
> Sessions (R-AL)
> Shelby (R-AL)
> Smith (R-NH)
> Smith (R-OR)
> Snowe (R-ME)
> Specter (R-PA)
> Stevens (R-AK)
> Thomas (R-WY)
> Thompson (R-TN)
> Thurmond (R-SC)
> Torricelli (D-NJ)
> Voinovich (R-OH)
> Warner (R-VA)
> 
> NAYs ---23
> Akaka (D-HI)
> Bingaman (D-NM)
> Boxer (D-CA)
> Byrd (D-WV)
> Chafee (R-RI)
> Conrad (D-ND)
> Corzine (D-NJ)
> Dayton (D-MN)
> Durbin (D-IL)
> Feingold (D-WI)
> Graham (D-FL)
> Inouye (D-HI)
> Jeffords (I-VT)
> Kennedy (D-MA)
> Leahy (D-VT)
> Levin (D-MI)
> Mikulski (D-MD)
> Murray (D-WA)
> Reed (D-RI)
> Sarbanes (D-MD)
> Stabenow (D-MI)
> Wellstone (D-MN)
> Wyden (D-OR)



The nays would have had it if all the democrats would have voted Nay


----------



## jillian

jreeves said:


> The nays would have had it if all the democrats would have voted Nay



If it couldn't pass without democratic votes, it wouldn't have been sent to the floor.


----------



## maineman

jreeves said:


> The nays would have had it if all the democrats would have voted Nay



what's your point?  that some democrats fucked up?  I know that.  They are ALL on my shitlist until they publicly repent.   It still does not change the fact that in CONGRESS, a MAJORITY OF DEMOCRATS did NOT vote for the use of force.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

jillian said:


> If it couldn't pass without democratic votes, it wouldn't have been sent to the floor.



And yet only 22 voted against it. Make that 21 since 2 republicans voted no. Ohh wait only 20 democrats voted no as one of the no votes was an independent.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> what's your point?  that some democrats fucked up?  I know that.  They are ALL on my shitlist until they publicly repent.   It still does not change the fact that in CONGRESS, a MAJORITY OF DEMOCRATS did NOT vote for the use of force.



Yes a "majority" of democrats DID vote for it. unless your claiming there were only 40 democrats in the Senate?


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> Yes a "majority" of democrats DID vote for it. unless your claiming there were only 40 democrats in the Senate?



I say that a majority of democrats in *congress* votes against the resolution.  

would you like to bet money that I am wrong? 

name the amount.


----------



## maineman

cat got your tongue?

or have you learned your civics lesson for the day?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> I say that a majority of democrats in *congress* votes against the resolution.
> 
> would you like to bet money that I am wrong?
> 
> name the amount.



The specific vote provided in the Senate proves your wrong IN the Senate. A majority of Democrats in fact DID vote for that measure. Or do I need to remind that more than 40 democrats were in the Senate at that vote? Do I need to list for you all the democrats names in the Senate that voted FOR the measure.

Now you can play your word games all you want and claim that the House dems didn't but that does NOT change the fact that the LISTED vote was from the SENATE and in fact a MAJORITY of Democratic Senators voted FOR it.

Maybe YOU need the civics lesson?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> cat got your tongue?
> 
> or have you learned your civics lesson for the day?



And once again only losers resort to claiming on a message board that a failure to respond as fast as you want is somehow a win for themselves.


----------



## jillian

RetiredGySgt said:


> And once again only losers resort to claiming on a message board that a failure to respond as fast as you want is somehow a win for themselves.



Please remember that next time you harass someone else for having a life and not posting right away.  

Hope you're feeling better, btw.


----------



## jreeves

jreeves said:


> None of you liberals, have answered this question from my previous post...



I think this is the third time I have asked this question...so if you can't answer those questions you can't exactly say he misled us Americans.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> The specific vote provided in the Senate proves your wrong IN the Senate. A majority of Democrats in fact DID vote for that measure. Or do I need to remind that more than 40 democrats were in the Senate at that vote? Do I need to list for you all the democrats names in the Senate that voted FOR the measure.
> 
> Now you can play your word games all you want and claim that the House dems didn't but that does NOT change the fact that the LISTED vote was from the SENATE and in fact a MAJORITY of Democratic Senators voted FOR it.
> 
> Maybe YOU need the civics lesson?




go back and read what I said, and what I have only said all along - bitch - and you will see that I have said - ALL ALONG - that a majority of democrats IN CONGRESS  voted against the measure.  Now, do you want to bet that I am wrong about THAT, or do you want to crawl under a fucking rock and hide - or do you want to admit that I am right.  TAKE YOUR FUCKING PICK - BITCH.  I'll wait.  

Ask yourself again..what does the fucking word CONGRESS really mean....bitch.


----------



## jreeves

maineman said:


> go back and read what I said, and what I have only said all along - bitch - and you will see that I have said - ALL ALONG - that a majority of democrats IN CONGRESS  voted against the measure.  Now, do you want to bet that I am wrong about THAT, or do you want to crawl under a fucking rock and hide - or do you want to admit that I am right.  TAKE YOUR FUCKING PICK - BITCH.  I'll wait.
> 
> Ask yourself again..what does the fucking word CONGRESS really mean....bitch.



The liberalistic agenda call people bitches and avoid the issues...LOL


----------



## maineman

jreeves said:


> The liberalistic agenda call people bitches and avoid the issues...LOL




I avoid nothing. 

go back and read my position on this matter:  it has never changed.  A majority of congressional democrats voted against the war in Iraq.  The republican party was nearly unanimous in their support of it.

I am proud of that distinction.


bitch.


----------



## jreeves

maineman said:


> I avoid nothing.
> 
> go back and read my position on this matter:  it has never changed.  A majority of congressional democrats voted against the war in Iraq.  The republican party was nearly unanimous in their support of it.
> 
> I am proud of that distinction.
> 
> 
> bitch.



You still haven't answered the question I have asked now 4 times from liberals??????????????????? waiting.....


----------



## jreeves

jreeves said:


> You still haven't answered the question I have asked now 4 times from liberals??????????????????? waiting.....



BTW its post 937..


----------



## maineman

RGS:

go review:

911
917
922
924
926
940
942
944 (oops)
945
947 (oops)

and then see if you can spell "mea culpa"


----------



## jreeves

maineman said:


> RGS:
> 
> go review:
> 
> 911
> 917
> 922
> 924
> 926
> 940
> 942
> 944 (oops)
> 945
> 947 (oops)
> 
> and then see if you can spell "mea culpa"



Just answer the question or can you?


----------



## Dr Grump

jreeves said:


> Ok, if Bush misled the U.S people with false intelligence what was the purpose for 1? Second of all how did he also get other countries to say that Saddam had WMD's? Remember your the one's saying that the coalition was non-exstient. Anyone?



I don't think it was false, I just don't think they really knew what was going on and made shit up to satisfy the president, and he took bits and pieces from it that served his purpose. He didn't get other countries to do squat, I believe their sources were the same. 

What coalition? Of the willing? You mean like Albania and Lithuania? That coalition?? LOL...The 1991 Gulf War - now that was as coalition..


----------



## maineman

Ok, if Bush misled the U.S people with false intelligence what was the purpose for 1? Second of all how did he also get other countries to say that Saddam had WMD's? Remember your the one's saying that the coalition was non-exstient. Anyone?

I direct your attention to:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

that illuminates clearly the purpose for Bush's deception.

any questions?


----------



## maineman

jreeves said:


> Just answer the question or can you?



my post was in response to RGS...

you: shut the fuck up.

I answered you later.


----------



## jreeves

Dr Grump said:


> I don't think it was false, I just don't think they really knew what was going on and made shit up to satisfy the president, and he took bits and pieces from it that served his purpose. He didn't get other countries to do squat, I believe their sources were the same.
> 
> What coalition? Of the willing? You mean like Albania and Lithuania? That coalition?? LOL...The 1991 Gulf War - now that was as coalition..



No world intelligence said that Saddam had WMD's how did Bush mislead them, So there was no motive in going to war with Iraq, Bush did it just to do it? Is that what you are saying? What was his purpose??


----------



## jreeves

maineman said:


> Ok, if Bush misled the U.S people with false intelligence what was the purpose for 1? Second of all how did he also get other countries to say that Saddam had WMD's? Remember your the one's saying that the coalition was non-exstient. Anyone?
> 
> I direct your attention to:
> 
> http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
> 
> that illuminates clearly the purpose for Bush's deception.
> 
> any questions?



You answer the question don't give a post, that's not an answer....


----------



## Dr Grump

jreeves said:


> No world intelligence said that Saddam had WMD's how did Bush mislead them, So there was no motive in going to war with Iraq, Bush did it just to do it? Is that what you are saying? What was his purpose??



I'd say they all got their intelligence from the same source. Bush wanted Sadman out for various reasons:
1) Oil
2) Payback for 9-11
3) Sadman was said to have tried to kill his pa
4) (and this reason is more peripheral and a consequence of his actions) Help make his friends rich


----------



## jreeves

Dr Grump said:


> I'd say they all got their intelligence from the same source. Bush wanted Sadman out for various reasons:
> 1) Oil
> 2) Payback for 9-11
> 3) Sadman was said to have tried to kill his pa
> 4) (and this reason is more peripheral and a consequence of his actions) Help make his friends rich



Seems funny on #1 that we didn't go in there and start distributing that oil in the U.S. hmmm....funny huh
So as previous liberals have stated there is no connection between 9/11 and Iraq, you are now claiming that there was??
As far as #3 why didn't Bush go into Iraq and take out Saddam before 2003, I mean Saddam defied inspectors for years prior, why wouldn't Bush use that for justification.
 Take that and put those reasons in Obamas mouth and his poll #'s would take a sucide dive into hell. As far as the second question, what source would that be?


----------



## maineman

jreeves said:


> You answer the question don't give a post, that's not an answer....



If you are capable of reading, it answers your question completely.... 

but then, I have no knowledge of your ability to read for comprehension.


----------



## jreeves

maineman said:


> If you are capable of reading, it answers your question completely....
> 
> but then, I have no knowledge of your ability to read for comprehension.



It does...#1 America has benefited from Iraq's oil, #2 you have stated there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11, #3 If it was about assination why did he wait until 3 years in office to take action, plus couldn't he just have had Saddam assassinated instead of invading Iraq?

Those are not legitmate answers to the questions...sorry


----------



## maineman

jreeves said:


> It does...#1 America has benefited from Iraq's oil, #2 you have stated there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11, #3 If it was about assination why did he wait until 3 years in office to take action, plus couldn't he just have had Saddam assassinated instead of invading Iraq?
> 
> Those are not legitmate answers to the questions...sorry




you obviously did not read the PNAC link.

there is little I can say in the face of such willful ignorance.


----------



## jreeves

maineman said:


> you obviously did not read the PNAC link.
> 
> there is little I can say in the face of such willful ignorance.



"You" haven't answered the question, I didn't ask you to post a weblink. I asked you to answer the question. So, still waiting.....


----------



## jreeves

jreeves said:


> "You" haven't answered the question, I didn't ask you to post a weblink. I asked you to answer the question. So, still waiting.....




I mean if it's so clear "you" should be able to answer the two questions right?


----------



## maineman

jreeves said:


> "You" haven't answered the question, I didn't ask you to post a weblink. I asked you to answer the question. So, still waiting.....



the answer is clearly contained in the website.  I cannot write the PNAC agenda any better than they can....

is this a site for the exchange of knowledge or are you merely playing debating games?

The reason Bush invaded Iraq is written clearly in the PNAC statement of purpose.

either read it or ignore it...but quit whining.


----------



## jreeves

maineman said:


> the answer is clearly contained in the website.  I cannot write the PNAC agenda any better than they can....
> 
> is this a site for the exchange of knowledge or are you merely playing debating games?
> 
> The reason Bush invaded Iraq is written clearly in the PNAC statement of purpose.
> 
> either read it or ignore it...but quit whining.



I get it you can't answer the questions...


----------



## maineman

jreeves said:


> I get it you can't answer the questions...



I can and did.  now do some reading and then we'll talk some more.


----------



## jreeves

maineman said:


> I can and did.  now do some reading and then we'll talk some more.



You can't pull the answers out??? Again can't answer the questions.....


----------



## maineman

jreeves said:


> You can't pull the answers out??? Again can't answer the questions.....



I refuse to force feed you.  If you are incapable of reading things longer than a soundbite, I really have no use for you. get thee to the kiddie's table forthwith.


----------



## Dr Grump

jreeves said:


> Seems funny on #1 that we didn't go in there and start distributing that oil in the U.S. hmmm....funny huh
> So as previous liberals have stated there is no connection between 9/11 and Iraq, you are now claiming that there was??
> As far as #3 why didn't Bush go into Iraq and take out Saddam before 2003, I mean Saddam defied inspectors for years prior, why wouldn't Bush use that for justification.
> Take that and put those reasons in Obamas mouth and his poll #'s would take a sucide dive into hell. As far as the second question, what source would that be?



1) Who said it was about giving oil to America? It's more about ensuring a stable supply and stable oil prices.
2) No, there was no connection re 9-11 and Iraq, but that didn't stop Cheney et al giving out the perception there was a connection.
3) Because 9-11 hadn't happened and it took him a while to get the coalition together.But once it was set, in he went. 
As for number two, Cheney has on several occasions tried to make the link. It has been documented on a number of occasions on this board. Not about to do it yet AGAIN for a newbie. Either do a google or do a thread search..

Thing is Jeeves, Obama wouldn't have gone in the first place...


----------



## jreeves

maineman said:


> I refuse to force feed you.  If you are incapable of reading things longer than a soundbite, I really have no use for you. get thee to the kiddie's table forthwith.



Can't answer the questions.....LOL Yes.....Anyway I proved my point you have no motive and reason the "World's" intelligence community said Saddam had WMD's...Avoid if you like it just proves your ignorance...LOL


----------



## maineman

jreeves said:


> Can't answer the questions.....LOL Yes.....Anyway I proved my point you have no motive and reason the "World's" intelligence community said Saddam had WMD's...Avoid if you like it just proves your ignorance...LOL



the world's intelligence communities THOUGHT that saddam might have WMD's.... 
 only Bush told us that their existence was an absolute certainty.

Only Bush made the case that Saddam had been in cahoots with Al Qaeda BEFORE 9/11 and therefore was primed to give THEM the WMD's that certainly existed... both the connection and the certainty were LIES and misled us into war.


----------



## jreeves

maineman said:


> the world's intelligence communities THOUGHT that saddam might have WMD's....
> only Bush told us that their existence was an absolute certainty.
> 
> Only Bush made the case that Saddam had been in cahoots with Al Qaeda BEFORE 9/11 and therefore was primed to give THEM the WMD's that certainly existed... both the connection and the certainty were LIES and misled us into war.



Answer them correctly the debate is over...but you haven't


----------



## maineman

jreeves said:


> Answer them correctly the debate is over...but you haven't



according to YOU? 

who the fuck made you the rule maker?

I answered your questions.

now go shove my answers up your ass and rotate on them.

the debate IS over!


----------



## jreeves

jreeves said:


> Answer them correctly the debate is over...but you haven't



See this shows....
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213


----------



## jreeves

jreeves said:


> See this shows....
> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213



Even when faced with reality you turn a blind eye....LOL


----------



## jillian

World Net Daily? lol...    

I'd suggest actually reading the Duelfer report... Hans Blix's final report, too.


----------



## jreeves

jillian said:


> World Net Daily? lol...
> 
> I'd suggest actually reading the Duelfer report... Hans Blix's final report, too.



I pose the same questions to you??


----------



## jillian

jreeves said:


> I pose the same questions to you??




I've been reading your ridiculousness. You've already been taken to school. I really can't be bothered.

Carry on, though.


----------



## maineman

jreeves said:


> I pose the same questions to you??



she's given you two more concrete things to read.  Blix...Duelfer...on top of PNAC.

and you give us worldnet daily? 

you are one funny motherfucker!


g'nite!


----------



## jreeves

maineman said:


> If you are capable of reading, it answers your question completely....
> 
> but then, I have no knowledge of your ability to read for comprehension.


http://www.davidlimbaugh.com/mt/archives/2005/11/new_column_a_ma.html


----------



## jreeves

maineman said:


> she's given you two more concrete things to read.  Blix...Duelfer...on top of PNAC.
> 
> and you give us worldnet daily?
> 
> you are one funny motherfucker!
> 
> 
> g'nite!



Think for yourself then, answer the two questions I posed??


----------



## jreeves

maineman said:


> the world's intelligence communities THOUGHT that saddam might have WMD's....
> only Bush told us that their existence was an absolute certainty.
> 
> Only Bush made the case that Saddam had been in cahoots with Al Qaeda BEFORE 9/11 and therefore was primed to give THEM the WMD's that certainly existed... both the connection and the certainty were LIES and misled us into war.



Sorry, can't stand for BS, Bush denied there was a connection between 9/11 and Iraq...but weren't you just saying Bush invaded Iraq because of 9/11...The Gump post...How easily we forget...LOL


----------



## jreeves

jillian said:


> I've been reading your ridiculousness. You've already been taken to school. I really can't be bothered.
> 
> Carry on, though.



You must agree with calling people bitches, sodomizers and other such BS because you are liberal too huh....funny...LOL Like I said a liberalistic agenda


----------



## maineman

jreeves said:


> Sorry, can't stand for BS, Bush denied there was a connection between 9/11 and Iraq...but weren't you just saying Bush invaded Iraq because of 9/11...The Gump post...How easily we forget...LOL




Cheney clearly and unambiguously made the connection between Iraqi intelligence and Atta supposedly BEFORE 9/11.  That is fact.  not BS.

try again


----------



## jreeves

maineman said:


> Cheney clearly and unambiguously made the connection between Iraqi intelligence and Atta supposedly BEFORE 9/11.  That is fact.  not BS.
> 
> try again



No motive and I have proved through the previous post that the world believed that Iraq had WMDS...


----------



## jillian

jreeves said:


> You must agree with calling people bitches, sodomizers and other such BS because you are liberal too huh....funny...LOL Like I said a liberalistic agenda



Where did you ever see me post to anyone using those terms?

But now you understand why I wouldn't bother "debating" with you.


----------



## Dr Grump

jreeves said:


> Sorry, can't stand for BS, Bush denied there was a connection between 9/11 and Iraq...but weren't you just saying Bush invaded Iraq because of 9/11...The Gump post...How easily we forget...LOL



YOu never answered my post 975..this after all your babbling about people not answering yours! 

You babble on about libs this, libs that etc, but it's always the Conservatives who start with the name calling. Must be because, at heart, they are still school kids..


----------



## jreeves

jillian said:


> Where did you ever see me post to anyone using those terms?
> 
> But now you understand why I wouldn't bother "debating" with you.



Well at least you don't support those comments. Thanks


----------



## jreeves

Dr Grump said:


> YOu never answered my post 975..this after all your babbling about people not answering yours!
> 
> You babble on about libs this, libs that etc, but it's always the Conservatives who start with the name calling. Must be because, at heart, they are still school kids..



Actually I think if you go through my posts...I have tried to refrain from name calling as it is not issue oriented....I will look at 975 now though one sec....


----------



## jillian

jreeves said:


> Well at least you don't support those comments. Thanks



We've all got our own styles.


----------



## jreeves

Dr Grump said:


> 1) Who said it was about giving oil to America? It's more about ensuring a stable supply and stable oil prices.
> 2) No, there was no connection re 9-11 and Iraq, but that didn't stop Cheney et al giving out the perception there was a connection.
> 3) Because 9-11 hadn't happened and it took him a while to get the coalition together.But once it was set, in he went.
> As for number two, Cheney has on several occasions tried to make the link. It has been documented on a number of occasions on this board. Not about to do it yet AGAIN for a newbie. Either do a google or do a thread search..
> 
> Thing is Jeeves, Obama wouldn't have gone in the first place...



Didn't know this was a question, but ok. #1 , We couldn't have done that by say invading a country without terrorist, like say Venezuela. #2 No wait you said that the reason Bush invaded Iraq was because of 9/11 right...so what are you saying now?? #3 But previous posters said there was no coalition to amount to anything.....

As far as my second question...you completely missed it, if Bush misled America, how did he get most of the World's intelligence community to say Saddam had WMD's??


----------



## steeliniraq

Its funny in a way.  Republicans send their military to war to benefit the nation in their eyes.  They always benefit themselves off it may I point out.  Democrats send the military to war for other reasons.  Humanitarian, peace keeping.  LOL I hear a lot of people on here crying that the republicans lied.  I hear the democrats lied too.  Dont they all lie?  People, democrat and republican, lie to get what they need and/or want.  What I dont hear a lot of is what do we do now.  Can we actually have an intelligent conversation/debate on how we can be successful in Iraq and then get out?


----------



## Dr Grump

jreeves said:


> Didn't know this was a question, but ok. #1 , We couldn't have done that by say invading a country without terrorist, like say Venezuela. #2 No wait you said that the reason Bush invaded Iraq was because of 9/11 right...so what are you saying now?? #3 But previous posters said there was no coalition to amount to anything.....
> 
> As far as my second question...you completely missed it, if Bush misled America, how did he get most of the World's intelligence community to say Saddam had WMD's??



It may not have been written in question format, but I thought it would at least illicit a response of some sort considering you seem so hot on the topic.

1) No, because there was no history with Venezuela. There was with Saddam. And Iraq was a dictatorship (which gave Bush et al "free the oppressed" excuse, too). Venezuala is not a dictatorship, nor has Chevez committed the atrocities that Sadman did.

2) Yes, 9-11 was one of the excuses used via perception (as opposed to outright saying it) to invade Iraq.

3) Please list the information these "world" intelligence communities had. Name the organisations and their specific information. And you missed my point. As far as I can tell the information the "world" collected could have been from the same source. The fact the "world" wasn't involved in the coalition of the willing suggests that maybe the info was flawed.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> go back and read what I said, and what I have only said all along - bitch - and you will see that I have said - ALL ALONG - that a majority of democrats IN CONGRESS  voted against the measure.  Now, do you want to bet that I am wrong about THAT, or do you want to crawl under a fucking rock and hide - or do you want to admit that I am right.  TAKE YOUR FUCKING PICK - BITCH.  I'll wait.
> 
> Ask yourself again..what does the fucking word CONGRESS really mean....bitch.



Remind us again how you deplore name calling and insults.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> my post was in response to RGS...
> 
> you: shut the fuck up.
> 
> I answered you later.



Didn't we have a conversation about language and ordering people about?


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> Remind us again how you deplore name calling and insults.


remind me again how you are dead wrong about my words, once again.

I get tired of schooling you.


----------



## maineman

jreeves said:


> No motive and I have proved through the previous post that the world believed that Iraq had WMDS...




no motive????

to connect AQ and Iraq was essential to tap into the anger/fear that America was feeling about 9/11.  Without that, the war in Iraq would have NEVER been endorsed by the people...and therefore, never voted on by the politicians.  Bush needed to make Iraq about terror and terror about 9/11... and give it a sense of urgency so that even waiting the three or four months it would have taken for Blix & Co. to tell us that Saddam did not have any WMD's was just too much time to waste.  We had to invade and we had to invade NOW!  Orange alert!  mushroom cloud!  Boo!


----------



## maineman

jreeves said:


> Think for yourself then, answer the two questions I posed??




I have.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> Remind us again how you deplore name calling and insults.


Alas, I deplore stubborn fools even more!

I suggest, again, that you go back and read those posts....it was ME who stated that a majority of democrats IN CONGRESS voted against the use of force resolution.  You and your moronic pals have jumped all over that statement as being in error and cited, as your "proof", the roll call from only one of the two chambers of congress.  So... Am I in error, or are YOU in error for questioning it...and questioning it.... and questioning it... and then denying that you fucked up?  I would suggest the latter.


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> no motive????
> 
> to connect AQ and Iraq was essential to tap into the anger/fear that America was feeling about 9/11.  Without that, the war in Iraq would have NEVER been endorsed by the people...and therefore, never voted on by the politicians.  Bush needed to make Iraq about terror and terror about 9/11... and give it a sense of urgency so that even waiting the three or four months it would have taken for Blix & Co. to tell us that Saddam did not have any WMD's was just too much time to waste.  We had to invade and we had to invade NOW!  Orange alert!  mushroom cloud!  Boo!



Really...so thats why the Clinton Administration tryed so hard to make these connections.....you are an ignorant fool to ignore the historical facts.....
The rumors about the AQ/Iraq connection are well documented....
WRONG...but well documented...

PAGE 128  9/11 report
Time....11/1998
....this passage led Clark, who for years had read intell reports on Iraqi-Sudanese
cooperation on chemical weapons, to specualte to Berger that a large Iraqi presence at chem
facilities in Khartoum was* "probably a direct result of the Iraq-Al Qida
agreement."  Clark added that VX precursor traces found near al Shifa were the 
"exact formula" used by Iraq."*

PAGE 61  9/11 Report
With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary,* Ben Ladin himself
met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995*
Ben Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance 
assistance in procuring weapons, but there in no evidence that Iraq responded to this
request...*As described below, the ensuring years saw additional efforts to 
establish connections....*

PAGE 66   9/11 Report
*There is also evidence that around this time Bin Ladin sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi 
regime, offering some cooperation.*  None are reported to received a response.
In mid 1998 the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In
March 1998, after Bin Ladin's public fatwa against the United States* two al Qaeda
members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence.* In July, *an Iraqi delegation
 traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Ben Ladin.*  Sources reported 
that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin's Egyptian
deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own the the Iraqis.

*Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have 
occured in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the 
Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe
haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined,  etc......*


----------



## jillian

I think you need to go read this instead of someone else's excerpts....

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/sept_11/911Report.pdf

the next part of the sentence on p. 128 was that the language (which was Clarke's speculation in any event) about the "understanding" between Iraq and AQ was dropped from the indictment that paragraph is discussing.

Since your first quote was misleading, I couldn't be bothered with the others. But it's probably a good idea to do your own research since WorldNetDaily is notoriously full of garbage.


----------



## rayboyusmc

So after all these posts, we are still of the consensus that Bush twisted the data, ingored information that he didn't like, cherry picked what he did like and outright lied in some cases.  And that Cheney will still on occasion lie on TV and say there was a connection between Saddam and 9-11.

Glad we have finally come to this conclusion.


----------



## DeadCanDance

Here's an honest republican, with the guts to say what most everyone else already knows is true. 

*Senator Coburn (R-Oklahoma): I Think It Was Probably A Mistake Going To Iraq *



http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080221_1_A1_spanc13621


At least he admist it's was a mistake invading.   Something that 95% of Bush voters can't bring themselves to do.


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> Really...so thats why the Clinton Administration tryed so hard to make these connections.....you are an ignorant fool to ignore the historical facts



again.  I really don't CARE about what the Clinton administration did.  The ONLY thing concerning Clinton that has any bearing on this discussion is what he DIDN'T do:  sex up the intelligence for the purpose of garnering public support for a major ground war in the middle east.

You always want to make this about some past presidents..this is about our CURRENT president...the guy who DID start that major ground war in the middle east, and the guy who is still the titular head of the administration that is still conducting that major ground war.  

Take your stuff about Clinton to www.irrelevanthistorychats.com.  Or let's start talking about what an asshole Nixon was...or Harding...or Grant, for that matter.


----------



## Alpha1

jillian said:


> I think you need to go read this instead of someone else's excerpts....
> 
> *Someone else's excerpts...????
> Those "excerpts" are directly from the 9/11 Commission Report...and the point is not if they are true of false, the point is (a historical fact) that from 1994 forward, these connections were suspected and FIRST put forth by Clintons Admin....
> *
> 
> 
> http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/sept_11/911Report.pdf
> 
> the next part of the sentence on p. 128 was that the language (which was Clarke's speculation in any event) about the "understanding" between Iraq and AQ was dropped from the indictment that paragraph is discussing.
> 
> *The fact that the accusation was dropped from the first indictment is irrelevant.....the fact that the speculation is ever made is whats relevant*
> 
> 
> Since your first quote was misleading, I couldn't be bothered with the others. But it's probably a good idea to do your own research since WorldNetDaily is notoriously full of garbage.


*No don't bother with the rest...cherry pick one and nit-pick it to death with irrelevant BS....*


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> again.  I really don't CARE about what the Clinton administration did.  The ONLY thing concerning Clinton that has any bearing on this discussion is what he DIDN'T do:  sex up the intelligence for the purpose of garnering public support for a major ground war in the middle east.
> 
> You always want to make this about some past presidents..this is about our CURRENT president...the guy who DID start that major ground war in the middle east, and the guy who is still the titular head of the administration that is still conducting that major ground war.
> 
> Take your stuff about Clinton to www.irrelevanthistorychats.com.  Or let's start talking about what an asshole Nixon was...or Harding...or Grant, for that matter.



probably a direct result of the Iraq-Al Qida agreement.???

Ben Ladin himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995????

two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence.
---------
I guess this nonsense isn't considered sexing up the intelligence for the purpose of garnering public support for demonizing Saddam and Iraq..but you know damn well thats exactly what it is.....there was NO PROOF then make these accusations and there is none now.....but the Dims made this kind of noise for 10 years.....


----------



## RetiredGySgt

DeadCanDance said:


> Here's an honest republican, with the guts to say what most everyone else already knows is true.
> 
> *Senator Coburn (R-Oklahoma): I Think It Was Probably A Mistake Going To Iraq *
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080221_1_A1_spanc13621
> 
> 
> At least he admist it's was a mistake invading.   Something that 95% of Bush voters can't bring themselves to do.



Your a liar and a partisan hack, a lot of supposed republicans on THIS board have agreed the invasion was not needed and was handled badly.

As for another of the liberal LIARS, Ray, there is no consensus that Bush lied, in fact the EVIDENCE is clear consistant and overwhelming he did no such thing. That would be why every investigation has eneded with a statement that in fact the Administration did NOT lie to anyone.

The only consensus we have here is retards thinking if they keep making ignorant unproven nonfactual claims eventually someone will believe them.


----------



## DeadCanDance

RetiredGySgt said:


> Your a liar and a partisan hack, a lot of supposed republicans on THIS board have agreed the invasion was not needed and was handled badly.
> 
> As for another of the liberal LIARS, Ray, there is no consensus that Bush lied, in fact the EVIDENCE is clear consistant and overwhelming he did no such thing. That would be why every investigation has eneded with a statement that in fact the Administration did NOT lie to anyone.
> 
> The only consensus we have here is retards thinking if they keep making ignorant unproven nonfactual claims eventually someone will believe them.





_a lot of supposed republicans on THIS board have agreed the invasion was not needed _


Great, so you agree now that you, Bush, Cheney, and the GOP, should have listened to me, Howard Dean, Barak Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and many others who said we shouldn't invade?  Instead of ridiculing us in 2003?   Well shit, we could have saved a trillion taxpayer dollars, and thousands of lives.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

DeadCanDance said:


> _a lot of supposed republicans on THIS board have agreed the invasion was not needed _
> 
> 
> Great, so you agree now that you, Bush, Cheney, and the GOP, should have listened to me, Howard Dean, Barak Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and many others who said we shouldn't invade?  Instead of ridiculing us in 2003?   Well shit, we could have saved a trillion taxpayer dollars, and thousands of lives.



I was not here in 2003 , I do not know if you were or not, but claiming that 5 years ago I ridiculed you or anyone else is rich, when you have nothing to back it up with except your partisan talking points and repeated partisan lies.


----------



## DeadCanDance

RetiredGySgt said:


> I was not here in 2003 , I do not know if you were or not, but claiming that 5 years ago I ridiculed you or anyone else is rich, when you have nothing to back it up with except your partisan talking points and repeated partisan lies.



LOL

Yeah, judging from your personality on this board, I'm so sure you were ever so respectful to anti-war americans in 2003.  lol.   I'm sure you were like almost all the rest of the Bush wingnuts.  Ridiculing us, and dismissing our questions about the need to go to war.     You really should be groveling and begging forgiveness.  You sent thousands to the deaths, and cost us taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars, on something that was a mistake.


----------



## JimH52

DeadCanDance said:


> Here's an honest republican, with the guts to say what most everyone else already knows is true.
> 
> *Senator Coburn (R-Oklahoma): I Think It Was Probably A Mistake Going To Iraq *
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080221_1_A1_spanc13621
> 
> 
> At least he admist it's was a mistake invading.   Something that 95% of Bush voters can't bring themselves to do.



The GOP will make large their contention that "the surge has worked" but in fact, the entire war was a huge mistake.

We are spending billions on a war that should never have started.  The choice in the upcoming election is easy.  You want to continue this monumental mistake or you want to make the Iraq government stand on its own two feet?  The choice will be simple.

Remember, McCain indicated we could be in Iraq for the next 100 years.


----------



## JimH52

DeadCanDance said:


> LOL
> 
> Yeah, judging from your personality on this board, I'm so sure you were ever so respectful to anti-war americans in 2003.  lol.   I'm sure you were like almost all the rest of the Bush wingnuts.  Ridiculing us, and dismissing our questions about the need to go to war.     You really should be groveling and begging forgiveness.  You sent thousands to the deaths, and cost us taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars, on something that was a mistake.




Remember all the French jokes that were circulating in those days because they would not go long with king george.  Well, guess what?  They were right!  There were no WMDs and the war was a mistake.


----------



## rayboyusmc

> The only consensus we have here is retards thinking if they keep making ignorant unproven nonfactual claims eventually someone will believe them.



I've noticed that Gunny, and I am not going to fall for it.  I refuse to believe what you say just because you keep repeating it.

Let's jus admit it.  The facts don't matter anymore.  It's all about what  you want to believe and not what is real.

And, Gunny,  why do you have to use the retard remark?  It's called a fucking difference of opinion.  There are just as many retards on the right as the left.


----------



## jreeves

maineman said:


> no motive????
> 
> to connect AQ and Iraq was essential to tap into the anger/fear that America was feeling about 9/11.  Without that, the war in Iraq would have NEVER been endorsed by the people...and therefore, never voted on by the politicians.  Bush needed to make Iraq about terror and terror about 9/11... and give it a sense of urgency so that even waiting the three or four months it would have taken for Blix & Co. to tell us that Saddam did not have any WMD's was just too much time to waste.  We had to invade and we had to invade NOW!  Orange alert!  mushroom cloud!  Boo!






It was George Tenet that made that connection, not Bush, as a matter of fact he stated there was no connection see.....



This letter from the DCI provided an unclassified CIA assessment of Saddam Hussein's willingness to use weapons of mass destruction. According to the letter, Iraq "for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or ... chemical and biological weapons against the United States," but if "Saddam should conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions." The letter also discusses the question of Iraqi links to Al-Qaeda and the basis for U.S. assessments of the links.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/#doc16


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> probably a direct result of the Iraq-Al Qida agreement.???
> 
> Ben Ladin himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995????
> 
> two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence.
> ---------
> I guess this nonsense isn't considered sexing up the intelligence for the purpose of garnering public support for demonizing Saddam and Iraq..but you know damn well thats exactly what it is.....there was NO PROOF then make these accusations and there is none now.....but the Dims made this kind of noise for 10 years.....




again.  I do not believe that anyone who understands the nature of wahabbism could ever seriously contemplate a situation where Saddam Hussein would provide training and material assistance to an organization that was created with the primary mission of destroying his regime.

I don't care what ANY politician said, I know that to be a fact.  I KNOW that lots of politicians from both sides of the aisle made lots of noise about Saddam, but anyone who tried to suggest any sort of substantive collaboration regarding training or material assistance from Saddam to Al Qaeda is,in my opinion, ill-informed.

And as it turns out, one particular politician MADE that ill-informed case to the American people and took our nation to war on the wings of it, and that decision has cost us 4K DEAD, 27K wounded, nearly a trillion dollars and five years.... and I believe that the political party of THAT politician has earned a time out.  I think that the republican party has earned America taking the keys away and making them sit in the corner for a decade or more.


----------



## jreeves

DeadCanDance said:


> LOL
> 
> Yeah, judging from your personality on this board, I'm so sure you were ever so respectful to anti-war americans in 2003.  lol.   I'm sure you were like almost ll the rest of the Bush wingnuts.  Ridiculing us, and dismissing our questions about the need to go to war.     You really should be groveling and begging forgiveness.  You sent thousands to the deaths, and cost us taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars, on something that was a mistake.



I've noticed on here a lot of you liberals claim that Bush went to war because

#1 For Oil- Ignorant thinking....If we were going into seize control of Iraq's Oil we would be shipping that Oil back to the U.S. now. That's not the case.
#2 You think Bush had some axe to grind with Saddam because of an alleged assassination plot.....Again Bush could have accomplished this without invading Iraq, say precision bombing, assiassination.........
#3 You say it was because of 9/11 this sounds to me like the best justification....because Bush was trying to protect our country.

Lastly if it's so clear, like you all state that Bush misled us. Then why hasn't a democratically controlled Congress impeached Bush by now. Because of the simple fact there is no evidence Bush misled us to war. Call your own President an idiot if you want. But the facts show the majority of you all actually supported the war at it's onset....Here's a poll.....


By February 2002, 74% of Americans supported taking military action to remove Saddam Hussein from power.[


----------



## maineman

jreeves said:


> I've noticed on here a lot of you liberals claim that Bush went to war because
> 
> #1 For Oil- Ignorant thinking....If we were going into seize control of Iraq's Oil we would be shipping that Oil back to the U.S. now. That's not the case.
> #2 You think Bush had some axe to grind with Saddam because of an alleged assassination plot.....Again Bush could have accomplished this without invading Iraq, say precision bombing, assiassination.........
> #3 You say it was because of 9/11 this sounds to me like the best justification....because Bush was trying to protect our country.
> 
> Lastly if it's so clear, like you all state that Bush misled us. Then why hasn't a democratically controlled Congress impeached Bush by now. Because of the simple fact there is no evidence Bush misled us to war. Call your own President an idiot if you want. But the facts show the majority of you all actually supported the war at it's onset....Here's a poll.....
> 
> 
> By February 2002, 74% of Americans supported taking military action to remove Saddam Hussein from power.[



again.  a majority of democrats in congress voted against the war in Iraq.  I remain proud of that fact.


----------



## jreeves

JimH52 said:


> Remember all the French jokes that were circulating in those days because they would not go long with king george.  Well, guess what?  They were right!  There were no WMDs and the war was a mistake.



This is relavant to the debate how....


----------



## jreeves

maineman said:


> again.  a majority of democrats in congress voted against the war in Iraq.  I remain proud of that fact.



How is this relavant to most Americans??


----------



## maineman

jreeves said:


> How is this relavant to most Americans??



so, I take it that you have abandoned your position that a majority of democrats voted for it?  good.

and it is relevant to the extent that most Americans think that Iraq has been a terrible mistake and making it clear to them which party got us into this mess is appropriately enlightening.


----------



## JimH52

jreeves said:


> How is this relavant to most Americans??



And explain again your relevance to intelligent life on earth.


----------



## jreeves

maineman said:


> so, I take it that you have abandoned your position that a majority of democrats voted for it?  good.
> 
> and it is relevant to the extent that most Americans think that Iraq has been a terrible mistake and making it clear to them which party got us into this mess is appropriately enlightening.



Bush had low approval numbers that last time he kicked your ass, so why should think this time it's going to be anything different? No, I haven't abandoned my position, It would seem if 74% of Americans supported the war then a majority of Democrats supported it as well right??


----------



## jreeves

jreeves said:


> Bush had low approval numbers that last time he kicked your ass, so why should think this time it's going to be anything different? No, I haven't abandoned my position, It would seem if 74% of Americans supported the war then a majority of Democrats supported it as well right??



Your now saying that Democrats aren't Americans, which sometimes with some of the fanatical raving I do question it.


----------



## jreeves

JimH52 said:


> And explain again your relevance to intelligent life on earth.



See, this is typical liberalistic behavior, name calling...Na,Na,ah,boo,boo....your dumb...LOL


----------



## maineman

jreeves said:


> Bush had low approval numbers that last time he kicked your ass, so why should think this time it's going to be anything different? No, I haven't abandoned my position, It would seem if 74% of Americans supported the war then a majority of Democrats supported it as well right??



fact:
a majority of congressional democrats voted against it.

and your inability to grasp simple mathematical concepts is really beyond me trying to fix. 

and you are kidding yourself if you think that McCain will bring out the vote against Obama in the fall.


----------



## eots

maineman said:


> fact:
> a majority of congressional democrats voted against it.
> 
> and your inability to grasp simple mathematical concepts is really beyond me trying to fix.
> 
> and you are kidding yourself if you think that McCain will bring out the vote against Obama in the fall.



NO KIDDING he is irrelavant..chosen to lose..disposable candidate..he is kerry...dole..


----------



## jreeves

maineman said:


> fact:
> a majority of congressional democrats voted against it.
> 
> and your inability to grasp simple mathematical concepts is really beyond me trying to fix.
> 
> and you are kidding yourself if you think that McCain will bring out the vote against Obama in the fall.



No your Liberalistic Times has united the Republican party.
Don't avoid that the majority of "American Democrats" supported the war. Proof is that 74% of Amercians supported the war.....So what your saying is that the Democrats in Congress didn't properly represent of the majority of it's constituients?LOL


----------



## RetiredGySgt

rayboyusmc said:


> I've noticed that Gunny, and I am not going to fall for it.  I refuse to believe what you say just because you keep repeating it.
> 
> Let's jus admit it.  The facts don't matter anymore.  It's all about what  you want to believe and not what is real.
> 
> And, Gunny,  why do you have to use the retard remark?  It's called a fucking difference of opinion.  There are just as many retards on the right as the left.




Retard is appropriate for an "opinion" that is couched as legal fact and presented as such by you and every other leftwing partisan hack on this board. And then we have you and others trying to claim consensus when there is absolutely none.

I have no problem with YOUR OPINION. But you and Maineman and DCD and the rest are not in fact claiming it is an opinion except when forced to when required to prove the "facts" you keep claiming. 

This thread is not opinion when it comes to you Bush bashing pavlovic left wing partisans. You only trot out the word opinion when forced to by the simple FACT there is not ONE SHRED of evidence you opinion is in fact true.


----------



## maineman

jreeves said:


> No your Liberalistic Times has united the Republican party.
> Don't avoid that the majority of "American Democrats" supported the war. Proof is that 74% of Amercians supported the war.....So what your saying is that the Democrats in Congress didn't properly represent of the majority of it's constituients?LOL



united the republican party?  LOL

that is really rich!  You guys are totally splintered now.


----------



## mattskramer

jreeves said:


> No your Liberalistic Times has united the Republican party.
> Don't avoid that the majority of "American Democrats" supported the war. Proof is that 74% of Amercians supported the war.....So what your saying is that the Democrats in Congress didn't properly represent of the majority of it's constituients?LOL



How do you arrive at the conclusion that a majority of American Democrats supported the war?  Do you have a link to a survey of American Democrats?


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> Retard is appropriate for an "opinion" that is couched as legal fact and presented as such by you and every other leftwing partisan hack on this board. And then we have you and others trying to claim consensus when there is absolutely none.
> 
> I have no problem with YOUR OPINION. But you and Maineman and DCD and the rest are not in fact claiming it is an opinion except when forced to when required to prove the "facts" you keep claiming.
> 
> This thread is not opinion when it comes to you Bush bashing pavlovic left wing partisans. You only trot out the word opinion when forced to by the simple FACT there is not ONE SHRED of evidence you opinion is in fact true.



hey..RGS...how ya coming on that math problem?  or was it a civics lesson?


----------



## maineman

943, 944, 945


----------



## maineman

If I asked you, RGS, to tell me how many total republicans were serving in congress, how would you arrive at the answer?  I suggest that you would count the number of republican representatives and the number of republican senators and add them together.  Am I right?


----------



## maineman

maineman said:


> what's your point?  that some democrats fucked up?  I know that.  They are ALL on my shitlist until they publicly repent.   It still does not change the fact that in CONGRESS, a MAJORITY OF DEMOCRATS did NOT vote for the use of force.



to which you replied:



RetiredGySgt said:


> Yes a "majority" of democrats DID vote for it. unless your claiming there were only 40 democrats in the Senate?



now...who has a problem with understanding the difference between congress and senate?  not me.  that would be you.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> If I asked you, RGS, to tell me how many total republicans were serving in congress, how would you arrive at the answer?  I suggest that you would count the number of republican representatives and the number of republican senators and add them together.  Am I right?



Once again for the retarded amongst us. IN THE SENATE a majority of Democrats voted FOR the war.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> Once again for the retarded amongst us. IN THE SENATE a majority of Democrats voted FOR the war.



ONce again...YOU were the one who replied to MY post.  I have NEVER denied that a majority of democrats in the sentat voted for it. What I have always said was that a majority of democrats in CONGRESS (house and senate) voted against it.  That is true...and you tried to say it wasn't by throwing up the vote from ONE chamber.  YOU are wrong and have been ever since you questioned my TRUE statement.

and you do not have the grace to admit that you said I was wrong when YOU are the one who WAS wrong.  The record in this thread is clear.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> ONce again...YOU were the one who replied to MY post.  I have NEVER denied that a majority of democrats in the sentat voted for it. What I have always said was that a majority of democrats in CONGRESS (house and senate) voted against it.  That is true...and you tried to say it wasn't by throwing up the vote from ONE chamber.  YOU are wrong and have been ever since you questioned my TRUE statement.
> 
> and you do not have the grace to admit that you said I was wrong when YOU are the one who WAS wrong.  The record in this thread is clear.



Sure is, your a whining crying little girl that has no dignity or grace. But do keep on posting in every thread on the board about how you just can not read nor comprehend.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> Sure is, your a whining crying little girl that has no dignity or grace. But do keep on posting in every thread on the board about how you just can not read nor comprehend.




I stated in this thread that a majority of democrats in congress voted against the use of force.  YOU replied to me and said that I was wrong and used, as your proof, the rollcall from the senate.  Clearly, you do not know what the term "congress" includes.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> I stated in this thread that a majority of democrats in congress voted against the use of force.  YOU replied to me and said that I was wrong and used, as your proof, the rollcall from the senate.  Clearly, you do not know what the term "congress" includes.



As for the Majority of Democrats, one finds that in fact 81 democrats in the House voted FOR war. To be sure 126 voted no, but the implication that if not for Republicans we would not have gone to war is ignorant, totally wrong and proven to be so.

296 Members of the House voted for war, a big majority of the House.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> As for the Majority of Democrats, one finds that in fact 81 democrats in the House voted FOR war. To be sure 126 voted no, but the implication that if not for Republicans we would not have gone to war is ignorant, totally wrong and proven to be so.
> 
> 296 Members of the House voted for war, a big majority of the House.
> 
> http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml




I said that a majority of democrats in congress voted against the war.... you replied: "Yes a "majority" of democrats DID vote for it."

You were and continue to be wrong.  I don't give a flying fuck about the votes of the sentate democrats.  I made a statement and you said I was wrong and YOU were the one who was wrong...and you don't have the grace to admit it.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> I said that a majority of democrats in congress voted against the war.... you replied: "Yes a "majority" of democrats DID vote for it."
> 
> You were and continue to be wrong.  I don't give a flying fuck about the votes of the sentate democrats.  I made a statement and you said I was wrong and YOU were the one who was wrong...and you don't have the grace to admit it.



Cry me a river, boo hoo hoo. I have been very clear about what I meant. You just want to play semantics.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> Cry me a river, boo hoo hoo. I have been very clear about what I meant. You just want to play semantics.



you were the one who replied to MY post.  You were wrong.  and still are...

and I have NEVER implied anything about that vote.  I have been explicit.  A majority of democrats in congress voted against the war.  I am proud of that fact.


----------



## mattskramer

maineman said:


> I said that a majority of democrats in congress voted against the war.... you replied: "Yes a "majority" of democrats DID vote for it."
> 
> You were and continue to be wrong.  I don't give a flying fuck about the votes of the sentate democrats.  I made a statement and you said I was wrong and YOU were the one who was wrong...and you don't have the grace to admit it.



Give it up.  I know how annoying it can be.  I&#8217;ve shown him to be technically wrong before.  Though it was obvious, he never admits it.   Just rest assured that other people are reading these threads too.  It is obvious that he was wrong.  A majority of democrats in congress voted against the use of force. Congress consists of more than just the Senate.  It is as simple as that.  Just give up on trying to get him to admit that he was wrong as it takes class to admit when you are wrong.  Just move on.


----------



## maineman

mattskramer said:


> Give it up.  I know how annoying it can be.  Ive shown him to be technically wrong before.  Though it was obvious, he never admits it.   Just rest assured that other people are reading these threads too.  It is obvious that he was wrong.  A majority of democrats in congress voted against the use of force. Congress consists of more than just the Senate.  It is as simple as that.  Just give up on trying to get him to admit that he was wrong as it takes class to admit when you are wrong.  Just move on.



you are right.  I had hoped for better from him.  silly me.


----------



## jreeves

maineman said:


> united the republican party?  LOL
> 
> that is really rich!  You guys are totally splintered now.



I suggest you look at Mccain's fundraising to see if the Republican party is uniting behind him. The article created millions of dollars for Mccain. Obama hasn't been exposed yet, but he will. Who's going to expose him now as a Liberal spending machine, Hillary....LOL


----------



## jreeves

mattskramer said:


> How do you arrive at the conclusion that a majority of American Democrats supported the war?  Do you have a link to a survey of American Democrats?



74% of Americans supported the war at the onset.....I don't think it takes a mathmetician to figure out that would translate to a majority of democrats as well.


----------



## mattskramer

jreeves said:


> 74% of Americans supported the war at the onset.....I don't think it takes a mathmetician to figure out that would translate to a majority of democrats as well.



Oh gaud.  Take a high school course in statistics, testing and measurement.  

First give me the survey that concluded that 74 percent of Americans supported the war.
What was the sample size?  What were the other demographics?  Did it account for each subjects political party affiliation?  (What if 99 percent of those polled were Republican hawks?)  What was the statistical error?  Your leap in logic leaves much to be desired.    

I understand that pro-war people would like to draw that conclusion, but your suggestion that since 74 percent of Americans supported the war, most Democrats supported the war is a very weak fallacious leap in logic.


----------



## jreeves

mattskramer said:


> Oh gaud.  Take a high school course in statistics, testing and measurement.
> 
> First give me the survey that concluded that 74 percent of Americans supported the war.
> What was the sample size?  What were the other demographics?  Did it account for each subjects political party affiliation?  (What if 99 percent of those polled were Republican hawks?)  What was the statistical error?  Your leap in logic leaves much to be desired.
> 
> I understand that pro-war people would like to draw that conclusion, but your suggestion that since 74 percent of Americans supported the war, most Democrats supported the war is a very weak fallacious leap in logic.



Of course you would like to destroy the basis for the poll but isn't it democrats who like citing polls. By February 2002, 74% of Americans supported taking military action to remove Saddam Hussein from power.[

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq


----------



## DeadCanDance

jreeves said:


> Of course you would like to destroy the basis for the poll but isn't it democrats who like citing polls. By February 2002, 74&#37; of Americans supported taking military action to remove Saddam Hussein from power.[
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq



You should have clicked on the wiki link to the actual poll.  Here's what it said:



> According to a CBS News/New York Times poll, Americans support the idea of using military force to remove Saddam Hussein. *But they overwhelmingly want diplomatic efforts and the inspections to run their course first -- they would want to see clear evidence against Iraq before going to war*. The poll found 63% of Americans want President Bush to find a diplomatic solution.


----------



## jreeves

DeadCanDance said:


> You should have clicked on the wiki link to the actual poll.  Here's what it said:



I think I actually stated in Feb. of 2002 support was at 74%, so maybe you should learn how to read..DCD


----------



## mattskramer

jreeves said:


> Of course you would like to destroy the basis for the poll but isn't it democrats who like citing polls. By February 2002, 74% of Americans supported taking military action to remove Saddam Hussein from power.[
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq



No.  I am not trying to destroy the poll.  I dont care to destroy the poll.  I even agree that most Americans, at least at one moment in time, were convinced that we should go to war in Iraq.  I am criticizing your attempt to claim that, based on this poll, most Democrats supported the war.


----------



## maineman

and it's all a tapdance to avoid admitting that he fucked up when he questioned my TRUE statement that a majority of democrats in congress voted against it.

pathetic.


----------



## jreeves

mattskramer said:


> No.  I am not trying to destroy the poll.  I dont care to destroy the poll.  I even agree that most Americans, at least at one moment in time, were convinced that we should go to war in Iraq.  I am criticizing your attempt to claim that, based on this poll, most Democrats supported the war.



By 73% to 24%, Americans said the war was morally justified when it began; today the public is divided, with 47% saying it is morally justified and 50% saying it is not.

Here's another poll for you....are you saying that in 2003 the electorate wasn't pretty close to split between Republicans and Democrats???


http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/donkeyrising/archives/001414.php


----------



## jreeves

maineman said:


> and it's all a tapdance to avoid admitting that he fucked up when he questioned my TRUE statement that a majority of democrats in congress voted against it.
> 
> pathetic.



not a tapdance the truth...you seem to have troubles with that...LOL


----------



## DeadCanDance

jreeves said:


> 74&#37; of Americans supported the war at the onset.....I don't think it takes a mathmetician to figure out that would translate to a majority of democrats as well.



I followed the wiki link for the 74% number to the actual poll.  You didn't. 

The poll said 74% supported military action IF and only IF, the inspections ran their course, and if Bush proved his case.   And further, that a large majority preferred a diplomatic solution.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

jreeves said:


> not a tapdance the truth...you seem to have troubles with that...LOL



You must learn that Maineman gets pissed if someone won't lick his boots and shine his shoes. He thinks he gets to set how and in what manner a discussion will occur. He thinks he gets to redefine words and meanings at his pleasure. And if you do not just let him he resorts to name calling foul language and personal attacks. And if you even remotely respond he plays the victim and pretends he has done nothing to deserve the response you give to his attacks.

Being a liberal he thinks that he wins by trying to make YOU look bad. He seldom can prove any of his supposed points so resorts to the tried and true method of his party of attacking the messenger in the hopes others will not read the message.


----------



## mattskramer

jreeves said:


> By 73% to 24%, Americans said the war was morally justified when it began; today the public is divided, with 47% saying it is morally justified and 50% saying it is not.
> 
> Are you saying that in 2003 the electorate wasn't pretty close to split between Republicans and Democrats???



No.  I am saying that you cant logically conclude that most Democrats thought that we should go to war based on the survey that you presented.  Show me one that actually explicitly accounts for the number of Democrats and Republicans that were polled.  Without it, all that you have is crude rough speculation and guesses. 

Many polls will break down the demographics for you.  They will tell you what percentage consisted of women and what percentage consisted of men.  They often say what percentage was Blacks, Whites, Asians, Mexicans, etc. Give me more information.  Without it, all that I see is that most Americans thought that we should go to war.  Can I be any more clear.


----------



## DeadCanDance

jreeves said:


> 74&#37; of Americans supported the war at the onset.....I don't think it takes a mathmetician to figure out that would translate to a majority of democrats as well.



If you actually follow the wiki link for the 74% number you cited, to the* actual poll,* here what is says:



> CBS) According to a CBS News/New York Times poll, (64%, 74% last month) Americans support the idea of using military force to remove Saddam Hussein. *But they overwhelmingly want diplomatic efforts and the inspections to run their course first -- they would want to see clear evidence against Iraq before going to war.*
> 
> If the inspectors haven&#8217;t found any weapons by next Tuesday -- a deadline for U.N. weapons inspectors to report their findings -- Americans *say give them more time.* Most Americans think those weapons are there to be found, though many doubt inspectors will find them.
> 
> *The poll found 63% of Americans want President Bush to find a diplomatic solution.*
> 
> It also found support for military action -- if it becomes necessary -- is still high, but it has slipped from just two months ago -- 64% now compared to 70% last November.
> 
> *What's more, Americans seem to want hard evidence that Iraq is cheating. More than two-thirds (77% to 17%) say if inspectors haven't found a smoking gun, they should keep looking.*
> 
> For the moment, diplomacy is the clearly favored course with regard to Iraq, a feeling that hasn&#8217;t changed from two weeks ago.


----------



## mattskramer

RetiredGySgt said:


> You must learn that Maineman gets pissed if someone won't lick his boots and shine his shoes.



LOL.  The more accurate statement would be that he challenges people who disagree with him. 



> He thinks he gets to set how and in what manner a discussion will occur.



That was a nice attempt at mind reading.  Now tell me what do I think?



> He thinks he gets to redefine words and meanings at his pleasure.



He does not define words.  Words have clear precise meanings.  There is a difference between the words Congress, Senate, and House of Representatives. You seem to try to cloud the meanings.



> And if you do not just let him he resorts to name calling foul language and personal attacks.



I agree that he tends to resort to name-calling.



> And if you even remotely respond he plays the victim and pretends he has done nothing to deserve the response you give to his attacks.



I disagree.  He sticks to his guns and keeps people from sidestepping the challenges and counterchallenges. 



> Being a liberal he thinks that he wins by trying to make YOU look bad



What does being a liberal or a conservative have to do with it?  Are you resorting to categorization and confusing the person with the group and the group with the person?  



> He seldom can prove any of his supposed points so resorts to the tried and true method of his party of attacking the messenger in the hopes others will not read the message.



He often presents links that explicitly support his claims.  People make mistakes but compared to other people here, he rarely attacks the messenger and often sticks to debating the issues.


----------



## jreeves

mattskramer said:


> No.  I am saying that you cant logically conclude that most Democrats thought that we should go to war based on the survey that you presented.  Show me one that actually explicitly accounts for the number of Democrats and Republicans that were polled.  Without it, all that you have is crude rough speculation and guesses.
> 
> Many polls will break down the demographics for you.  They will tell you what percentage consisted of women and what percentage consisted of men.  They often say what percentage was Blacks, Whites, Asians, Mexicans, etc. Give me more information.  Without it, all that I see is that most Americans thought that we should go to war.  Can I be any more clear.



That these polls are unreliable for their polling sample?


----------



## jreeves

DeadCanDance said:


> I followed the wiki link for the 74% number to the actual poll.  You didn't.
> 
> The poll said 74% supported military action IF and only IF, the inspections ran their course, and if Bush proved his case.   And further, that a large majority preferred a diplomatic solution.



The other poll....was that the same case??


----------



## jreeves

DeadCanDance said:


> You should have clicked on the wiki link to the actual poll.  Here's what it said:




This poll;

http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/donkeyrising/archives/001414.php


----------



## Dr Grump

When all is said and done, the US should never have gone into Iraq. The bottom line was, it was none of their business, but once again they have to put their nose in where it's not wanted. Now there are almost 4000 families without loved ones...and that's just in the US, let alone other "coalition" countries or the poor everyday Iraqis themselves. It was a major fuckup from day one, and all down to a bunch of chickenhawk neocons...


----------



## mattskramer

jreeves said:


> That these polls are unreliable for their polling sample?



The question is valid extrapolation  not reliability.  Again, I think that you should do a basic study of statistics.

How many times do I need to repeat myself until you grasp what I an trying to communicate?  The poll probably has high validity to suggest that most Americans at one point in time supported our going to Iraq.  It would not be accurate to say that it shows that most Democrats supported our going to war.  One would need more information from the poll to arrive at that conclusion.


----------



## Dr Grump

No matter how Jwees manages to wriggle and wiggle, the bottom line is the war was approved by a Repub pres and congress. End of story.


----------



## jreeves

mattskramer said:


> No.  I am saying that you cant logically conclude that most Democrats thought that we should go to war based on the survey that you presented.  Show me one that actually explicitly accounts for the number of Democrats and Republicans that were polled.  Without it, all that you have is crude rough speculation and guesses.
> 
> Many polls will break down the demographics for you.  They will tell you what percentage consisted of women and what percentage consisted of men.  They often say what percentage was Blacks, Whites, Asians, Mexicans, etc. Give me more information.  Without it, all that I see is that most Americans thought that we should go to war.  Can I be any more clear.



If you believe in the reliability of these polls, then one can conclude, if Gallup or CBS news is reporting what Americans think then you have to believe they got an accurate polling sample of both Democrats and Republicans...are you suggesting something different?


----------



## jreeves

Dr Grump said:


> No matter how Jwees manages to wriggle and wiggle, the bottom line is the war was approved by a Repub pres and congress. End of story.



Supported the war until they saw an opening to get political gain from bashing Republicans on the war.


----------



## Dr Grump

jreeves said:


> Supported the war until they saw an opening to get political gain from bashing Republicans on the war.



SOME Democrats..

What I love about you right-wing nutjobs is that you are really really really hot on people taking responsbilities for their actions. So in this case, instead of attempting to defend the actions of your boys, you try and bob and weave by saying "the dems did it too". Tough shit, they were not in charge. Your boys were.Deal with it.


----------



## jreeves

Dr Grump said:


> SOME Democrats..
> 
> What I love about you right-wing nutjobs is that you are really really really hot on people taking responsbilities for their actions. So in this case, instead of attempting to defend the actions of your boys, you try and bob and weave by saying "the dems did it too". Tough shit, they were not in charge. Your boys were.Deal with it.



A majority of Americans(including democrats) supported the war. So put at yourself in the  mirror and tell yourself you are bad boy...LOL


----------



## mattskramer

jreeves said:


> If you believe in the reliability of these polls, then one can conclude, if Gallup or CBS news is reporting what Americans think then you have to believe they got an accurate polling sample of both Democrats and Republicans...are you suggesting something different?



Even *if* they took an equal number of Democrats and Republicans, it is still  mathematically possible to have 74 percent of them combined support going to war and conclude that a majority Democrats did not support it.  Simple math:

Total Sample Size: 100 (50 Democrats + 50 Republicans)
Number of Republicans supporting going to war: 50 out of 50.
Number of Democrats supporting going to war: 24 out of 50.

Conclusion: 
74 percent of Americans supported going to war. 
100 percent of Republicans supported going to war.
Less that 50 percent of Democrats supported going to war.

I grant you that the example that I gave was an extreme example but it was meant to prove a point.  I want more information in a poll before I conclude anything that the poll does not explicitly state.


----------



## jreeves

mattskramer said:


> Even *if* they took an equal number of Democrats and Republicans, it is still  mathematically possible to have 74 percent of them combined support going to war and conclude that a majority Democrats did not support it.  Simple math:
> 
> Total Sample Size: 100 (50 Democrats + 50 Republicans)
> Number of Republicans supporting going to war: 50 out of 50.
> Number of Democrats supporting going to war: 24 out of 50.
> 
> Conclusion:
> 74 percent of Americans supported going to war.
> 100 percent of Republicans supported going to war.
> Less that 50 percent of Democrats supported going to war.
> 
> I grant you that the example that I gave was an extreme example but it was meant to prove a point.  I want more information in a poll before I conclude anything that the poll does not explicitly state.




Ironious conclusion....we both know that Bush didn't win the 2004 election in a landslide....that would have had to happen to give you your numbers. We both know the electorate in 2002 was evenly split. But by the poll we know that 74% of Americans supported the removal of Saddam....LOL


----------



## Dr Grump

jreeves said:


> A majority of Americans(including democrats) supported the war. So put at yourself in the  mirror and tell yourself you are bad boy...LOL



They supported the war because they believed in their leaders. Their leaders were found wanting. Their leaders were GoPers. When are you going to take responsibility for your actions. That mantra is now found wanting. So when all is said and done, like most conservatives you like to pass the buck. Well done....


----------



## mattskramer

jreeves said:


> Ironious conclusion....we both know that Bush didn't win the 2004 election in a landslide....that would have had to happen to give you your numbers. We both know the electorate in 2002 was evenly split. But by the poll we know that 74% of Americans supported the removal of Saddam....LOL



Im not talking about Bushs election.  I am demonstrating that just because 74 percent of Americans supposedly supported going to war does not necessarily mean that most Democrats supported going to war. We dont even know what percentage of those polled were true Democrats and true Republicans. Perhaps the Democrats were underrepresented.  I stand by my example.  We need more information.

Speaking of the presidential election, we have exit polls and other sources of information to find out how many Democrats voted for Bush and how many Republicans voted for Bush.  I dont see such a political breakdown with respect to the poll concerning Americans supporting the notion that we should go to war.


----------



## maineman

jreeves said:


> not a tapdance the truth...you seem to have troubles with that...LOL



the truth is what I stated and what you disagreed with.  A majority of congressional democrats voted against the use of force resolution.  You need a remedial math course.


----------



## maineman

jreeves said:


> Ironious conclusion....we both know that Bush didn't win the 2004 election in a landslide....that would have had to happen to give you your numbers. We both know the electorate in 2002 was evenly split. But by the poll we know that 74% of Americans supported the removal of Saddam....LOL




what people thought about removing Saddam and who they voted for in 2004 are unrelated.

wow.


----------



## jreeves

maineman said:


> the truth is what I stated and what you disagreed with.  A majority of congressional democrats voted against the use of force resolution.  You need a remedial math course.



I agree your democratic Congressman, didn't adquately represent it's constients...agreed


----------



## maineman

jreeves said:


> I agree your democratic Congressman, didn't adquately represent it's constients...agreed



you need to understand how a republic is different than a democracy.... and why we don't make laws in this country based upon public opinion polls.

I said that a majority of congressional democrats voted against the war.  

YOU said I was wrong and have NEVER admitted you fucked up.  Will that admission be forthcoming or will you continue to run away from your own words?


----------



## jreeves

maineman said:


> the truth is what I stated and what you disagreed with.  A majority of congressional democrats voted against the use of force resolution.  You need a remedial math course.



Here is the senate vote...


In a vote that split Democrats, 29 voted for war while 21 voted against it. 

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2007/Feb-17-Sat-2007/news/12611183.html

hmm...majority think not


----------



## mattskramer

maineman said:


> the truth is what I stated and what you disagreed with.  A majority of *congressional* democrats voted against the use of force resolution.  You need a remedial math course.



Hello.  Congress consists of more than just the Senate.  &#8220;Congress&#8221; and &#8220;Senate&#8221; mean two different things. 




jreeves said:


> Here is the senate vote...
> 
> 
> In a vote that split Democrats, 29 voted for war while 21 voted against it.
> 
> http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2007/Feb-17-Sat-2007/news/12611183.html
> 
> hmm...majority think not



Hello.  Congress consists of more than just the Senate.  &#8220;Congress&#8221; and &#8220;Senate&#8221; mean two different things.


----------



## maineman

jreeves said:


> Here is the senate vote...
> 
> 
> In a vote that split Democrats, 29 voted for war while 21 voted against it.
> 
> http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2007/Feb-17-Sat-2007/news/12611183.html
> 
> hmm...majority think not



you really are too fucking stupid for me to continue to talk about this much longer.

Do you, or do you not understand the difference between the words "Congress" and "Senate"?

A majority of congressional democrats voted against the use of force resolution,  you stupid moronic braindead motherfucker..... and until you figure out that that statement is, indeed accurate, you really should go over to the kiddie's table because you are too fucking dumb to talk with adults.  OK?


----------



## jreeves

jreeves said:


> Here is the senate vote...
> 
> 
> In a vote that split Democrats, 29 voted for war while 21 voted against it.
> 
> http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2007/Feb-17-Sat-2007/news/12611183.html
> 
> hmm...majority think not



That was my contention in the senate not the house of representatives


----------



## jreeves

maineman said:


> you really are too fucking stupid for me to continue to talk about this much longer.
> 
> Do you, or do you not understand the difference between the words "Congress" and "Senate"?
> 
> A majority of congressional democrats voted against the use of force resolution,  you stupid moronic braindead motherfucker..... and until you figure out that that statement is, indeed accurate, you really should go over to the kiddie's table because you are too fucking dumb to talk with adults.  OK?



I said senate...now who's braindead......


----------



## maineman

jreeves said:


> That was my contention in the senate not the house of representatives


did I ever say the senate?  no

did you say that I was wrong? yes

were you wrong when you said that?  yes

have you admitted that?  no

I'll wait, motherfucker.


----------



## jreeves

maineman said:


> did I ever say the senate?  no
> 
> did you say that I was wrong? yes
> 
> were you wrong when you said that?  yes
> 
> have you admitted that?  no
> 
> I'll wait, motherfucker.



You'll get nothing but a wave....what am I admitting to that a majority of Democratic senators voted for the War....???? go ahead call names if you want, it just shows your intelligence level


----------



## jreeves

jreeves said:


> You'll get nothing but a wave....what am I admitting to that a majority of Democratic senators voted for the War....???? go ahead call names if you want, it just shows your intelligence level



The posting was with U.S. Senators....not congressional members....


----------



## mattskramer

jreeves said:


> I said senate...now who's braindead......



Good god.  That was a funny try.  Look carefully at the bottom of post 1084.  You said hmm...majority think not.  What lack of a majority were you referring to?   Could it have possibly been the quote from MM that you referenced?  He said A majority of congressional democrats voted against the use of force resolution.  Was that the majority that you were disputing?  That phony dodge was worse than RGS.  

Come on. Cant you admit to the obvious and say, Oops. I made a mistake?


----------



## jreeves

jreeves said:


> The posting was with U.S. Senators....not congressional members....



I showed a poll where it has shown that a 74% majority of Americans supported the War at its onset....you then turn this into some kind of pissing match....74% means even translated by the most of liberal terms a majority of Americans supported the war.


----------



## maineman

jreeves said:


> The posting was with U.S. Senators....not congressional members....



you posted the senate roll call in response to my statement that a majority of congressional democrats voted against the war....

were you incapable of reading what I had posted?

If I said that Nixon had won the 1972 election, and you had replied by posting the results from the state of Massachusetts only and used that to claim that I was wrong.... it would be just about as stupid as your move in this instance.


----------



## jreeves

jreeves said:


> The nays would have had it if all the democrats would have voted Nay



This posting maybe....duh


----------



## jreeves

jreeves said:


> This posting maybe....duh



940


----------



## maineman

jreeves said:


> I showed a poll where it has shown that a 74% majority of Americans supported the War at its onset....you then turn this into some kind of pissing match....74% means even translated by the most of liberal terms a majority of Americans supported the war.



and now you run further away by talking about a public opinion poll?  who gives a shit?  nearly the same percentage of the american people thought that saddam had planned and executed 9/11....it is why we are a republic and not a democracy.

you are a coward...plain and simple.


----------



## jreeves

maineman said:


> and now you run further away by talking about a public opinion poll?  who gives a shit?  nearly the same percentage of the american people thought that saddam had planned and executed 9/11....it is why we are a republic and not a democracy.
> 
> you are a coward...plain and simple.



again direct results of your intelligence level....name calling


----------



## maineman

jreeves said:


> again direct results of your intelligence level....name calling



again... the senate roll call is irrelevant.  Do you think I would be unaware of the senate totals, yet somehow know that a majority of congressional democrats voted against the war????

I made a statement...and as a rebuttal to it, you attempted to post half the truth.  weak.  be a man and admit you fucked up.  this has got to be embarrassing for you, I know, but still....be a man and fess up.  You were wrong all along, from #940 until now.


----------



## jreeves

jreeves said:


> again direct results of your intelligence level....name calling



oh first you debate the validity of the poll then shown why it shows a majority of democrats supported the war you get pissed...funny


----------



## mattskramer

jreeves said:


> 940



Go back even further.  Look at post # 917.  That was a comment about the senate vote in response to MM commenting about congress.


----------



## maineman

jreeves said:


> oh first you debate the validity of the poll then shown why it shows a majority of democrats supported the war you get pissed...funny



I could care less about the poll.  I made a statement.  YOU attempted to disprove the statement and questioned my claims of a "majority" by posting the senate vote only.  you were wrong.  be a man and admit it.


----------



## jreeves

maineman said:


> again... the senate roll call is irrelevant.  Do you think I would be unaware of the senate totals, yet somehow know that a majority of congressional democrats voted against the war????
> 
> I made a statement...and as a rebuttal to it, you attempted to post half the truth.  weak.  be a man and admit you fucked up.  this has got to be embarrassing for you, I know, but still....be a man and fess up.  You were wrong all along, from #940 until now.



Show me where I said a majority of congressional democrats voted for the war...I didn't....when shown the senate roll call, I said a majority of democrats voted for it in the senate....Don't try and put words in my mouth...

Look at 940 I cited the Senate vote....


----------



## jreeves

jreeves said:


> Show me where I said a majority of congressional democrats voted for the war...I didn't....when shown the senate roll call, I said a majority of democrats voted for it in the senate....Don't try and put words in my mouth...
> 
> Look at 940 I cited the Senate vote....



Cp responded to Maineman...not me in 917....


----------



## maineman

jreeves said:


> Show me where I said a majority of congressional democrats voted for the war...I didn't....when shown the senate roll call, I said a majority of democrats voted for it in the senate....Don't try and put words in my mouth...
> 
> Look at 940 I cited the Senate vote....




you posted the senate roll call in response to my claim that a majority of democrats had voted against it.  you even questioned my use of the word majority this evening.

give it up.  who gives a fuck about the senate?  I made a statement that a majority of democrats in congress voted against the war.  I am right.  I have always been right about that and you have always been wrong to try and use the senate vote as a means of disproving MY statement.


----------



## jreeves

maineman said:


> I could care less about the poll.  I made a statement.  YOU attempted to disprove the statement and questioned my claims of a "majority" by posting the senate vote only.  you were wrong.  be a man and admit it.



The point about the poll is the very people in here griping about the war now, supported it from the onset....So look in the mirror and have a little self reflection...My friend


----------



## jreeves

maineman said:


> you posted the senate roll call in response to my claim that a majority of democrats had voted against it.  you even questioned my use of the word majority this evening.
> 
> give it up.  who gives a fuck about the senate?  I made a statement that a majority of democrats in congress voted against the war.  I am right.  I have always been right about that and you have always been wrong to try and use the senate vote as a means of disproving MY statement.



Self reflection....


----------



## mattskramer

jreeves said:


> Cp responded to Maineman...not me in 917....



You have a point there but none the less, the first post concerning this was made by MM way back in post number 911.  He made a comment about congress.  It does not look like he had any disagreement about the senate.  Other people brought up the senate later.


----------



## maineman

post 1084:  by jreeves:

*majority* 

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



> Originally Posted by maineman
> the truth is what I stated and what you disagreed with. *A majority of congressional democrats voted against the use of force resolution*. You need a remedial math course.



Here is the senate vote...


In a vote that split Democrats, 29 voted for war while 21 voted against it. 

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_ho.../12611183.html

*hmm...majority think not*



you used the senate vote and said, "majority think not" when you were clearly addressing MY statement and were, in fact, WRONG.

grow up.  be a man.  admit you were wrong.  I'm waiting.


----------



## Dr Grump

MM/Matts

Who gives a shit who voted what. This idiot/troll is trying to make out that somehow the Dems agreed with the war. And while some did, the MAIN responsibility for that war fits clearly on the shoulders of the GoP. They were the main instigators and signed off on it. This guy is just pulling your chain and somehow trying to make out the Dems were part of it too. A lot weren't. And the bottom line is Repub congress, Repub president. 'nuff said IMO..


----------



## JimH52

Dr Grump said:


> MM/Matts
> 
> Who gives a shit who voted what. This idiot/troll is trying to make out that somehow the Dems agreed with the war. And while some did, the MAIN responsibility for that war fits clearly on the shoulders of the GoP. They were the main instigators and signed off on it. This guy is just pulling your chain and somehow trying to make out the Dems were part of it too. A lot weren't. And the bottom line is Repub congress, Repub president. 'nuff said IMO..


----------



## jreeves

Dr Grump said:


> MM/Matts
> 
> Who gives a shit who voted what. This idiot/troll is trying to make out that somehow the Dems agreed with the war. And while some did, the MAIN responsibility for that war fits clearly on the shoulders of the GoP. They were the main instigators and signed off on it. This guy is just pulling your chain and somehow trying to make out the Dems were part of it too. A lot weren't. And the bottom line is Repub congress, Repub president. 'nuff said IMO..



two houses of Congress as you know it takes both houses of congress to pass a bill if 28 democrats would have voted no in the senate the authorization wouln't have passed....


----------



## jreeves

jreeves said:


> two houses of Congress as you know it takes both houses of congress to pass a bill if 28 democrats would have voted no in the senate the authorization wouln't have passed....



Dr. Gump are you done with your self reflection....sounds as though you are...you are bad bad boy....no seriously, this has become a political polarizing object on which the Democrats have used...when in the beginning of the war they supported it....talk all round the topic the majority of you supported...that's all that needs to said


----------



## maineman

jreeves said:


> two houses of Congress as you know it takes both houses of congress to pass a bill if 28 democrats would have voted no in the senate the authorization wouln't have passed....



who cares?  be a man.  admit you fucked up.  everyone is seeing you as a troll... is that really how you want to be thought of here?


----------



## jillian

maineman said:


> who cares?  be a man.  admit you fucked up.  everyone is seeing you as a troll... is that really how you want to be thought of here?



Have you read his posts? Do you think he really cares?


----------



## jreeves

jillian said:


> Have you read his posts? Do you think he really cares?




Your right I don't care what liberals think of me...Democrats supported the war from the onset...disprove it....I've showed you evidence


----------



## Dr Grump

jreeves said:


> Dr. Gump are you done with your self reflection....sounds as though you are...you are bad bad boy....no seriously, this has become a political polarizing object on which the Democrats have used...when in the beginning of the war they supported it....talk all round the topic the majority of you supported...that's all that needs to said



Yeah, and all you are trying to do peeves is spin and twist away from the person(s) mainly responsible. 


Two guys rob a store. One guy sits in the car while the other goes in. The guy in the car has no gun is not expecting trouble and doesn't realise his partner is armed. His partner goes into the shop and kills 15 people because he is a psychopathic motherfucker. When they both get caught they are both culpable under law. That is a given. However the actions of one far outweigh the actions of hte other. What you are doing here is saying the guy in the car is the real bad guy, and giving the shooter a free pass. Don't wash with me Bub. Go sell your snakeoil to the naive holy rollers in the Deep South.


----------



## jillian

jreeves said:


> Your right I don't care what liberals think of me...Democrats supported the war from the onset...disprove it....I've showed you evidence



*Some* did. Most of us were smarter than that and couldn't understand why the ijit in the white house didn't stay focused on Afghanistan. You do understand *that*, right?


----------



## jreeves

jillian said:


> *Some* did. Most of us were smarter than that and couldn't understand why the ijit in the white house didn't stay focused on Afghanistan. You do understand *that*, right?



The majority...74% of Amercians supported it from the onset...


----------



## jillian

jreeves said:


> The majority...74% of Amercians supported it from the onset...



Because the loonies in the white house linked it to the 9/11 attacks.

And your point is? What? That the whitehouse duped a good percentage of the public, including about half of democrats? 

I agree.


----------



## jreeves

jillian said:


> Because the loonies in the white house linked it to the 9/11 attacks.
> 
> And your point is? What? That the whitehouse duped a good percentage of the public, including about half of democrats?
> 
> I agree.



When Bush denied there was any link to 9/11...I think the war in Iraq has been propagated as failure in execution...I agree...but the justification was there...based on faulty intelligence. I think our disagreement comes from who controls intelligence


----------



## mattskramer

jreeves said:


> The majority...74% of Amercians supported it from the onset...



Again it seems like there is a deliberate avoidance or twist to what is said.  The poll said that 74 percent of Americans supported it.  It did not conclude that 74 percent of Democrats supported it.  As I explained before, there are some unanswered variables.  First of all, how many that were polled were Democrats?  In addition to that, and perhaps more informative, would be how many democrats said that they supported it?  That would answer the question.


----------



## jreeves

mattskramer said:


> Again it seems like there is a deliberate avoidance or twist to what is said.  The poll said that 74 percent of Americans supported it.  It did not conclude that 74 percent of Democrats supported it.  As I explained before, there are some unanswered variables.  First of all, how many that were polled were Democrats?  In addition to that, and perhaps more informative, would be how many democrats said that they supported it?  That would answer the question.



No I said by the sheer majority of 74%, at least 50% of democrats had to support it


----------



## maineman

jreeves said:


> No I said by the sheer majority of 74%, at least 50% of democrats had to support it



prove it.  or shut the fuck up.


----------



## jreeves

maineman said:


> prove it.  or shut the fuck up.



basic deduction logic...


----------



## maineman

jreeves said:


> basic deduction logic...



your opinions ain't proof.  prove it or shut the fuck up.

you are a coward who won't stand by your own words.

get the fuck out.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> your opinions ain't proof.  prove it or shut the fuck up.
> 
> you are a coward who won't stand by your own words.
> 
> get the fuck out.



Meanwhile this whole thread is based on  OPINION. Or have you decided to claim you can prove your claim?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Dr Grump said:


> MM/Matts
> 
> Who gives a shit who voted what. This idiot/troll is trying to make out that somehow the Dems agreed with the war. And while some did, the MAIN responsibility for that war fits clearly on the shoulders of the GoP. They were the main instigators and signed off on it. This guy is just pulling your chain and somehow trying to make out the Dems were part of it too. A lot weren't. And the bottom line is Repub congress, Repub president. 'nuff said IMO..



And yet a majority of Senators and 81 Representatives DID vote FOR the war. Imagine that. A LOT of Dems were in fact FOR the war.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> And yet a majority of Senators and 81 Representatives DID vote FOR the war. Imagine that. A LOT of Dems were in fact FOR the war.



but the majority of them weren't.  something I remain proud of.

something you refuse to acknowledge.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> Meanwhile this whole thread is based on  OPINION. Or have you decided to claim you can prove your claim?



I have, numerous times.  You chose to willfully refuse to acknowledge the meaning of words.... you willfully refuse to acknowledge that making a statement that creates a false impression IS a lie.  So we will just have to agree to disagree with THAT.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> I have, numerous times.  You chose to willfully refuse to acknowledge the meaning of words.... you willfully refuse to acknowledge that making a statement that creates a false impression IS a lie.  So we will just have to agree to disagree with THAT.



And so if you have this "proof" why hasn't it been used to impeach Bush? Why is it that every investigation has stated Bush did NOT lie? Including the Dems? Why is only the liberals on this board know the truth and have this "proof"?

Now we are to it again. Are you claiming it is a FACT Bush lied or your Opinion Bush lied?


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> And so if you have this "proof" why hasn't it been used to impeach Bush? Why is it that every investigation has stated Bush did NOT lie? Including the Dems? Why is only the liberals on this board know the truth and have this "proof"?
> 
> Now we are to it again. Are you claiming it is a FACT Bush lied or your Opinion Bush lied?



because LYING is not a crime.  

And, by my understanding of the english language and the definition of the word LIE that states a lie is a statement serving to create a false impression, Bush and his administration talking heads repeatedly lied when they made assertions as to the certainty - and known location - os Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's.  And I think, under that same definition, Cheney's statement's about Atta meeting with Iraqi intelligence agents in Prague served to create the false impression that there was a connection between Saddam and AQ and therefore the implication of Saddam's complicity in that.

Even if you believed it to be true, if you were to state that there was no doubt that the sun revolved around the earth, that statement would be a lie.

oh...and have you solved that math problem yet?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> because LYING is not a crime.
> 
> And, by my understanding of the english language and the definition of the word LIE that states a lie is a statement serving to create a false impression, Bush and his administration talking heads repeatedly lied when they made assertions as to the certainty - and known location - os Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's.  And I think, under that same definition, Cheney's statement's about Atta meeting with Iraqi intelligence agents in Prague served to create the false impression that there was a connection between Saddam and AQ and therefore the implication of Saddam's complicity in that.
> 
> Even if you believed it to be true, if you were to state that there was no doubt that the sun revolved around the earth, that statement would be a lie.
> 
> oh...and have you solved that math problem yet?



Your the only one that is disfunctional. But do keep on claiming otherwise, it is fun to watch you make ignorant statements and go on for weeks about some so called slight, all the while YOU are telling people to fuck off and other chose terms.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> Your the only one that is disfunctional. But do keep on claiming otherwise, it is fun to watch you make ignorant statements and go on for weeks about some so called slight, all the while YOU are telling people to fuck off and other chose terms.



a majority of congressional democrats voted against the use of force.  Are you going to retract your previous statements that claimed that was not a true statement?  yes or no?

and is this accurate or not:

Even if you believed it to be true, if you were to state that there was no doubt that the sun revolved around the earth, that statement would be a lie.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> a majority of congressional democrats voted against the use of force.  Are you going to retract your previous statements that claimed that was not a true statement?  yes or no?
> 
> and is this accurate or not:
> 
> Even if you believed it to be true, if you were to state that there was no doubt that the sun revolved around the earth, that statement would be a lie.



The person would not be lying if THEY believed it to be true. A Lie requires the knowledge that the statement is not true.

And once more for the stupid and slow, MY STATEMENT was that in the SENATE a majority of Democrats did in fact vote for the war. So I have nothing to retract because that Statement is based on the vote provided that I made it from.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> The person would not be lying if THEY believed it to be true. A Lie requires the knowledge that the statement is not true.
> 
> And once more for the stupid and slow, MY STATEMENT was that in the SENATE a majority of Democrats did in fact vote for the war. So I have nothing to retract because that Statement is based on the vote provided that I made it from.




Actually.  if you were to say "I believe that the sun revolves around the earth", THAT would not be a lie.  Once you claim that there is any degree of objective certainty around that claim, it becomes a lie.

your reply about the senate was in direct response to my statement that a majority of congressional democrats voted against it.  Do you have a hard time with reading comprehension, or was that just an attempt by you to blow smoke?


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> And once more for the stupid and slow, MY STATEMENT was that in the SENATE a majority of Democrats did in fact vote for the war. So I have nothing to retract because that Statement is based on the vote provided that I made it from.



go read post #944 again.  Carefully read what I wrote in the passage that you quoted, and then read your reply.  Explain yourself.  I'll wait


----------



## Dr Grump

RetiredGySgt said:


> And yet a majority of Senators and 81 Representatives DID vote FOR the war. Imagine that. A LOT of Dems were in fact FOR the war.



So what? Who was running the show? And what info did they base their vote on?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Dr Grump said:


> So what? Who was running the show? And what info did they base their vote on?



Once more for the truly ignprant/ The Congress receives INDEPENDENT briefings and is free to ask for ANY info or brief they want from any source. Irregardless of Maineman's continued claim, LYING to Congress is in fact a crime. Especially if your IN the Government.

So what your claiming is that the idiot Bush some how was smart enough to convince 16 independent agencies to LIE for him to Congress, the premiere one run by a Clinton appointee. That the moron Bush somehow got every Government in the world to LIE for him to Congress. That somehow Bush managed 8 years before even being in office to get Clinton and his Cabinet and officials to LIE for him for the future.

Neat trick that.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> Once more for the truly ignprant/ The Congress receives INDEPENDENT briefings and is free to ask for ANY info or brief they want from any source. Irregardless of Maineman's continued claim, LYING to Congress is in fact a crime. Especially if your IN the Government.
> 
> So what your claiming is that the idiot Bush some how was smart enough to convince 16 independent agencies to LIE for him to Congress, the premiere one run by a Clinton appointee. That the moron Bush somehow got every Government in the world to LIE for him to Congress. That somehow Bush managed 8 years before even being in office to get Clinton and his Cabinet and officials to LIE for him for the future.
> 
> Neat trick that.



republicans in congress were all but unanimous in their support for the resolution.  A majority of congressional democrats voted against it.  Let me say that again:  *A majority of congressional democrats voted against it*.    
And THAT is something, as a patriotic veteran, I am very proud of!


----------



## mattskramer

RetiredGySgt said:


> Once more for the truly ignprant/ The Congress receives INDEPENDENT briefings and is free to ask for ANY info or brief they want from any source. Irregardless of Maineman's continued claim, LYING to Congress is in fact a crime. Especially if your IN the Government.
> 
> So what your claiming is that the idiot Bush some how was smart enough to convince 16 independent agencies to LIE for him to Congress, the premiere one run by a Clinton appointee. That the moron Bush somehow got every Government in the world to LIE for him to Congress. That somehow Bush managed 8 years before even being in office to get Clinton and his Cabinet and officials to LIE for him for the future.
> 
> Neat trick that.



So it was bad intelligence.  Bush was the one given the responsibility to push the red button.  If I were him, I would have insisted or more definitive irrefutable proof and information.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> republicans in congress were all but unanimous in their support for the resolution.  A majority of congressional democrats voted against it.  Let me say that again:  *A majority of congressional democrats voted against it*.
> And THAT is something, as a patriotic veteran, I am very proud of!



Which has nothing to do with your and your buddies repeated claim that everyone in Congress was liued to. Which is it? They were lied to and voted against the war because they were being stubborn pricks, OR they had the intel they wanted and decided it was not all that good? You pick.


----------



## mattskramer

RetiredGySgt said:


> Which has nothing to do with your and your buddies repeated claim that everyone in Congress was liued to. Which is it? They were lied to and voted against the war because they were being stubborn pricks, OR they had the intel they wanted and decided it was not all that good? You pick.



I think that they had the intel they wanted and decided it was not all that good.  I suspect that they chose discretion.  They were not so gung-ho to jump so soon into this foolish war without more definitive absolute proof.  Good for them.


----------



## jreeves

maineman said:


> a majority of congressional democrats voted against the use of force.  Are you going to retract your previous statements that claimed that was not a true statement?  yes or no?
> 
> and is this accurate or not:
> 
> Even if you believed it to be true, if you were to state that there was no doubt that the sun revolved around the earth, that statement would be a lie.




Simple fact, simpleton....the Democrats controlled the Senate and could have prevented a authorization vote from ever going to a vote.....Fact two independent polls said that 74% of Americans supported removing Saddam....not 85% Republicans and 2% of Democrats....Your logic is totally screwed...But keep up the Lie...it's fun to watch


----------



## jreeves

jreeves said:


> Simple fact, simpleton....the Democrats controlled the Senate and could have prevented a authorization vote from ever going to a vote.....Fact two independent polls said that 74% of Americans supported removing Saddam....not 85% Republicans and 2% of Democrats....Your logic is totally screwed...But keep up the Lie...it's fun to watch



[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNgaVtVaiJE&feature=related[/ame]


----------



## mattskramer

jreeves said:


> Simple fact, simpleton....the Democrats controlled the Senate and could have prevented a authorization vote from ever going to a vote.....



No one is arguing that.  It is understood that some democrats authorized it. 



> Fact two independent polls said that 74% of Americans supported removing Saddam....not 85% Republicans and 2% of Democrats....Your logic is totally screwed...But keep up the Lie...it's fun to watch



That also does not mean that 74 percent of Democrats supported it.  The only thing that it says is that 74 percent of Americans supported it.


----------



## mattskramer

jreeves said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNgaVtVaiJE&feature=related



So?  Some Democrats were wrong.  Some Democrats voted for it and some voted against it.  Considering congress, as a whole, most Democrats voted against it.


----------



## jreeves

mattskramer said:


> No one is arguing that.  It is understood that some democrats authorized it.
> 
> 
> 
> That also does not mean that 74 percent of Democrats supported it.  The only thing that it says is that 74 percent of Americans supported it.



Your saying that the Gallup and Cbs news are not reptiable polling agencies I guess they both polled nothing but Gop members....and then threw in 2 Democrats just to make it look good....its a statistically impossibility for 74% to support it without a majority of Democrats not supporting it....Come two different polls reached the same conclusion....What did they poll the exact same people??


----------



## jreeves

mattskramer said:


> So?  Some Democrats were wrong.  Some Democrats voted for it and some voted against it.  Considering congress, as a whole, most Democrats voted against it.



And Democrat leadership in the Senate could have ceased the vote in committees and we both know it, so your leadership said it was a justified war....their hypocrites now coming out denouncing the justification for war


----------



## mattskramer

jreeves said:


> Your saying that the Gallup and Cbs news are not reptiable polling agencies I guess they both polled nothing but Gop members....and then threw in 2 Democrats just to make it look good....its a statistically impossibility for 74% to support it without a majority of Democrats not supporting it....Come two different polls reached the same conclusion....What did they poll the exact same people??



How many times do I need to repeat myself?  The poll does not give enough information from which to draw any other conclusion.   How many Democrats were asked?  Of those Democrats, how many cared to respond give a definitive and honest answer?  There is no information other than the fact that 74 percent of Americans supported it.  Im not saying that 74 percent of Democrats supported it or not.  Im saying that the poll does not give enough information from which to make that conclusion.  Your last question says it all.  I don't know who was polled.  There is no demographic breakdown?

Find me a poll that says that 74 percent of American Democrats supported it.


----------



## jreeves

mattskramer said:


> How many times do I need to repeat myself?  The poll does not give enough information from which to draw any other conclusion.   How many Democrats were asked?  Of those Democrats, how many cared to respond give a definitive and honest answer?  There is no information other than the fact that 74 percent of Americans supported it.  Im not saying that 74 percent of Democrats supported it or not.  Im saying that the poll does not give enough information from which to make that conclusion.  Your last question says it all.  I don't know who was polled.  There is no demographic breakdown?
> 
> Find me a poll that says that 74 percent of American Democrats supported it.



Democrats by your definition are not Americans...these polling organizations take political persuasion into effect...and they want the most accurate picture they can get....do you deny that?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

mattskramer said:


> How many times do I need to repeat myself?  The poll does not give enough information from which to draw any other conclusion.   How many Democrats were asked?  Of those Democrats, how many cared to respond give a definitive and honest answer?  There is no information other than the fact that 74 percent of Americans supported it.  Im not saying that 74 percent of Democrats supported it or not.  Im saying that the poll does not give enough information from which to make that conclusion.  Your last question says it all.  I don't know who was polled.  There is no demographic breakdown?
> 
> Find me a poll that says that 74 percent of American Democrats supported it.



Unless your going to claim that only 26 percent of Americans are democrats and that ONLY republicans were in the 74 percent it is pretty clear that the polls in question INCLUDE democrats and that a MAJORITY of Americans agreed with the war.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

mattskramer said:


> I think that they had the intel they wanted and decided it was not all that good.  I suspect that they chose discretion.  They were not so gung-ho to jump so soon into this foolish war without more definitive absolute proof.  Good for them.



In other words.... Congress did NOT get lied to, did NOT get cherry picked intel and anyone claiming they did is in fact wrong? Or are you going to spin it some OTHER way?


----------



## mattskramer

jreeves said:


> Democrats by your definition are not Americans...these polling organizations take political persuasion into effect...and they want the most accurate picture they can get....do you deny that?



Oh good God.  Am I communicating with a 10th grader?  Im sorry but this is getting to be absurd.  There is a class called Americans.  Within that class there are subclasses.  One subclass is called Democrats and another Subclass is called Republicans.  An American might be a Democrat.  An American might be a Republican.  All American citizens who are Democrats are Americans but not all Americans are Democrats.  When I speak of Democrats, it does not mean that I am not speaking of Americans.  Along with a basic course in statistics and testing and measurement, a course in understanding Venn diagrams might help you.  It is as if Im to say go back to school and then maybe we can discuss polls and surveys.


----------



## mattskramer

RetiredGySgt said:


> In other words.... Congress did NOT get lied to, did NOT get cherry picked intel and anyone claiming they did is in fact wrong? Or are you going to spin it some OTHER way?



A great many polling services also provide detail about their sample data.  They give demographics.  They give sample size.  They tell you the breakdown of the sample, race, gender, area of the nation, and political preference. I have not seen any of that.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

mattskramer said:


> A great many polling services also provide detail about their sample data.  They give demographics.  They give sample size.  They tell you the breakdown of the sample, race, gender, area of the nation, and political preference. I have not seen any of that.



Congress... not a poll. Stick with me here. You have stated that Democrats in the House had the intel they needed and did not support the war from said intel. Yet Maineman and buddies ( and you have too) have claimed over and over that Congress was lied to, that Congress received cherry picked intel.

Which is it?


----------



## jreeves

mattskramer said:


> Oh good God.  Am I communicating with a 10th grader?  Im sorry but this is getting to be absurd.  There is a class called Americans.  Within that class there are subclasses.  One subclass is called Democrats and another Subclass is called Republicans.  An American might be a Democrat.  An American might be a Republican.  All American citizens who are Democrats are Americans but not all Americans are Democrats.  When I speak of Democrats, it does not mean that I am not speaking of Americans.  Along with a basic course in statistics and testing and measurement, a course in understanding Venn diagrams might help you.  It is as if Im to say go back to school and then maybe we can discuss polls and surveys.



But your avoiding the question....I took a course in statistics....I understand statistics very well...74% from two independent polls are stronger evidence than just one....Also, are you denying that polling organizations takes political persuasion into effect when trying to potray public opinion??????????????


----------



## maineman

jreeves said:


> But your avoiding the question....I took a course in statistics....I understand statistics very well...74% from two independent polls are stronger evidence than just one....Also, are you denying that polling organizations takes political persuasion into effect when trying to potray public opinion??????????????



if you have proof that over 50% of democrats supported the war, present it.  You can infer all you want from your poll, but you cannot substantiate it.

and the point is rather moot in any case. Most Americans realize now that their initial support for this war was misplaced.

and, to their credit, a majority of democrats in congress always knew that it was a bad idea.


----------



## jreeves

maineman said:


> if you have proof that over 50% of democrats supported the war, present it.  You can infer all you want from your poll, but you cannot substantiate it.
> 
> and the point is rather moot in any case. Most Americans realize now that their initial support for this war was misplaced.
> 
> and, to their credit, a majority of democrats in congress always knew that it was a bad idea.



Nice way to back...thank you


----------



## jreeves

maineman said:


> if you have proof that over 50% of democrats supported the war, present it.  You can infer all you want from your poll, but you cannot substantiate it.
> 
> and the point is rather moot in any case. Most Americans realize now that their initial support for this war was misplaced.
> 
> and, to their credit, a majority of democrats in congress always knew that it was a bad idea.



I did, reputable polling organizations definetly take political persuasion into effect when trying to portray public opinion, therefore 74% of Republicans and Democrats supported overthrowing Saddam


----------



## jreeves

maineman said:


> if you have proof that over 50% of democrats supported the war, present it.  You can infer all you want from your poll, but you cannot substantiate it.
> 
> and the point is rather moot in any case. Most Americans realize now that their initial support for this war was misplaced.
> 
> and, to their credit, a majority of democrats in congress always knew that it was a bad idea.



And democratic leadership in the Senate didn't find it appaling or terrible misjudgement to go to war or they would have freezed it in committees.....


----------



## maineman

jreeves said:


> And democratic leadership in the Senate didn't find it appaling or terrible misjudgement to go to war or they would have freezed it in committees.....



that would have been political suicide right before midterms with those 74% of folks thirsting for arab blood.

as it turns out, America has realized what a mistake it was.... and they know, like you and I know, that the republicans in congress were nearly unanimous in their support for this terrible mistake - including the presumptive presidential candidate... and they know that a majority of democrats stood against it.  It is one of the reasons why democratic enrollment is up and republican enrollment is down.


----------



## maineman

jreeves said:


> I did, reputable polling organizations definetly take political persuasion into effect when trying to portray public opinion, therefore 74% of Republicans and Democrats supported overthrowing Saddam



again...you must have slept during your stats class. If 74 % of Americans supported the war, that does NOT mean that 74% of democrats did. Pollsters make sure they try to poll relatively equal numbers of democrats, but to suggest that popular opinion is some homogenous group think that is not variable by political persuasion is ridiculous.


----------



## jreeves

maineman said:


> that would have been political suicide right before midterms with those 74% of folks thirsting for arab blood.
> 
> as it turns out, America has realized what a mistake it was.... and they know, like you and I know, that the republicans in congress were nearly unanimous in their support for this terrible mistake - including the presumptive presidential candidate... and they know that a majority of democrats stood against it.  It is one of the reasons why democratic enrollment is up and republican enrollment is down.



That statement would be totally based on opinion except for the 74%, you know what, I agree with you it was a mistake to go to war...but I believe it was directly in response to bad intelligence...I will give you this, I think the war could have been conducted better than it has, But I don't think Bush, Republicans,Democrats or anybody else for that matter, misled us...It was definetly the intelligence community's failures and Congress as well as Bush are responsible for not having the correct infrastructures in place to ensure we recieved the best intelligence possible.


----------



## maineman

jreeves said:


> That statement would be totally based on opinion except for the 74%, you know what, I agree with you it was a mistake to go to war...but I believe it was directly in response to bad intelligence...I will give you this, I think the war could have been conducted better than it has, But I don't think Bush, Republicans,Democrats or anybody else for that matter, misled us...It was definetly the intelligence community's failures and Congress as well as Bush are responsible for not having the correct infrastructures in place to ensure we recieved the best intelligence possible.



74% of the people.  not 74% of democrats.

Bush started the war.  Bush wanted the war.  the republicans were nearly unanimous in their support for it.  that will hang around their necks...

America is fixing to give the republican party a big "time out"  they will have the keys taken away from them and sent to sit in the corner for a while and let the grownups from the other party have a go at it.

Our enemies were, and are, nationless islamic extremists.  Our enemies are not the Iraqi people.  Invading Iraq was a mistake.  staying there continues to be a mistake.


----------



## maineman

oh...one more thing:



jreeves said:


> That statement would be totally based on opinion



read 'em and weep:

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm


----------



## jreeves

maineman said:


> 74% of the people.  not 74% of democrats.
> 
> Bush started the war.  Bush wanted the war.  the republicans were nearly unanimous in their support for it.  that will hang around their necks...
> 
> America is fixing to give the republican party a big "time out"  they will have the keys taken away from them and sent to sit in the corner for a while and let the grownups from the other party have a go at it.
> 
> Our enemies were, and are, nationless islamic extremists.  Our enemies are not the Iraqi people.  Invading Iraq was a mistake.  staying there continues to be a mistake.



Those statements are based on opinion. We shall see how the election ends up shaking out. No our enemy isn't the Iraqi people, but the AQ in Iraq is our enemy. That's the reason we can't cut and run.


----------



## maineman

jreeves said:


> Those statements are based on opinion. We shall see how the election ends up shaking out. No our enemy isn't the Iraqi people, but the AQ in Iraq is our enemy. That's the reason we can't cut and run.




AQ in Iraq is a recent franchise operation started by Iraqis and others who wanted an opportunity to fuck with us and our plans.  They have pissed in their own whiskey, so to speak, by killing to many civilians and are getting their asses kicked by Iraqi sunni warlords.  We need to leave and let Iraqis solve this thing without an occupying army in their midst.


----------



## jreeves

maineman said:


> AQ in Iraq is a recent franchise operation started by Iraqis and others who wanted an opportunity to fuck with us and our plans.  They have pissed in their own whiskey, so to speak, by killing to many civilians and are getting their asses kicked by Iraqi sunni warlords.  We need to leave and let Iraqis solve this thing without an occupying army in their midst.



Us leaving prematurely would create a vacuum and create a breeding ground for terrorism.


----------



## mattskramer

jreeves said:


> Us leaving prematurely would create a vacuum and create a breeding ground for terrorism.



Iraq has a new government and political system.  It has a police and military.  It may be time for American soldiers to leave.  Yet, I see your point.  MM, what are we to do if there is a coup or if Iraq gets invaded or starts to serve as a breeding ground for terrorists?  Wont we then be morally obligated to return?


----------



## jreeves

mattskramer said:


> Iraq has a new government and political system.  It has a police and military.  It may be time for American soldiers to leave.  Yet, I see your point.  MM, what are we to do if there is a coup or if Iraq gets invaded or starts to serve as a breeding ground for terrorists?  Wont we then be morally obligated to return?



In my opinion, we should leave based on performance of the new Iraqi government. Yes as soon as they show us they are stable and sufficient security, we should leave. We shouldn't set up permanent bases or anything like that.


----------



## DeadCanDance

mattskramer said:


> Iraq has a new government and political system.  It has a police and military.  It may be time for American soldiers to leave.  Yet, I see your point.  MM, what are we to do if there is a coup



That's their business if there's a coup.   Its their country.  



> or if Iraq gets invaded



Likely, your talking about iran.  If iran invades Iraq, I guarantee you that Jordan, Syria, and Saudi Arabia will go to war to defend Iraq.   The iranians are unlikely to do something that stupid.  Iran hasn't invaded anybody in centuries.  They tend to like to expand their regional influence through more subtle means. 



> or starts to serve as a breeding ground for terrorists?  Wont we then be morally obligated to return?



The we do what we should have done in afghanistan.  Surgical strikes and covert ops.  Occupying a muslim country breeds more terrorists than it kills.   We should have learned that by now.


----------



## maineman

mattskramer said:


> Iraq has a new government and political system.  It has a police and military.  It may be time for American soldiers to leave.  Yet, I see your point.  MM, what are we to do if there is a coup or if Iraq gets invaded or starts to serve as a breeding ground for terrorists?  Wont we then be morally obligated to return?



there are coups in the world all the time.  Our biggest ally in the region kicked out the democratically elected government of Pakistan in a coup.  Morally?  Our first moral duty is to our own people.  The Iraq war is a failure of that duty, IMHO.


----------



## jreeves

DeadCanDance said:


> That's their business if there's a coup.   Its their country.
> 
> 
> 
> Likely, your talking about iran.  If iran invades Iraq, I guarantee you that Jordan, Syria, and Saudi Arabia will go to war to defend Iraq.   The iranians are unlikely to do something that stupid.  Iran hasn't invaded anybody in centuries.  They tend to like to expand their regional influence through more subtle means.
> 
> 
> 
> The we do what we should have done in afghanistan.  Surgical strikes and covert ops.  Occupying a muslim country breeds more terrorists than it kills.   We should have learned that by now.



We've been breeding terrorist in Iraq??


Though largely dismissed by the Democratic left, America's "surge" policy is paying attractive dividends. Al-Qaida in Iraq is in retreat, violence is down and political reconciliation is up.
In a 16-page letter that U.S. soldiers found last October near Baghdad, AQI leader Abu Tariq complained that his 600-man force had dwindled to 20 terrorists.

"We were mistreated, cheated and betrayed by some of our brothers," he moaned, as Sunnis swapped AQI for the U.S. This shift "created panic, fear and the unwillingness to fight," another AQI chief whined in his own missive discovered in November near Samarra. His network, he said, suffered "total collapse."

Terrorism is collapsing across Iraq. In February 2007, when President Bush ordered 30,000 additional troops into Iraq  as Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., cheered and Democratic Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois jeered  only 8 percent of Baghdad's neighborhoods were rated secure. That number is now 75 percent. In 2006, coalition troops defused 2,662 terrorist weapons caches. In 2007, they neutralized 6,956. Since June, attacks on U.S. soldiers have slid 60 percent. Meanwhile, sectarian violence fell 90 percent from January to December 2007, sparing Iraqi and U.S. lives alike.


Story continues below


----------



## jreeves

jreeves said:


> We've been breeding terrorist in Iraq??
> 
> 
> Though largely dismissed by the Democratic left, America's "surge" policy is paying attractive dividends. Al-Qaida in Iraq is in retreat, violence is down and political reconciliation is up.
> In a 16-page letter that U.S. soldiers found last October near Baghdad, AQI leader Abu Tariq complained that his 600-man force had dwindled to 20 terrorists.
> 
> "We were mistreated, cheated and betrayed by some of our brothers," he moaned, as Sunnis swapped AQI for the U.S. This shift "created panic, fear and the unwillingness to fight," another AQI chief whined in his own missive discovered in November near Samarra. His network, he said, suffered "total collapse."
> 
> Terrorism is collapsing across Iraq. In February 2007, when President Bush ordered 30,000 additional troops into Iraq  as Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., cheered and Democratic Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois jeered  only 8 percent of Baghdad's neighborhoods were rated secure. That number is now 75 percent. In 2006, coalition troops defused 2,662 terrorist weapons caches. In 2007, they neutralized 6,956. Since June, attacks on U.S. soldiers have slid 60 percent. Meanwhile, sectarian violence fell 90 percent from January to December 2007, sparing Iraqi and U.S. lives alike.
> 
> 
> Story continues below



http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695253568,00.html


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> if you have proof that over 50% of democrats supported the war, present it.  You can infer all you want from your poll, but you cannot substantiate it.
> 
> and the point is rather moot in any case. Most Americans realize now that their initial support for this war was misplaced.
> 
> and, to their credit, a majority of democrats in congress always knew that it was a bad idea.



You mean they didn't believe the lies Bush told? The cherry picked Intel?  Just how did they know in 2002 t was all Lies and cherry picked ( as you claim) when they had 8 years of Clinton saying the same thing before Bush? When they had all the reports from our allies saying the same thing?

Come on now, which is it? They were lied to and were just so smart they knew better even after 8 years of the same intel OR they were opposed to the war cause Bush proposed it? Irregardless that most of America was for the war?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> that would have been political suicide right before midterms with those 74% of folks thirsting for arab blood.
> 
> as it turns out, America has realized what a mistake it was.... and they know, like you and I know, that the republicans in congress were nearly unanimous in their support for this terrible mistake - including the presumptive presidential candidate... and they know that a majority of democrats stood against it.  It is one of the reasons why democratic enrollment is up and republican enrollment is down.



LOL what a bald faced lie. Lets recap the "political" situation shall we? If the elections determined the vote then the Democrats in the House should have overwhelmingly supported the vote because EVERYONE of them was up for reelection, while in the Senate only 1/3 of the entire Senate is ever up for reelection each 2 years.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> LOL what a bald faced lie. Lets recap the "political" situation shall we? If the elections determined the vote then the Democrats in the House should have overwhelmingly supported the vote because EVERYONE of them was up for reelection, while in the Senate only 1/3 of the entire Senate is ever up for reelection each 2 years.




YOU don't acknowledge the fact that many democrats in the house are in relatively safe seats and did not have credible opposition.  Many other democrats live in very liberal districts where a majority of their constituents opposed the war.  But, I guess mistakes like that are expected from a guy like you who has a little bit of civics class knowledge and not a lot of on the ground politicking experience.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> YOU don't acknowledge the fact that many democrats in the house are in relatively safe seats and did not have credible opposition.  Many other democrats live in very liberal districts where a majority of their constituents opposed the war.  But, I guess mistakes like that are expected from a guy like you who has a little bit of civics class knowledge and not a lot of on the ground politicking experience.



Sure thing, I notice you can not seem to square your " Bush Lied" with the vote either.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> Sure thing, I notice you can not seem to square your " Bush Lied" with the vote either.



there has never been, nor will there be, a vote taken on whether or not Bush misled congress.  With which vote am I supposed to be squaring anything?

the fact is:  I fully explained the house vote to you - where you called me a bald faced liar...and once again, you just weasel away.  pathetic.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> there has never been, nor will there be, a vote taken on whether or not Bush misled congress.  With which vote am I supposed to be squaring anything?
> 
> the fact is:  I fully explained the house vote to you - where you called me a bald faced liar...and once again, you just weasel away.  pathetic.



You don't get to claim the looming election was such an overriding factor in JUST the Senate. If in fact the "fear" was a loss of congressional seat it would have been more true in the House not the Senate, since EVERY house seat was up for reelection and only 33 Senate seats were up.

Further you do not get to keep claiming that Bush lied to Congress and cherry picked the intel BUT somehow those wily Democrats in the house knew better but the Senators did not.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

In fact only 14 Democrats were up for reelection in 2002 Senate and one of them was forced to retire.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/blcandidates.htm


So remind us how only those 14 Senators voted for the war.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> You don't get to claim the looming election was such an overriding factor in JUST the Senate. If in fact the "fear" was a loss of congressional seat it would have been more true in the House not the Senate, since EVERY house seat was up for reelection and only 33 Senate seats were up.
> 
> Further you do not get to keep claiming that Bush lied to Congress and cherry picked the intel BUT somehow those wily Democrats in the house knew better but the Senators did not.



Like I said, many democratic congressmen were in safe seats... many of THEM were in safe seats in districts where their constituency was against the war.... many democrats in the house voted for the war in order to hold their seats just as senators voted for the war to hold theirs (and to continue their presidential aspirations).  How many of the senators who voted AGAINST the war were up for election in 2002?  How many of them had solid republican opponents?  How many of them were from deep blue states?

The analysis of the variables in this situation is closer to a calculus problem and you want to deal with it using addition and subtraction.  

give it up.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> In fact only 14 Democrats were up for reelection in 2002 Seante and one of them was forced to retire.
> 
> http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/blcandidates.htm
> 
> 
> So remind us how only those 14 Senators voted for the war.




and please recall: the only unanimity about the vote came from the republican party.  I have never claimed that the democrats were unanimous about their opposition to the war...I only claimed - and rightfully so - that a majority of democrats in congress were against it...and of that, I remain proud... I am proud of those who voted the right way, and I remain disappointed with those who didn't unless they have since repented.

as an example:  In Maine, we have two congressional districts.... the southern one tends to be much more liberal than the northern one.  The southern one was represented by a fairly liberal democrat and his constituency was demonstrably against the war.  He voted against the use of force.  He was handily reelected by his district.  The northern district was represented by a much more moderate to conservative blue dog democrat who was not running for reelection, but running for governor, instead.  He knew that he had a weak republican opponent in the gubernatorial election and he knew that a vote against the war would strengthen his standing with the voters in the other district...HE voted against the war.  He was elected governor...and reelected in 2006.  I am proud of both of them and have told them so.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> Like I said, many democratic congressmen were in safe seats... many of THEM were in safe seats in districts where their constituency was against the war.... many democrats in the house voted for the war in order to hold their seats just as senators voted for the war to hold theirs (and to continue their presidential aspirations).  How many of the senators who voted AGAINST the war were up for election in 2002?  How many of them had solid republican opponents?  How many of them were from deep blue states?
> 
> The analysis of the variables in this situation is closer to a calculus problem and you want to deal with it using addition and subtraction.
> 
> give it up.



13 of the 14 voted for war. One of the 14 was forced to retire by the way so had no reason to be forced to vote for the war ( he had announced his "retirement" BEFORE the vote)

Further since at the time the Democrats maintained a slim control of the Senate they easily could have simply avoided the voted. And since there at my count 28 Democrats that VOTED FOR war that means 15 of them had no fear what so ever of being hurt by elections of ANY kind.

Sources are also clear that your claim of cherry picked intel and lies by our intel service had nothing what so ever to do with the vote. Most of the Congressional voters failed to even READ the intel provided.

Here lets provide some insight for your ignorant claims about cherry picked and untrue intel.



> In the end, 156 members of Congress from 36 states had enough information and personal insight and wisdom to make the correct decision for our national and the world community.



from....

http://usliberals.about.com/od/liberalleadership/a/IraqNayVote.htm

Hardly a site that would be favorable to the Republicans or Bush.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> 13 of the 14 voted for war. One of the 14 was forced to retire by the way so had no reason to be forced to vote for the war ( he had announced his "retirement" BEFORE the vote)
> 
> Further since at the time the Democrats maintained a slim control of the Senate they easily could have simply avoided the voted. And since there at my count 28 Democrats that VOTED FOR war that means 15 of them had no fear what so ever of being hurt by elections of ANY kind.
> 
> Sources are also clear that your claim of cherry picked intel and lies by our intel service had nothing what so ever to do with the vote. Most of the Congressional voters failed to even READ the intel provided.
> 
> Here lets provide some insight for your ignorant claims about cherry picked and untrue intel.
> 
> 
> 
> from....
> 
> http://usliberals.about.com/od/liberalleadership/a/IraqNayVote.htm
> 
> Hardly a site that would be favorable to the Republicans or Bush.



you site is honoring those who voted no.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> you site is honoring those who voted no.



And it clearly states they had the INFORMATION to make an INFORMED decision. No claims they ferreted out the illegal lies the CIA provided or the illegal action the Executive preformed to prevent the Congress from independent fact gathering. 

All necassary for your " Bush lied" claim.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> And it clearly states they had the INFORMATION to make an INFORMED decision. No claims they ferreted out the illegal lies the CIA provided or the illegal action the Executive preformed to prevent the Congress from independent fact gathering.
> 
> All necassary for your " Bush lied" claim.



I would have made the same decision at that time regardless of whether or not I believed George Bush had lied or not.  Their voting the way they did does not prove that George Bush did NOT make statements designed to convey a false impression about the certainty of Saddam's WMD stockpiles.  I say, quite simply, that when Team Bush conveyed the false impression that there was absolute certainty about the existence and location of Saddam's stockpiles, that those statements were, in fact, lies simply because they conveyed that false impression.  That is one of the definitions of the word "lie".  

And I have never suggested that Team Bush conveyed those false impressions to prevent Congress from independent fact gathering.  Never.  I have always only suggested that those false impressions were conveyed for the purpose of gaining support from the American people... and they clearly served their purpose.


----------



## rayboyusmc

They pulled and pushed the American People into a war we didn't need.  They used whatever means needed.  To include hints of a fucking mushroom cloud and the actual places we would find the WMDs.

It's called deception if you can't deal with the word lie.  Tell that to the 4000 dead Americans who believed this bullshit.


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> I would have made the same decision at that time regardless of whether or not I believed George Bush had lied or not.  Their voting the way they did does not prove that George Bush did NOT make statements designed to convey a false impression about the certainty of Saddam's WMD stockpiles.  I say, quite simply, that when Team Bush conveyed the false impression that there was absolute certainty about the existence and location of Saddam's stockpiles, that those statements were, in fact, lies simply because they conveyed that false impression.  That is one of the definitions of the word "lie".
> 
> And I have never suggested that Team Bush conveyed those false impressions to prevent Congress from independent fact gathering.  Never.  I have always only suggested that those false impressions were conveyed for the purpose of gaining support from the American people... and they clearly served their purpose.



*Bullshit....those "same impressions" were the same exact beliefs being put out by Dims, world leaders, and the UN for the previous 10 years and suddenly when Bush repeats those beliefs, as if by magic, they become lies and  false impressions....
Whats amazing is that these facts have been proven to you, probably 100 times and you still spew the bullshit.....
Its time to wipe to wipe your lips, clean your chin, and get a new schtick....
You're in a rut....*


----------



## Alpha1

rayboyusmc said:


> They pulled and pushed the American People into a war we didn't need.  They used whatever means needed.  To include hints of a fucking mushroom cloud and the actual places we would find the WMDs.
> 
> It's called deception if you can't deal with the word lie.  Tell that to the 4000 dead Americans who believed this bullshit.


*
12/16/98 Bill Clinton..

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I realize the exact words, "mushroom cloud" wasn't used, so the threat expressed by Bush might not penetrate your skull...*


----------



## mattskramer

Alpha1 said:


> *
> 12/16/98 Bill Clinton..
> 
> Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
> 
> Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
> 
> I realize the exact words, "mushroom cloud" wasn't used, so the threat expressed by Bush might not penetrate your skull...*



What is your point?  Lobbing a few bombs, rightfully or wrongfully, does not constitute a war  especially when your opponent practically does not fight back?


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> *Bullshit....those "same impressions" were the same exact beliefs being put out by Dims, world leaders, and the UN for the previous 10 years and suddenly when Bush repeats those beliefs, as if by magic, they become lies and  false impressions....
> Whats amazing is that these facts have been proven to you, probably 100 times and you still spew the bullshit.....
> Its time to wipe to wipe your lips, clean your chin, and get a new schtick....
> You're in a rut....*




who said that Bush was the first to use those lies and false impressions?  not me.

Bush is simply the first to use them - post 9/11 - for the purpose of starting a major, costly, time consuming, counterproductive, bloody ground war.


----------



## Alpha1

mattskramer said:


> What is your point?  Lobbing a few bombs, rightfully or wrongfully, does not constitute a war  especially when your opponent practically does not fight back?



I guess that would be your view of Dec. 7, 1941 too....whats a few bombs!

Guess that depends on who is doing the 'lobbing".....

Come back when you get beyond your adolescence .... I can deal with adult ignorance but not with childish nonsense....


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> I guess that would be your view of Dec. 7, 1941 too....whats a few bombs!
> 
> Guess that depends on who is doing the 'lobbing".....
> 
> Come back when you get beyond your adolescence .... I can deal with adult ignorance but not with childish nonsense....



if you cannot see the difference between limited tactical airstrikes on a handful of installations and a major ground war that costs hundreds of billions and 32K dead and wounded, you are the ignorant child, not him.


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> if you cannot see the difference between limited tactical airstrikes on a handful of installations and a major ground war that costs hundreds of billions and 32K dead and wounded, you are the ignorant child, not him.



Get a clue...
When one country "lobs" a few bombs on another country THAT is an ACT OF WAR...period...the number of casualties is irrelevant.....the chosen response of that other country is irrelevant...Yugoslavia's response to US bombing was zero, but that little ditty is still referred to as a war.....


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> if you cannot see the difference between limited tactical airstrikes on a handful of installations and a major ground war that costs hundreds of billions and 32K dead and wounded, you are the ignorant child, not him.



Pearl Harbor was limited, tactical air strikes...
on a handful of installations (ships)
Only alittle over 2000 killed (less than the 9\11 WTC)....

Could hardly be called war according to you morons....


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> Pearl Harbor was limited, tactical air strikes...
> on a handful of installations (ships)
> Only alittle over 2000 killed (less than the 9\11 WTC)....



stupid analogy.  It was the first in a lengthy list of attacks that had been planned as part of a greater land/sea war in the Pacific.  

Clinton knocked out a few radar and communications sites.

but DO keep spewing irrelevance and strutting around as if you actually knew your ass from a hole in the ground.... it is SO like you!


----------



## mattskramer

maineman said:


> if you cannot see the difference between limited tactical airstrikes on a handful of installations and a major ground war that costs hundreds of billions and 32K dead and wounded, you are the ignorant child, not him.



In addition, he is comparing America to Iraq.  On December 7, 1941 Japan attacked America and America responded.  When Clinton lobbed a few bombs at Iraq, there was no significant reply.  Clinton did not declare are against Iraq in the same way that Japan attacked America.


----------



## mattskramer

Alpha1 said:


> Get a clue...
> When one country "lobs" a few bombs on another country THAT is an ACT OF WAR...period...the number of casualties is irrelevant.....the chosen response of that other country is irrelevant...Yugoslavia's response to US bombing was zero, but that little ditty is still referred to as a war.....



- So you are contending that we have been in a hot war against Iraq for nearly 10 years.    

Okay.  Clinton declared war on Iraq.  Bush did not take us to war.  It was Clinton.


----------



## mattskramer

Alpha1 said:


> Pearl Harbor was limited, tactical air strikes...
> on a handful of installations (ships)
> Only alittle over 2000 killed (less than the 9\11 WTC)....
> 
> Could hardly be called war according to you morons....



We recognized it as war and we struck back against Japan.  Iraq did not respond as if we were at war with it.   That makes a difference.


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> stupid analogy.  It was the first in a lengthy list of attacks that had been planned as part of a greater land/sea war in the Pacific.
> 
> Clinton knocked out a few radar and communications sites.
> 
> but DO keep spewing irrelevance and strutting around as if you actually knew your ass from a hole in the ground.... it is SO like you!



Talking stupid again, are you?  Lengthy list of attacks????
The US DECLARED WAR on Japan the very next day asshole....because we could....

and if Saddam could, he would have done something similar....the fact that he had nothing with which to fight a war, might have had something to do with it...


----------



## Shogun

meh... put it on a shirt and wear it to the polls, dude.  Watching you people justify the last 8 years of political gladhanding is pretty pathetic this side of finding that giant cache of phantom WMDs.


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> Talking stupid again, are you?  Lengthy list of attacks????
> The US DECLARED WAR on Japan the very next day asshole....because we could....
> 
> and if Saddam could, he would have done something similar....the fact that he had nothing with which to fight a war, might have had something to do with it...



Are you suggesting that, prior to attacking Pearl Harbor on 12/07, Japan had not already fully planned and staged their attacks on the Philippines and Guam (12/10), Burma (12/11), Borneo (12/16), Hong Kong (12/18), Luzon (12/22), Wake Island (12/23), Bataan, (1/7), Solomons (1/23) and Singapore (1/30) or would you NOT call that a "lengthy list of attacks"?

again... our bombing a few selected weapons emplacements in Iraq is not synonymous with WWII, and it is not synonymous with the War in Iraq.


----------



## mattskramer

Alpha1 said:


> Talking stupid again, are you?  Lengthy list of attacks????
> The US DECLARED WAR on Japan the very next day asshole....because we could....
> 
> and if Saddam could, he would have done something similar....the fact that he had nothing with which to fight a war, might have had something to do with it...



Face it.  First of all, Clinton did not declare war on Saddam.  Did Saddam even communicate to anyone that he considered Clintons actions an act of war?  I doubt it.  He could have declared war.  That does not mean that he could win a war.


----------



## DeadCanDance

Alpha1 said:


> *Pearl Harbor was limited, tactical air strikes...
> on a handful of installations (ships)*
> 
> Only alittle over 2000 killed (less than the 9\11 WTC)....
> 
> *Could hardly be called war* according to you morons....




OMFG...an Imperial Japan Apologist, and an apologist for the sneak attack on America.    Who's side are you on?


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> Are you suggesting that, prior to attacking Pearl Harbor on 12/07, Japan had not already fully planned and staged their attacks on the Philippines and Guam (12/10), Burma (12/11), Borneo (12/16), Hong Kong (12/18), Luzon (12/22), Wake Island (12/23), Bataan, (1/7), Solomons (1/23) and Singapore (1/30) or would you NOT call that a "lengthy list of attacks"?
> 
> again... our bombing a few selected weapons emplacements in Iraq is not synonymous with WWII, and it is not synonymous with the War in Iraq.



I'm suggesting that 'lobbing' bombs on another country is a fuckin' act of war.....an act of war...the number of casualties is irrelevant and the response of the attacked country is irrelevant.....that you call it limited, tactical airstrikes is convoluted nonsense in the extreme....


----------



## Alpha1

mattskramer said:


> Face it.  First of all, Clinton did not declare war on Saddam.  Did Saddam even communicate to anyone that he considered Clintons actions an act of war?  I doubt it.  He could have declared war.  That does not mean that he could win a war.



Exactly !

But that doesn't negate the fact that lobbing bombs on another country is an act of war.....and the attacked country is well within its international rights to view it as such.....


----------



## Alpha1

DeadCanDance said:


> OMFG...an Imperial Japan Apologist, and an apologist for the sneak attack on America.    Who's side are you on?


*If you don't understand the topic of the thread...butt out....*



Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha1 View Post
I guess that would be your view of Dec. 7, 1941 too....whats a few bombs!

Guess that depends on who is doing the 'lobbing".....

Come back when you get beyond your adolescence .... I can deal with adult ignorance but not with childish nonsense....
__________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
Mainman:
if you cannot see the difference between limited tactical airstrikes
 on a handful of installations and a major ground war that costs hundreds of billions and 32K dead and wounded, you are the ignorant child, not him.

*Take it up with MM....he thinks "limited, tactical air strikes on a handfull of installations is just nothing to worry yourself about....
as long as its not you getting hit with those "limited, tactical air strikes...

Now he'll try to spin this thread into confusion so he don't come off looking as stupid
his post suggests....*


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> I'm suggesting that 'lobbing' bombs on another country is a fuckin' act of war.....an act of war...the number of casualties is irrelevant and the response of the attacked country is irrelevant.....that you call it limited, tactical airstrikes is convoluted nonsense in the extreme....



technically, when protesters lob molotov cocktails onto the grounds of a US embassy, that is an act of war too.

big deal. 

To suggest that what Bush did by starting a huge ground war in Iraq is synonymous with what Clinton did is insulting to the 4000 GIs who've died in Bush's war.


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> not you getting hit with those "limited, tactical air strikes...
> 
> Now he'll try to spin this thread into confusion so he *don't *come off looking as stupid
> his post suggests....



I would think that a grown man who cannot conjugate the present tense of the verb "to do" looks pretty fucking stupid!


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> I would think that a grown man who cannot conjugate the present tense of the verb "to do" looks pretty fucking stupid!



Ha...just like you...LOL....now should I stoop to your level to point out your lack of knowing enough to use capital letters for proper names, etc.?

I wouldn't do that...its too petty for me....


----------



## DeadCanDance

Alpha1 said:


> Exactly !
> 
> But that doesn't negate the fact that lobbing bombs on another country is an act of war.....and the attacked country is well within its international rights to view it as such.....



Well, first according to you Cons the 1991 state of hostilities never technically ended.  So we were free to bomb them when they didn't kow tow to us.   So which is it?  Was the 1991 War technically over, or not.  Choose. 

Second, everyone including Saddam knew in 1998 that these airstrikes were limited and would not be followed up with a land invasion.  When the Japanese attacked us, they were in full war mode, and within days of pearl harbor, were attacking us and invading in the Phillipines, at Guam, at Wake, and Alaska.


----------



## Zoomie1980

DeadCanDance said:


> Well, first according to you Cons the 1991 state of hostilities never technically ended.  So we were free to bomb them when they didn't kow tow to us.   So which is it?  Was the 1991 War technically over, or not.  Choose.
> 
> Second, everyone including Saddam knew in 1998 that these airstrikes were limited and would not be followed up with a land invasion.  When the Japanese attacked us, they were in full war mode, and within days of pearl harbor, were attacking us and invading in the Phillipines, at Guam, at Wake, and Alaska.



It was never over, just a cease fire.  Same situation in Korea, we are still technically at War with N Korea and can LEGALLY go in, militarily at any time, and the congressional sanction to use force in Korea from 1950 is STILL valid, as is the UN resolution, so the President could order troops to cross the 38th parallel at any time, on his own, WITHOUT additional congressional approval, 100% legally.  Of course it would be political suicide, but it would 100% legal both domestically and internationally.


----------



## maineman

Zoomie1980 said:


> It was never over, just a cease fire.  Same situation in Korea, we are still technically at War with N Korea and can LEGALLY go in, militarily at any time, and the congressional sanction to use force in Korea from 1950 is STILL valid, as is the UN resolution, so the President could order troops to cross the 38th parallel at any time, on his own, WITHOUT additional congressional approval, 100% legally.  Of course it would be political suicide, but it would 100% legal both domestically and internationally.



so... do you agree with Alpha that Clinton conducting a handful of surgical airstrikes against Iraq is exactly the same thing as Bush starting a major ground offensive lasting five years, and costing 32K dead and wounded Americans and a half a trillion dollars?  Six of one, half a dozen of the other?


----------



## Zoomie1980

maineman said:


> so... do you agree with Alpha that Clinton conducting a handful of surgical airstrikes against Iraq is exactly the same thing as Bush starting a major ground offensive lasting five years, and costing 32K dead and wounded Americans and a half a trillion dollars?  Six of one, half a dozen of the other?



Both were legal military counters to Sadaams flagrant violations of the cease fire and 17 UN resolutions passed since PG I.  CLinton, however, never attempted to regime change.  Bush had had enough of Sadaam so instead of just taking out a few military facilities, Bush decided to take out the government.

And it was THREE WEEK ground offensive and the most successful ground campaign in all of human history.  It achieved it's goal of military defeat and ousting of the Iraqi government in three weelks while it took 3.5 years to do the same to Japan.  What followed is a comparison of occupation of two defeated nations, one with a successful conclusion and the other with a failed conclusion.  IN Japan we spent nine years occupying the country before instilling a successful western democracy.  We have spent only five in Iraq so far and have so far, failed miserably because of points I have already made many times.


----------



## jreeves

maineman said:


> who said that Bush was the first to use those lies and false impressions?  not me.
> 
> Bush is simply the first to use them - post 9/11 - for the purpose of starting a major, costly, time consuming, counterproductive, bloody ground war.



Are you sure democrats didn't suggest Iraq had chemical, biological weapons and inspired to have nukes in post 9/11?


----------



## maineman

jreeves said:


> Are you sure democrats didn't suggest Iraq had chemical, biological weapons and inspired to have nukes in post 9/11?



some did.  they were wrong when they thought it and wrong when they expressed it.  

but as we know, a majority of them in congress voted against starting Bush's war.


----------



## jreeves

maineman said:


> I would have made the same decision at that time regardless of whether or not I believed George Bush had lied or not.  Their voting the way they did does not prove that George Bush did NOT make statements designed to convey a false impression about the certainty of Saddam's WMD stockpiles.  I say, quite simply, that when Team Bush conveyed the false impression that there was absolute certainty about the existence and location of Saddam's stockpiles, that those statements were, in fact, lies simply because they conveyed that false impression.  That is one of the definitions of the word "lie".
> 
> And I have never suggested that Team Bush conveyed those false impressions to prevent Congress from independent fact gathering.  Never.  I have always only suggested that those false impressions were conveyed for the purpose of gaining support from the American people... and they clearly served their purpose.



If you suggest that, then you have to believe that, Clinton, Waxman, Bryd, Kennedy and others also conveyed false impressions? Because they also gave very strong worded statements about Saddam's Wmd program. Do me a favor open your eyes past your political lies. You can't have the multitude of statements your party made about the strength of evidence regarding Saddam's Wmd programs and then state Bush misled everyone.


----------



## jreeves

maineman said:


> some did.  they were wrong when they thought it and wrong when they expressed it.
> 
> but as we know, a majority of them in congress voted against starting Bush's war.



Democratic leadership supported it


----------



## maineman

jreeves said:


> Democratic leadership supported it



so what?  ever read Will Rogers quote about his political affiliation?  It's still true.  "I' don't belong to an organized political party...I'm a democrat"
or Bob Dylan:  "don't follow leaders, watch the parking meters."

When this war was going well, republicans made a big deal about how the majority of democrats had voted the wrong way and were on the wrong side of history....but once the war turned to shit, republicans stumble over each other trying to point out that there were democrats who did vote for  it and they are, therefore, just as much to blame.  It is a flip flop born out of sickly flop sweat realization that America has taken an accurate measure of you and your party, and they find you wanting.  America has figured out that it's time to take the keys away....time for the GOP to go sit in the corner and let the other team run the show for a while.  Most folks think that the democrats will do it better....nearly everyone agrees that it would be hard for us to do it much worse.


----------



## Annie

maineman said:


> so what?  ever read Will Rogers quote about his political affiliation?  It's still true.  "I' don't belong to an organized political party...I'm a democrat"
> or Bob Dylan:  "don't follow leaders, watch the parking meters."
> 
> When this war was going well, republicans made a big deal about how the majority of democrats had voted the wrong way and were on the wrong side of history....but once the war turned to shit, republicans stumble over each other trying to point out that there were democrats who did vote for  it and they are, therefore, just as much to blame.  It is a flip flop born out of sickly flop sweat realization that America has taken an accurate measure of you and your party, and they find you wanting.  America has figured out that it's time to take the keys away....time for the GOP to go sit in the corner and let the other team run the show for a while.  Most folks think that the democrats will do it better....nearly everyone agrees that it would be hard for us to do it much worse.


We understand, it doesn't matter who, what, how, or why, Dems rule for you. Got it. Understood. Comprende.


----------



## maineman

Kathianne said:


> We understand, it doesn't matter who, what, how, or why, Dems rule for you. Got it. Understood. Comprende.



politics is a team sport.


----------



## maineman

jreeves said:


> If you suggest that, then you have to believe that, Clinton, Waxman, Bryd, Kennedy and others also conveyed false impressions? Because they also gave very strong worded statements about Saddam's Wmd program. Do me a favor open your eyes past your political lies. You can't have the multitude of statements your party made about the strength of evidence regarding Saddam's Wmd programs and then state Bush misled everyone.




I have said over and over again.  any democrat who spread that administration line around or who voted for the use of force resolution is on my shitlist until they repent.  I have had only one opportunity to vote for one.... Clinton in my municipal caucus, and I voted for Obama.

Beyond that.  Bush was our leader.  He chose when or if he would exercise the force.  He chose to kick UN inspectors OUT of the county because he was in such a hurry to get to war, even though the resolution strongly urged him to exhaust ALL diplomatic avenues first and go to war as a last resort...he went as a first resort.  Bush misled us to WAR.... and the buck stops on his desk for that.  sorry.


----------



## jreeves

maineman said:


> so what?  ever read Will Rogers quote about his political affiliation?  It's still true.  "I' don't belong to an organized political party...I'm a democrat"
> or Bob Dylan:  "don't follow leaders, watch the parking meters."
> 
> When this war was going well, republicans made a big deal about how the majority of democrats had voted the wrong way and were on the wrong side of history....but once the war turned to shit, republicans stumble over each other trying to point out that there were democrats who did vote for  it and they are, therefore, just as much to blame.  It is a flip flop born out of sickly flop sweat realization that America has taken an accurate measure of you and your party, and they find you wanting.  America has figured out that it's time to take the keys away....time for the GOP to go sit in the corner and let the other team run the show for a while.  Most folks think that the democrats will do it better....nearly everyone agrees that it would be hard for us to do it much worse.[
> 
> I didn't pick Will Rogers's quote because of his political affiliation. I picked it because I liked the quote. I am not that shallow to dislike someone's music or quote because of their political persuasion.
> Democrats and Republicans both supported the war at the onset which is a fact. You can state that the majority of Congressional Democrats voted against the war authorization. As you have stated before alot of those Democrats came from very liberal districts, which may explain why a majority of Congressional Democrats voted against it even though a majority of Democrats supported it. Democratic leadership came out over a period of several years and made statements just as strong as the Bush adminstration in support of removing Saddam from power.
> 
> I don't think the average American voter, when it comes down to voting, will turn the country over to a liberal. I believe people realize that we need strong leadership in a world full of Islamic Extremist. You can state polls and the such but in the end it doesn't matter what people think now. It's what they think in November when they go to the polls. I don't believe the American people will elect a senator who has less than 3 years experience in dealing with national issues.


----------



## maineman

jreeves said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> so what?  ever read Will Rogers quote about his political affiliation?  It's still true.  "I' don't belong to an organized political party...I'm a democrat"
> or Bob Dylan:  "don't follow leaders, watch the parking meters."
> 
> When this war was going well, republicans made a big deal about how the majority of democrats had voted the wrong way and were on the wrong side of history....but once the war turned to shit, republicans stumble over each other trying to point out that there were democrats who did vote for  it and they are, therefore, just as much to blame.  It is a flip flop born out of sickly flop sweat realization that America has taken an accurate measure of you and your party, and they find you wanting.  America has figured out that it's time to take the keys away....time for the GOP to go sit in the corner and let the other team run the show for a while.  Most folks think that the democrats will do it better....nearly everyone agrees that it would be hard for us to do it much worse.[
> 
> I didn't pick Will Rogers's quote because of his political affiliation. I picked it because I liked the quote. I am not that shallow to dislike someone's music or quote because of their political persuasion.
> Democrats and Republicans both supported the war at the onset which is a fact. You can state that the majority of Congressional Democrats voted against the war authorization. As you have stated before alot of those Democrats came from very liberal districts, which may explain why a majority of Congressional Democrats voted against it even though a majority of Democrats supported it. Democratic leadership came out over a period of several years and made statements just as strong as the Bush adminstration in support of removing Saddam from power.
> 
> I don't think the average American voter, when it comes down to voting, will turn the country over to a liberal. I believe people realize that we need strong leadership in a world full of Islamic Extremist. You can state polls and the such but in the end it doesn't matter what people think now. It's what they think in November when they go to the polls. I don't believe the American people will elect a senator who has less than 3 years experience in dealing with national issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thank you for expressing your opinion.  We happen to disagree.  (Imagine that!)
Click to expand...


----------



## jreeves

maineman said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> 
> thank you for expressing your opinion.  We happen to disagree.  (Imagine that!)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep they lied no terrorist in Iraq.....
> 
> http://www.nysun.com/article/72906
> 
> WASHINGTON  A Pentagon review of about 600,000 documents captured in the Iraq war attests to Saddam Hussein's willingness to use terrorism to target Americans and work closely with jihadist organizations throughout the Middle East.
> 
> The report, released this week by the Institute for Defense Analyses, says it found no "smoking gun" linking Iraq operationally to Al Qaeda. But it does say Saddam collaborated with known Al Qaeda affiliates and a wider constellation of Islamist terror groups
Click to expand...


----------



## maineman

jreeves said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep they lied no terrorist in Iraq.....
> 
> http://www.nysun.com/article/72906
> 
> WASHINGTON  A Pentagon review of about 600,000 documents captured in the Iraq war attests to Saddam Hussein's willingness to use terrorism to target Americans and work closely with jihadist organizations throughout the Middle East.
> 
> The report, released this week by the Institute for Defense Analyses, says it found no "smoking gun" linking Iraq operationally to Al Qaeda. But it does say Saddam collaborated with known Al Qaeda affiliates and a wider constellation of Islamist terror groups
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> again... no one has ever doubted that Saddam supported arabic nationalist terror organizations.  he did not support Al Qaeda.  it would have been suicidal to do so.
Click to expand...


----------



## jreeves

maineman said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> 
> again... no one has ever doubted that Saddam supported arabic nationalist terror organizations.  he did not support Al Qaeda.  it would have been suicidal to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, if you suppose Saddam had WMD's then can't you see where these Jihadists could have done harm to us?
Click to expand...


----------



## jreeves

jreeves said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, if you suppose Saddam had WMD's then can't you see where these Jihadists could have done harm to us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The report concludes that Saddam until the final months of his regime was willing to attack America. Its conclusion asks "Is there anything in the captured archives to indicate that Saddam had the will to use his terrorist capabilities directly against the United States?" It goes on, "Judging from Saddam's statements before the 1991 Gulf War with the United States, the answer is yes." As for after the Gulf War, the report states, "The rise of Islamist fundamentalism in the region gave Saddam the opportunity to make terrorism, one of the few tools remaining in Saddam's 'coercion' tool box." It goes on, "Evidence that was uncovered and analyzed attests to the existence of a terrorist capability and a willingness to use it until the day Saddam was forced to flee Baghdad by Coalition forces." The report does note that it is unclear whether Saddam would have authorized terrorism against American targets in the final months of his regime before Operation Iraqi Freedom five years ago. "The answer to the question of Saddam's will in the final months in power remains elusive," it says.
> 
> Nevermind....yeah maybe not AQ but just as deadly.
Click to expand...


----------



## maineman

jreeves said:


> Ok, if you suppose Saddam had WMD's then can't you see where these Jihadists could have done harm to us?




not arab nationalists.   no. 

and you need to learn how to use quotes correctly....


----------



## RetiredGySgt

jreeves said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, if you suppose Saddam had WMD's then can't you see where these Jihadists could have done harm to us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He will never, under any circumstance admit to anything that might involve supporting his President. Look how he just IGNORED the fact that we have proof Saddam Hussein DID in fact work with AL Queada cells and affiliates.
> 
> He keeps making the claim that somehow before we invaded he KNEW what the entire world DID NOT KNOW. That there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He goes on and on about how Bush mislead us and uses as an example the fact Bush believed with no doubt that Saddam had weapons. And his whole defense is he BELIEVED with out a doubt, if we are to believe him, that he knew there were NONE there at all.
> 
> The word for what he does is HYPOCRITE. He insists that before we invaded it was common knowledge to intelligence agencies that Saddam had no weapons. He blythely ignores ALL the STATEMENTS from around the world, from his own party leadership BEFORE we invaded and since the first war that show his claim is ignorant on its FACE.
> 
> Now a reasonable argument one could make about the war is that one did not think we needed to invade because Saddam would not use his weapons on us, that he would not provide weapons to terrorists. BUT Maineman makes the claim that Bush lied when he stated there were weapons there. That there was no doubt there were weapons there. In order to believe that Bush lied one must , BEFORE the INVASION, believe there were NO WEAPONS in Iraq. That Saddam had NO TIES to terrorists, that Saddam did not seek revenge on the US, that Saddam would not return to making weapons and courting terrorists once the sanctions were lifted, that leaving Saddam in power even with no sanctions, free flowing oil money and no checks on his weapons programs or military or secret services, would not ever place us in any danger.
Click to expand...


----------



## jreeves

RetiredGySgt said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> 
> He will never, under any circumstance admit to anything that might involve supporting his President. Look how he just IGNORED the fact that we have proof Saddam Hussein DID in fact work with AL Queada cells and affiliates.
> 
> He keeps making the claim that somehow before we invaded he KNEW what the entire world DID NOT KNOW. That there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He goes on and on about how Bush mislead us and uses as an example the fact Bush believed with no doubt that Saddam had weapons. And his whole defense is he BELIEVED with out a doubt, if we are to believe him, that he knew there were NONE there at all.
> 
> The word for what he does is HYPOCRITE. He insists that before we invaded it was common knowledge to intelligence agencies that Saddam had no weapons. He blythely ignores ALL the STATEMENTS from around the world, from his own party leadership BEFORE we invaded and since the first war that show his claim is ignorant on its FACE.
> 
> Now a reasonable argument one could make about the war is that one did not think we needed to invade because Saddam would not use his weapons on us, that he would not provide weapons to terrorists. BUT Maineman makes the claim that Bush lied when he stated there were weapons there. That there was no doubt there were weapons there. In order to believe that Bush lied one must , BEFORE the INVASION, believe there were NO WEAPONS in Iraq. That Saddam had NO TIES to terrorists, that Saddam did not seek revenge on the US, that Saddam would not return to making weapons and courting terrorists once the sanctions were lifted, that leaving Saddam in power even with no sanctions, free flowing oil money and no checks on his weapons programs or military or secret services, would not ever place us in any danger.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I tend to agree with you. Doesn't matter they have shown a link to terrorism...Umm.....ummm...ummm...ummm.....ummm(brainwashed) Bush Lied
Click to expand...


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> He will never, under any circumstance admit to anything that might involve supporting his President. Look how he just IGNORED the fact that we have proof Saddam Hussein DID in fact work with AL Queada cells and affiliates.
> 
> 
> Now a reasonable argument one could make about the war is that one did not think we needed to invade because Saddam would not use his weapons on us, that he would not provide weapons to terrorists. BUT Maineman makes the claim that Bush lied when he stated there were weapons there. That there was no doubt there were weapons there. In order to believe that Bush lied one must , BEFORE the INVASION, believe there were NO WEAPONS in Iraq. That Saddam had NO TIES to terrorists, that Saddam did not seek revenge on the US, that Saddam would not return to making weapons and courting terrorists once the sanctions were lifted, that leaving Saddam in power even with no sanctions, free flowing oil money and no checks on his weapons programs or military or secret services, would not ever place us in any danger.




oddly enough, we do NOT have any such proof.

There WAS doubt about Saddam's WMD's and Saddam did NOT have ties to the terrorists that attacked us.  He had ties to arab nationalist terror organizations.


----------



## jreeves

maineman said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> 
> again... no one has ever doubted that Saddam supported arabic nationalist terror organizations.  he did not support Al Qaeda.  it would have been suicidal to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it does say Saddam collaborated with known Al Qaeda affiliates and a wider constellation of Islamist terror groups.
Click to expand...


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> oddly enough, we do NOT have any such proof.
> 
> There WAS doubt about Saddam's WMD's and Saddam did NOT have ties to the terrorists that attacked us.  He had ties to arab nationalist terror organizations.



SO you admit you did not read what was posted about documents from Iraq PROVING Saddam was involved with terrorist organizations including AL Queada ones? Thanks for admitting your partisan blinders prevent you from reading.


----------



## maineman

jreeves said:


> But it does say Saddam collaborated with known Al Qaeda affiliates and a wider constellation of Islamist terror groups.



will you EVER figure out how to quote correctly????

The terror groups the document delineated were arab nationalists.  period.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> will you EVER figure out how to quote correctly????
> 
> The terror groups the document delineated were arab nationalists.  period.



Including, in the list, Al Quaeda groups. Perhaps YOU would care to read?

Remind me how Bush lied because he was certain WMD's existed and your not a liar by claiming you were certain they did NOT exist BEFORE we invaded?


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> Including, in the list, Al Quaeda groups. Perhaps YOU would care to read?
> 
> Remind me how Bush lied because he was certain WMD's existed and your not a liar by claiming you were certain they did NOT exist BEFORE we invaded?



I did read the article.... it does not show any AQ groups.  It shows nationalist groups... even Zawahiri's group that assasinated Sadat was a nationalist group.

I have never claimed I was certain that WMD's did not exist before we invaded.

I have only claimed that there was not certainty about their existence.


----------



## jreeves

maineman said:


> I did read the article.... it does not show any AQ groups.  It shows nationalist groups... even Zawahiri's group that assasinated Sadat was a nationalist group.
> 
> I have never claimed I was certain that WMD's did not exist before we invaded.
> 
> I have only claimed that there was not certainty about their existence.



It clearly states AQ collaberated with Saddam...


----------



## maineman

jreeves said:


> It clearly states AQ collaberated with Saddam...



no...it does not.


----------



## jreeves

maineman said:


> no...it does not.


Straight from the article, can you read that for me?
But it does say Saddam collaborated with known Al Qaeda affiliates


----------



## maineman

jreeves said:


> Straight from the article, can you read that for me?
> But it does say Saddam collaborated with known Al Qaeda affiliates



and it names organizations that were arab nationalists.  can you comprehend?


----------



## jreeves

maineman said:


> and it names organizations that were arab nationalists.  can you comprehend?



Funny, ignorance and partsianship at its best. You should be proud, it states AQ affliates and you say it is talking about arab nationalists.


----------



## maineman

jreeves said:


> Funny, ignorance and partsianship at its best. You should be proud, it states AQ affliates and you say it is talking about arab nationalists.



name one of these supposed "AQ Affiliates" (whatever the fuck that really means) that is not an nationalist organization with nationalist goals.

I'll wait.


----------



## M14 Shooter

RetiredGySgt said:


> Remind me how Bush lied because he was certain WMD's existed and your not a liar by claiming you were certain they did NOT exist BEFORE we invaded?


You havent yet figured out that when YOU post something, you're claiming  a "fact" that must be proven, but when HE posts something, its his OPINION and so he doesnt need to prove squat?


----------



## maineman

M14 Shooter said:


> You havent yet figured out that when YOU post something, you're claiming  a "fact" that must be proven, but when HE posts something, its his OPINION and so he doesnt need to prove squat?



now if you could find one instance where I ever expressed certainty about Saddam NOT have any WMD's, that would be real nice.  But of course, we know you can do no such thing.

I have NEVER stated that it was a fact or even that it was my OPINION that there was certainty about such a thing.

RGS exhibits all the logical abilities of a snail, and you follow along licking his slime trail.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> now if you could find one instance where I ever expressed certainty about Saddam NOT have any WMD's, that would be real nice.  But of course, we know you can do no such thing.
> 
> I have NEVER stated that it was a fact or even that it was my OPINION that there was certainty about such a thing.
> 
> RGS exhibits all the logical abilities of a snail, and you follow along licking his slime trail.



Sure thing just like your insistance that the NIE summary had any doubt in it at all.


----------



## maineman

maineman said:


> now if you could find one instance where I ever expressed certainty about Saddam NOT have any WMD's, that would be real nice.  But of course, we know you can do no such thing.
> 
> I have NEVER stated that it was a fact or even that it was my OPINION that there was certainty about such a thing.
> 
> RGS exhibits all the logical abilities of a snail, and you follow along licking his slime trail.





RetiredGySgt said:


> Sure thing just like your insistance that the NIE summary had any doubt in it at all.



fuck you. either find a quote from me where I said that I had NO DOUBT that Saddam did NOT have WMD's before the invasion or retract your fucking lie.

pussy.

And your insistence that the NIE did NOT contain any doubt when all you ever saw was the unclassified summary of it is laughable.  Analysts who contributed to it stated there was doubt... Generals who listened to classified briefings were left wondering where the certainty and proof was.... those are facts.

but go ahead....make wild ass statements that you can't back up and then, when called on them, refuse to retract them and just make other ones as a sort of smoke screen.

It is your common ploy. You are an embarrassment.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> fuck you. either find a quote from me where I said that I had NO DOUBT that Saddam did NOT have WMD's before the invasion or retract your fucking lie.
> 
> pussy.
> 
> And your insistence that the NIE did NOT contain any doubt when all you ever saw was the unclassified summary of it is laughable.  Analysts who contributed to it stated there was doubt... Generals who listened to classified briefings were left wondering where the certainty and proof was.... those are facts.
> 
> but go ahead....make wild ass statements that you can't back up and then, when called on them, refuse to retract them and just make other ones as a sort of smoke screen.
> 
> It is your common ploy. You are an embarrassment.



You demand proof from me while uttering the ignorant claims you just did? Provide evidence that the SUMMARY was in effect not what the report said, since that IS what your claiming. Your claiming that a summary designed to tell someone at a glance the meat of the report was simply not true. And yet you can not provide a shred of evidence your claim is true, other then, " cause I say so".

People with legit arguments do not have to resort to the personal insults and name calling you routinely revert to when faced with facts you do not like and can not prove wrong.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> You demand proof from me while uttering the ignorant claims you just did? Provide evidence that the SUMMARY was in effect not what the report said, since that IS what your claiming. Your claiming that a summary designed to tell someone at a glance the meat of the report was simply not true. And yet you can not provide a shred of evidence your claim is true, other then, " cause I say so".
> 
> People with legit arguments do not have to resort to the personal insults and name calling you routinely revert to when faced with facts you do not like and can not prove wrong.



As I have stated several times, numerous intelligence analysts have come forward in the aftermath of the invasion and have stated that caveats and qualifiers were present in the NIE.  

And people with legit arguments do not lie about what other people said.

I have never stated that I was certain that WMD's did NOT exist BEFORE we invaded.

You're a liar. and you ALWAYS run away from your lies.  pathetic.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> As I have stated several times, numerous intelligence analysts have come forward in the aftermath of the invasion and have stated that caveats and qualifiers were present in the NIE.
> 
> And people with legit arguments do not lie about what other people said.
> 
> I have never stated that I was certain that WMD's did NOT exist BEFORE we invaded.
> 
> You're a liar. and you ALWAYS run away from your lies.  pathetic.



Your a broken record, you make shit up and then blame everyone else when caught at it. You can not provide one shred of evidence your claim is true so you claim 'others" said it and when pushed end up claiming it is just your opinion.

The Summary of the Oct 2002 NIE is plain, the only "caveat" was that there were no nuclear weapons. As to chemical and Biological it was clear, the intelligence agencies had NO doubt he had them, that he was still making them and that he had learned to make them last LONGER on the shelf. No maybe, no "we think" no statement other than IRAQ HAS WMDs. Which is what EVERYONE including the UN believed.

An honest argument would be that you did not believe he would use them against us and that he would not give them to terrorists to use against, but you keep claiming Bush lied, which simply is NOT TRUE. You keep claiming there was doubt Iraq had weapons, which simply is NOT true.


----------



## M14 Shooter

RetiredGySgt said:


> The Summary of the Oct 2002 NIE is plain, the only "caveat" was that there were no nuclear weapons. As to chemical and Biological it was clear, the intelligence agencies had NO doubt he had them, that he was still making them and that he had learned to make them last LONGER on the shelf. No maybe, no "we think" no statement other than IRAQ HAS WMDs. Which is what EVERYONE including the UN believed



2002 NIE summary:



> *Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction*
> We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade. (See INR alternative view at the end of these Key Judgments.)
> 
> We judge that we are seeing only a portion of Iraq's WMD efforts, owing to Baghdad's vigorous denial and deception efforts. Revelations after the Gulf war starkly demonstrate the extensive efforts undertaken by Iraq to deny information. We lack specific information on many key aspects of Iraq's WMD programs.



http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/iraq-wmd.html

Seems pretty clear to me.


----------



## maineman

read up on the dissenting views from the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Review and DOE that were contained in the Oct 2002 NIE.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> Remind me how Bush lied because he was certain WMD's existed and your not a liar by *claiming you were certain they did NOT exist BEFORE we invaded?*




again...this is YOUR post.... please show me where I have EVER made such a  "claim".

I'll wait.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remind me how Bush lied because he was certain WMD's existed and your not a liar by *claiming you were certain they did NOT exist BEFORE we invaded?[/*QUOTE]
> 
> 
> again...this is YOUR post.... please show me where I have EVER made such a  "claim".
> 
> I'll wait.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is MY opinion that every time you claim Bush lied and point to AFTER the fact there were no weapons that is EXACTLY what you say. Do not like it? To damn bad. You have YOUR opinion and I have mine. Remind us again how YOU don't have to prove an opinion but others do, will ya? I will wait.
Click to expand...


----------



## jreeves

maineman said:


> name one of these supposed "AQ Affiliates" (whatever the fuck that really means) that is not an nationalist organization with nationalist goals.
> 
> I'll wait.



Excuse me one minute will I refer to the documents found, oh wait, I don't have them. I was said the article said Saddam collaberated with AQ, that is a fact.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> It is MY opinion that every time you claim Bush lied and point to AFTER the fact there were no weapons that is EXACTLY what you say. Do not like it? To damn bad. You have YOUR opinion and I have mine. Remind us again how YOU don't have to prove an opinion but others do, will ya? I will wait.



you said I made a claim...provide a link to a post where I ever made such a claim.


----------



## maineman

jreeves said:


> Excuse me one minute will I refer to the documents found, oh wait, I don't have them. I was said the article said Saddam collaberated with AQ, that is a fact.




Saddam did NOT collaborate with AQ.  THAT IS a fact.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> you said I made a claim...provide a link to a post where I ever made such a claim.



I don't have to, it is my OPINION. You have stated , unless your now denying it, that Bush lied by stating no doubt about WMD's and you have used as your supposed proof the fact that AFTER the fact none were found. You have ignored every Democrat, ever foreign Government and every Intelligence report prior to the invasion, including the SANCTIONS of the UN, that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that just about every SANE person believed with no doubt that Iraq had WMD's. And when ask for proof you resort to " it's my opinion". Guess what? Since you do not have to prove an opinion, something you have been quick to point out when YOU get caught in an obvious lie, I do not have to prove my opinion.

Again JUST for you, in MY OPINION, every time you claim Bush lied using your none proof anfd your OPINION, I believe that means your stating there were was no doubt there were no wmd's in Iraq prior to the invasion. Since it was COMMON accepted knowledge he had them and since the NIE clearly states all Intell agencies of the US believed he had them ( with NO DOUBT) and you keep claiming otherwise, that is MY OPINION.

Or are you now going to say you have never called Bush a liar? Never said he "mislead" the American people, and that you believe so because you claim he said " no doubt" and meant it as a personal claim?


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> I don't have to, it is my OPINION. You have stated , unless your now denying it, that Bush lied by stating no doubt about WMD's and you have used as your supposed proof the fact that AFTER the fact none were found. You have ignored every Democrat, ever foreign Government and every Intelligence report prior to the invasion, including the SANCTIONS of the UN, that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that just about every SANE person believed with no doubt that Iraq had WMD's. And when ask for proof you resort to " it's my opinion". Guess what? Since you do not have to prove an opinion, something you have been quick to point out when YOU get caught in an obvious lie, I do not have to prove my opinion.
> 
> Again JUST for you, in MY OPINION, every time you claim Bush lied using your none proof anfd your OPINION, I believe that means your stating there were was no doubt there were no wmd's in Iraq prior to the invasion. Since it was COMMON accepted knowledge he had them and since the NIE clearly states all Intell agencies of the US believed he had them ( with NO DOUBT) and you keep claiming otherwise, that is MY OPINION.
> 
> Or are you now going to say you have never called Bush a liar? Never said he "mislead" the American people, and that you believe so because you claim he said " no doubt" and meant it as a personal claim?



you said I made a claim.  that is the issue here.  I made no such claim.  Just like I never attacked Bush's military service in 1999.  YOu say shit about me and it is not correct.  You said:

_"Remind me how Bush lied because he was certain WMD's existed *and your not a liar by claiming you were certain they did NOT exist BEFORE we invaded*?" _

I never claimed I was certain of any such thing.  YOU misspoke.  You said I claimed something that I have not claimed.  YOU are a liar.  That's a fact.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> you said I made a claim.  that is the issue here.  I made no such claim.  Just like I never attacked Bush's military service in 1999.  YOu say shit about me and it is not correct.  You said:
> 
> _"Remind me how Bush lied because he was certain WMD's existed *and your not a liar by claiming you were certain they did NOT exist BEFORE we invaded*?" _
> 
> I never claimed I was certain of any such thing.  YOU misspoke.  You said I claimed something that I have not claimed.  YOU are a liar.  That's a fact.



No it is not, it is MY Opinion that you say that every time you claim Bush lied. I realize being a liberal you think you get to set all the rules and ignore them at your pleasure, but it does not work that way. An opinion does not have to have proof, it can consist of related sayings or what is preceived as the intent of what someone is saying. That I have to teach you what Opinion means is hilarious in the extreme.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

If you can base your entire opinion that Bush lied on 3 words he spoke and what you claim those three words mean, Then my opinion of what you mean from volumes of words on this board is a lot easier to understand.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> If you can base your entire opinion that Bush lied on 3 words he spoke and what you claim those three words mean, Then my opinion of what you mean from volumes of words on this board is a lot easier to understand.



you said I made a claim.  I made no such claim. that's a fact.  I have never even intimated that I was CERTAIN that WMD's did not exist prior to the invasion.  never.  YOu lied and I called you on it, and just like the other times, you will wiggle around and tap dance and run away from being a man and just admitting that you made a statement that was not true.... you're a liar and a chickenshit little coward who has no balls and no integrity.  that has been proven over and over again.

And I base my opinion of our president on a myriad of speeches made by him and his team from the summer of 2002 until the beginning of the war....not merely three words.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> you said I made a claim.  I made no such claim. that's a fact.  I have never even intimated that I was CERTAIN that WMD's did not exist prior to the invasion.  never.  YOu lied and I called you on it, and just like the other times, you will wiggle around and tap dance and run away from being a man and just admitting that you made a statement that was not true.... you're a liar and a chickenshit little coward who has no balls and no integrity.  that has been proven over and over again.
> 
> And I base my opinion of our president on a myriad of speeches made by him and his team from the summer of 2002 until the beginning of the war....not merely three words.



Wrong again. Ever time you start in with claiming that Bush lied and that the NIE did not say what it says you make the claim.

As for the President he based what he said on Intelligence reports from our and foreign agencies. And they ALL agreed, Saddam Hussein had WMDs. Saddam Hussein supported terrorism. Saddam Hussein tried to assassinate one of our Presidents. On and on.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> Wrong again. Ever time you start in with claiming that Bush lied and that the NIE did not say what it says you make the claim.
> 
> As for the President he based what he said on Intelligence reports from our and foreign agencies. And they ALL agreed, Saddam Hussein had WMDs. Saddam Hussein supported terrorism. Saddam Hussein tried to assassinate one of our Presidents. On and on.




you're a moron.  Just because I question the administration's assertions of certainty does not mean that I am expressing certainty of the reverse.  I have NEVER made the claim - as you erroneously stated - that I was certain that Saddam did NOT have WMD's.

Your use and understanding of the English language is pathetic.  I know grade school children who can communicate with more precision than you.

And your level of integrity is appalling.  You have none.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> you're a moron.  Just because I question the administration's assertions of certainty does not mean that I am expressing certainty of the reverse.  I have NEVER made the claim - as you erroneously stated - that I was certain that Saddam did NOT have WMD's.
> 
> Your use and understanding of the English language is pathetic.  I know grade school children who can communicate with more precision than you.
> 
> And your level of integrity is appalling.  You have none.



Wrong, just as you can create from whole cloth a condition that does not exist, Bush lied, I can create from your words the condition I have ascribed to you. It has just as much reality as yours and just as much fact to back it up. In fact MY position has more fact, since I have over a year of your ignorant claims Bush lied and all you have is 3 words.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> Wrong, just as you can create from whole cloth a condition that does not exist, Bush lied, I can create from your words the condition I have ascribed to you. It has just as much reality as yours and just as much fact to back it up. In fact MY position has more fact, since I have over a year of your ignorant claims Bush lied and all you have is 3 words.




I have questioned Bush's assertions of absolute certainty.  I have never claimed absolute certainty in reverse.  And as I have said over and over and over and over again...I have much more than three words.  Are you incapable of reading as well as writing?

This assertion of yours that I claimed that I was absolutely certain Saddam did not have WMD's is just as ridiculous as your claiming that I attacked Bush's  military service in 1999.  It was bullshit from day one but it took you a month or more to finally weasel your way around to admitting that you had made the whole thing up.  This is the same thing.  You are a moron and a liar and have all the integrity of a wolverine.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> I have questioned Bush's assertions of absolute certainty.  I have never claimed absolute certainty in reverse.  And as I have said over and over and over and over again...I have much more than three words.  Are you incapable of reading as well as writing?
> 
> This assertion of yours that I claimed that I was absolutely certain Saddam did not have WMD's is just as ridiculous as your claiming that I attacked Bush's  military service in 1999.  It was bullshit from day one but it took you a month or more to finally weasel your way around to admitting that you had made the whole thing up.  This is the same thing.  You are a moron and a liar and have all the integrity of a wolverine.



Still wrong. But do keep whining like the sailor you are.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> Still wrong. But do keep whining like the sailor you are.




I am not whining.  I am just calling you a liar. I have proven it before and you have slinked away with your tail between your legs (plenty of room there, given the fact that you have no balls)...and I am proving it again here.

You say shit about people on this board and then do not have the integrity to admit when you have fucked up.

That'a ain't whining on my part...that is simply shining a light on your poor character.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> I am not whining.  I am just calling you a liar. I have proven it before and you have slinked away with your tail between your legs (plenty of room there, given the fact that you have no balls)...and I am proving it again here.
> 
> You say shit about people on this board and then do not have the integrity to admit when you have fucked up.
> 
> That'a ain't whining on my part...that is simply shining a light on your poor character.



Nope, this is just crybaby whining maineman, he hasn't a leg to stand on so he goes on for page after page about how he is right and others are wrong. Ohh and dumbshit, I have never slunk away from anyone, especially you. Your the king of liars. You have spent months telling us that Bush lied when he did no such thing and when pushed for proof you have had to admit it is just your opinion.


----------



## jreeves

maineman said:


> Saddam did NOT collaborate with AQ.  THAT IS a fact.



That's not what the article states.  Can't you read?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

jreeves said:


> That's not what the article states.  Can't you read?



No he has is " I hate Bush" glasses on, ohh wait, he doesn't hate Bush, so it must be his " Delusional Bush is to blame" glasses.

Just remember in January people like Maineman can NEVER mention Bush again. Since they have argued over and over that since he won't be President anymore what he said, did or had a hand in, doesn't matter any more.


----------



## jillian

Boy... Bush should put you on his payroll... I'm sure it's always good for someone like him to have mindless followers.......


----------



## RetiredGySgt

jillian said:


> Boy... Bush should put you on his payroll... I'm sure it's always good for someone like him to have mindless followers.......



The only mindless drones around here are the " Bush is evil" crowd. You guys can't even keep your complaints in order. One day he is a mindless puppet of Cheney, the next he is the smartest man around. You can not make a single lie about him stick and think if you JUST keep telling them sooner or latter enough people will believe them.

Bush is no favorite of mine. I wanted other people to be President. But given the choice in Novemebr each election year Bush was the ONLY choice.

He is not even a right winger, you liberal loons are so far left a guy like Bush can be claimed to be far right, what a goddamn joke. I am being kind by calling him a moderate.

And you dumbshits are at it again with McCain. McCain wouldn't know the right side of the political isle if it ripped his head off and crapped down his neck. But your so FAR LEFT you can claim he is a right winger.

Your so delusional in regards Bush you can openly make a statement that a forgery is the truth.

As I recall the claim used to be, as soon as the Dems controlled Congress Bush would be impeached and all the evidence needed would fall from the sky. Now it is , well after he is out of office we will get him.

Just like your claims we were invading Iran and your claims Bush would mount a Coup. Get back to me when they happen.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> Nope, this is just crybaby whining maineman, he hasn't a leg to stand on so he goes on for page after page about how he is right and others are wrong. Ohh and dumbshit, I have never slunk away from anyone, especially you. Your the king of liars. You have spent months telling us that Bush lied when he did no such thing and when pushed for proof you have had to admit it is just your opinion.




hasn'a a leg to stand on?  You said that I made a claim.  I made no such claim.  My legs are just fine.  And yes, you DO slink away from things..... how long did it take you to admit that you had LIED when you said that I had been attacking Bush's military record since before the 2000 election?  Months?  YOu say shit about other people and NEVER back it up and NEVER retract it when you get called on it.  YOur usual tack is to bluster about and claim that the person who has called you on your idiocy is somehow "whining".  I am not whining.  I am calling you the liar that you are. Bottom line:  you made the statement that I had claimed I was certain that Saddam did not have WMD's before our invasion.  I never made that claim.  YOu, therefore, are a chickenshit little liar. That may be bothersome to you to have your failings exposed like that, but it is a fact.  I made no such claim and you ARE a liar. 

And as I have said over and over again.  It is my belief, and the belief of many other reasonably intelligent and well educated people, that George Bush purposely misled us into war by exaggerating the threat of Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction, by claiming ceertainty regarding those WMD's, by repeatedly implying that those weapons of mass destruction would be provided to terrorists who would use them against us, by repeatedly bringing up the spectre of mushroom clouds, by repeatedly tying Al Qaeda, Saddam and 9/11 closely together in speech after speech after speech.  Rather than lead us with his wisdom, he misled us by preying on our own anger and fears.  He is despicable for that, and you are despicable for shamelessly waving his pompoms.


----------



## maineman

jreeves said:


> That's not what the article states.  Can't you read?




I can read.  The article does not say that Saddam collaborated with Al Qaeda.


----------



## Alpha1

Wow...no shit!

1  exaggerating the threat of Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction,(those infamous Dim quotes)

2  by claiming ceertainty regarding those WMD's, (Al Gore, Pelosi, etc.)

3  by repeatedly implying that those weapons of mass destruction would be      provided to terrorists who would use them against us,(testimony given to the 9/11 Comminssion- 1997 thru 1999)

4  by repeatedly tying Al Qaeda, Saddam (AGAIN, testimony given to the 9/11 Commission..97 thur99...)

EXACTLY....EXACTLY....EXACTLY....and EXACTLY....

what we heard from the Dims for years, during the Clinton admin....Exactly....
.
Sad but convenient,.... your memory seems to not extend back to before 2001....


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> Wow...no shit!
> 
> 1  exaggerating the threat of Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction,(those infamous Dim quotes)
> 
> 2  by claiming ceertainty regarding those WMD's, (Al Gore, Pelosi, etc.)
> 
> 3  by repeatedly implying that those weapons of mass destruction would be      provided to terrorists who would use them against us,(testimony given to the 9/11 Comminssion- 1997 thru 1999)
> 
> 4  by repeatedly tying Al Qaeda, Saddam (AGAIN, testimony given to the 9/11 Commission..97 thur99...)
> 
> EXACTLY....EXACTLY....EXACTLY....and EXACTLY....
> 
> what we heard from the Dims for years, during the Clinton admin....Exactly....
> .
> Sad but convenient,.... your memory seems to not extend back to before 2001....



again...who gives a shit what Clinton did?  He did NOT start the ground war in Iraq.

(cute trick with your #4, by the way.... incomplete quote of mine which removes the context.... totally sleazy!)  

_"There is "no credible evidence" that Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq collaborated with the al Qaeda terrorist network on any attacks on the United States, according to a new staff report released this morning by the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. 

Although Osama bin Laden briefly explored the idea of forging ties with Iraq in the mid-1990s, the terrorist leader was hostile to Hussein's secular government, and Iraq never responded to requests for help in providing training camps or weapons, the panel found in the first of two reports issued today."_

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46254-2004Jun16.html


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> again...who gives a shit what Clinton did?  He did NOT start the ground war in Iraq.
> 
> (cute trick with your #4, by the way.... incomplete quote of mine which removes the context.... totally sleazy!)
> 
> _"There is "no credible evidence" that Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq collaborated with the al Qaeda terrorist network on any attacks on the United States, according to a new staff report released this morning by the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
> 
> Although Osama bin Laden briefly explored the idea of forging ties with Iraq in the mid-1990s, the terrorist leader was hostile to Hussein's secular government, and Iraq never responded to requests for help in providing training camps or weapons, the panel found in the first of two reports issued today."_
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46254-2004Jun16.html



Just remember retard come January you can NEVER again mention Bush for ANY reason since he won't be President.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> Just remember retard come January you can NEVER again mention Bush for ANY reason since he won't be President.



oh really.  when does the statute of fucking limitations run out on you assholes blaming Clinton for Bush's failures?  Republicans blamed Clinton for the first WTC attacks and he had been in office for three weeks when it happened and had NEVER received a PDB in advance telling him that terrorists were getting ready to do something nasty to America.  Republicans blame Clinton for 9/11 even though Bush had been in office for eight plus months AND had been told more than a month in advance that AQ was getting ready to attack us.... Republicans blame Clinton for the recession... and then they blame the democrats in congress for THIS recession.  

You chickenshit Bush lovers with Bush jism dripping off your fucking chins cannot find it in your hearts to EVER blame that little fucking dullard chimpanzee for ANYTHING!!!

I can't WAIT until Bush is in Crawford and irrelevant....but, if America allows themselves to be swayed by Rovian swiftboating of Obama and elects McCain....I will continue to hang Bush around HIS neck because Johnboy will undoubtedly be four more years of the same.  Thank GOD I'll be ensconced in my retirement home in Mexico before I have to live through much more of these republican keystone cop antics.

but...to your original taunt... I think that YOUR behavior has given me the right to bring Bush up and blame him for shit until AT LEAST 2015.


----------



## Alpha1

You'll be too busy blaming McCain for everything until 2016............


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> You'll be too busy blaming McCain for everything until 2016............



that might be.  I doubt the old fart will last that long...but he might, I suppose.  And he might win.  I would never go broke betting on the stupidity of the majority of American people, that is for sure.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Ohh I see, you and your buddies keep telling us that Clinton is irrelevant because he is not President BUT come January you will have no problem continuing your attacks on Bush, even though HE won't be President anymore. There is of course a word for that.

And I love how you claim in Bush's case there is no Statute of Limitations, but in Clinton's case it was the DAY Bush got sworn in.


----------



## jreeves

maineman said:


> I can read.  The article does not say that Saddam collaborated with Al Qaeda.



OMG....do you really see how freaking dumb you are. The article says it shows that Saddam collaberated with AQ affliates. Well deny this one too then, this should be funny. 
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/03/14/saddam-supported-at-least-two-al-qaeda-groups-pentagon/

The agent reports (Extract 25) that The Army of Muhammad is working with Osama bin Laden. 
A later memorandum from the same collection to the Director of the IIS reports that the Army of Muhammad is endeavoring to receive assistance [from Iraq] to implement its objectives, and that the local IIS station has been told to deal with them in accordance with priorities previously established. The IIS agent goes on to inform the Director that this organization is an offshoot of bin Laden, but that their objectives are similar but with different names that can be a way of camouflaging the organization.
AoM had ambitious plans  including attacks on American interests. On page 35, the Iraqis list their aims as attacking Jewish and American interests anywhere in the world, attacking American embassies, disrupting American oil supplies and tankers, and attacking the American military bases in the Middle East. The Iraqi support for AoM may not be an operational link, but its certainly a financial link that goes right to Osama bin Laden. The Iraqis certainly understood that much, and hoped to keep it quiet.

Hmm.....


----------



## maineman

"affiliates?"  what the fuck does THAT mean?  Al Qaeda is Al Qaeda. Groups that are not Al Qaeda are not Al Qaeda.  Al Qaeda had, as it's primary goal, the elimination of secular arab nationstates.  Saddam did not and would not collaborate with an organization bent on his destruction.

That is like this group in Iraq that has started calling themselves Al Qaeda in Iraq.  They got diddly to do with Osama and his registry.  affliliates!


----------



## jreeves

maineman said:


> "affiliates?"  what the fuck does THAT mean?  Al Qaeda is Al Qaeda. Groups that are not Al Qaeda are not Al Qaeda.  Al Qaeda had, as it's primary goal, the elimination of secular arab nationstates.  Saddam did not and would not collaborate with an organization bent on his destruction.
> 
> That is like this group in Iraq that has started calling themselves Al Qaeda in Iraq.  They got diddly to do with Osama and his registry.  affliliates!



Hmm.. I seen you completely avoided the second post? Just for you....

www.dictionary.com
af·fil·i·ate       (&#601;-f&#301;l'&#275;-&#257;t')  Pronunciation Key  
v.   af·fil·i·at·ed, af·fil·i·at·ing, af·fil·i·ates 

v.   tr. 

To adopt or accept as a member, subordinate associate, or branch: The HMO affiliated the clinics last year.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ohh I see, you and your buddies keep telling us that Clinton is irrelevant because he is not President BUT come January you will have no problem continuing your attacks on Bush, even though HE won't be President anymore. There is of course a word for that.
> 
> And I love how you claim in Bush's case there is no Statute of Limitations, but in Clinton's case it was the DAY Bush got sworn in.



I didn't attack Bush senior at all after Clinton came into office.  I actually thought fairly highly of him... Republicans have been attacking Clinton since before he was elected and have not stopped in the seven years since he left office.  I figure, if y'all can do it, I might as well give it a try.  Economy goes into a recession during Obam's third year in office...I'll be blaming Bush!


----------



## maineman

jreeves said:


> Hmm.. I seen you completely avoided the second post? Just for you....
> 
> www.dictionary.com
> af·fil·i·ate       (&#601;-f&#301;l'&#275;-&#257;t')  Pronunciation Key
> v.   af·fil·i·at·ed, af·fil·i·at·ing, af·fil·i·ates
> 
> v.   tr.
> 
> To adopt or accept as a member, subordinate associate, or branch: The HMO affiliated the clinics last year.



groups affiliated with Al Qaeda are not Al Qaeda.  If they were, they'd be called "Al Qaeda" instead of "groups affiliated with Al Qaeda".  WHy make the distinction if it is not germane?


----------



## DeadCanDance

RetiredGySgt said:


> Just remember retard come January you can NEVER again mention Bush for ANY reason since he won't be President.




Everytime I see a disabled or shattered Iraq War vet for the next 40 years, I'll be reminded of Bush, and the people who voted him into office.  And some of those vets will be hoping bush and his supporters burn in hell.


----------



## maineman

DeadCanDance said:


> Everytime I see a disabled or shattered Iraq War vet for the next 40 years, I'll be reminded of Bush, and the people who voted him into office.  And some of those vets will be hoping bush and his supporters burn in hell.



I am with you there.  and there is certainly no doubt that Jesus would not have invaded Iraq, nor would he approved of it, so those Bushies who got us into this mess will certainly get turned away at the Pearly Gates if they make it that far!


----------



## jreeves

maineman said:


> I am with you there.  and there is certainly no doubt that Jesus would not have invaded Iraq, nor would he approved of it, so those Bushies who got us into this mess will certainly get turned away at the Pearly Gates if they make it that far!



I'm not a Bushie, I think he was brain dead at developing a properly executed war. But the justification for war was there, he didn't lie.


----------



## maineman

jreeves said:


> I'm not a Bushie, I think he was brain dead at developing a properly executed war. But the justification for war was there, he didn't lie.



legal justification does not sell a war to the american people...for that, he needed to use fear and anger and misleading comments.

and regardless of how justified it was legally, it was a terrible strategic decision given who had attacked us.  Saddam did three things better than we have ever been able to do them:

1. keep islamic extremists out of Iraq
2. keep Iraqi sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another
3. act as an effective foil to Iranian regional hegemony.

Invading Iraq may have been "justified"...that does not make it any less stupid.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> I didn't attack Bush senior at all after Clinton came into office.  I actually thought fairly highly of him... Republicans have been attacking Clinton since before he was elected and have not stopped in the seven years since he left office.  I figure, if y'all can do it, I might as well give it a try.  Economy goes into a recession during Obam's third year in office...I'll be blaming Bush!



Which makes you a hypocrite, which we already know you are. You keep announcing boldly that what Clinton did in office is irrelevant now and keep telling anyone that points out what he said as somehow unimportant now, but have no problem doing the same when Bush will no longer be in office. 

Do keep digging your hole deeper and deeper, liar, hypocrite, dumbshit. Ohh and a squid to boot.


----------



## jreeves

maineman said:


> legal justification does not sell a war to the american people...for that, he needed to use fear and anger and misleading comments.
> 
> and regardless of how justified it was legally, it was a terrible strategic decision given who had attacked us.  Saddam did three things better than we have ever been able to do them:
> 
> 1. keep islamic extremists out of Iraq
> 2. keep Iraqi sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another
> 3. act as an effective foil to Iranian regional hegemony.
> 
> Invading Iraq may have been "justified"...that does not make it any less stupid.



1. Is completely debatable, I think the two articles completely refute that statement.
2. No they didn't slaughter each other, Saddam slaughtered people who disagreed with him.
3. I wouldn't say Iran has displayed regional hegemony either. As matter of fact, by all reports they are feeling the pressures from the west pretty heavily.


----------



## maineman

jreeves said:


> 1. Is completely debatable, I think the two articles completely refute that statement.
> 2. No they didn't slaughter each other, Saddam slaughtered people who disagreed with him.
> 3. I wouldn't say Iran has displayed regional hegemony either. As matter of fact, by all reports they are feeling the pressures from the west pretty heavily.



1.  he trained arab nationalists - not Al Qaeda
2.  more Iraqis have died in the last five years than in the previous five
3.  hezbollah's muscle flexing in Lebanon is a direct result of Iran's increasing regional influence

and again:

Invading Iraq may have been "justified"...that does not make it any less stupid.


----------



## Alpha1

maineman said:


> I am with you there.  and there is certainly no doubt that Jesus would not have invaded Iraq, nor would he approved of it, so those Bushies who got us into this mess will certainly get turned away at the Pearly Gates if they make it that far!



Jesus would not have invaded Iraq ?

Jesus would not have approved of it ?

Are you out of your fuckin' mind ?


----------



## maineman

Alpha1 said:


> Jesus would not have invaded Iraq ?
> 
> Jesus would not have approved of it ?
> 
> Are you out of your fuckin' mind ?




not at all.  I am quite certain that the prince of peace would not have started a war.


----------



## jillian

Alpha1 said:


> Jesus would not have invaded Iraq ?
> 
> Jesus would not have approved of it ?
> 
> Are you out of your fuckin' mind ?



No.

No.

No.

There is no possible answer to the question "WWJD?" that has the answer "bomb Iraq back into the stone age".


----------



## CSM

maineman said:


> .....so those Bushies who got us into this mess will certainly get turned away at the Pearly Gates if they make it that far!



Dang, you must be one of those right wing Christian neo cons! I guess if you dont agree with someone or their actions, they will burn in hell.  That is indeed a special relationship with God!


----------



## jreeves

maineman said:


> 1.  he trained arab nationalists - not Al Qaeda
> 2.  more Iraqis have died in the last five years than in the previous five
> 3.  hezbollah's muscle flexing in Lebanon is a direct result of Iran's increasing regional influence
> 
> and again:
> 
> Invading Iraq may have been "justified"...that does not make it any less stupid.



1. you can't read the articles I posted
2. you can't simply analyze how many died in the previous five, you would have to take into consideration the overall rule of Saddam. 
3. Wrong, Hezbollah's support is coming from Labanese Shi'ites and Syria


----------



## JimH52

maineman said:


> I am with you there.  and there is certainly no doubt that Jesus would not have invaded Iraq, nor would he approved of it, so those Bushies who got us into this mess will certainly get turned away at the Pearly Gates if they make it that far!



Bushites would have you believe that Jesus would have welcomed our invasion of Iraq.  They want us to believe that Christ would have flown one of the invasion aircraft.

But Jesus was above all a peace maker.  The Neocons will pay dearly.


----------



## jreeves

JimH52 said:


> Bushites would have you believe that Jesus would have welcomed our invasion of Iraq.  They want us to believe that Christ would have flown one of the invasion aircraft.
> 
> But Jesus was above all a peace maker.  The Neocons will pay dearly.



And God drowned and killed the Egyptians in the Red Sea that Moses parted with his staff. I'm not a religious nut job, I just think you can't base the decision of whether or not to go to war based on religion either way.


Facts- 
1. Majority of Democrats and Republicans supported the war before its onset.
2. Senate Democrats could have prevented a war vote from being finalized.
3. Bush didn't lie leading up to the war, at the time the things he was stating was common knowledge of both parties.
4. If there was any legal basis, Democrats in Congress would be holding impeachment hearings right now.
5. Obama has no 'tangible' plan for Iraq, only that we shouldn't have went in the first place.
6. Obama has stated "perhaps" I would have voted for the war had I been in the U.S. Senate at the time.


----------



## Annie

jreeves said:


> And God drowned and killed the Egyptians in the Red Sea that Moses parted with his staff. I'm not a religious nut job, I just think you can't base the decision of whether or not to go to war based on religion either way.
> 
> 
> Facts-
> 1. Majority of Democrats and Republicans supported the war before its onset.
> 2. Senate Democrats could have prevented a war vote from being finalized.
> 3. Bush didn't lie leading up to the war, at the time the things he was stating was common knowledge of both parties.
> 4. If there was any legal basis, Democrats in Congress would be holding impeachment hearings right now.
> 5. Obama has no 'tangible' plan for Iraq, only that we shouldn't have went in the first place.
> 6. Obama has stated "perhaps" I would have voted for the war had I been in the U.S. Senate at the time.



Not too mention that Congress keeps funding the war. 

Did you catch Obama on LKL the other night? Anyone really think he's going to get the troops home, right now?

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0803/20/lkl.01.html



> ...
> 
> ...KING: We're back with Senator Obama.
> 
> *A "Washington Post" editorial today took issue with President Bush, with Senator Clinton and with you on all your respective positions on Iraq, calling them fantasies, saying that all your speeches promise the impossible.
> *
> On the suggestion of your troops withdrawal plans: "In the 16 months or so it would take to remove those forces, they envision" -- you and Senator Clinton -- "the near miraculous accomplishment of every political goal the Bush administration aimed at for five years -- from the establishment of a stable government to an agreement by Iraq's neighbors to support it."
> 
> Are you in fantasyland?
> 
> (LAUGHTER)
> 
> OBAMA: Well, no, Larry. And I think that *"The Washington Post" mischaracterized my position. What I've said is that we need to begin a phased withdrawal out of Iraq.* I've been saying this for a long time now. And I warned from the outset, from the beginning of this war -- which I opposed -- that this was going to distract us from the fight we needed to fight in Afghanistan, that this was going to fan the flames of anti-American sentiment.
> 
> And once we were in, I said there weren't going to be any good options. And I still believe that. *There are no good options in Iraq. There are bad options and worse options. The least bad option, I believe, is to begin a phased redeployment, send a clear signal to the Iraqi government it is time for them to stand up and negotiate the kinds of agreements that can stick and stabilize the country, to get the neighbors in Iraq involved -- and that includes not just our allies like Saudi Arabia and Jordan, but also Iran and Syria.*
> 
> And to get the international community involved in creating a humanitarian assistance program, to have an international war crimes commission that can monitor any efforts at ethnic cleansing inside the country *and that we would still have a strike force that would go after any attempts to create al Qaeda bases in Iraq.* Now is that going to be an ideal situation in which all the parties in Iraq have suddenly magically agreed? Of course not. And I don't know what "The Washington Post" thinks is going to happen if we just stay and continue in the same process we are now.
> 
> There are no magic bullets here. But what we can do is at least put some pressure on the Iraqi government to make sure that we start seeing some changes....


----------



## maineman

jreeves said:


> 1. you can't read the articles I posted
> 2. you can't simply analyze how many died in the previous five, you would have to take into consideration the overall rule of Saddam.
> 3. Wrong, Hezbollah's support is coming from Labanese Shi'ites and Syria



1.  Like I said, there is zero proof that Saddam trained Al Qaeda operatives... and for anyone who knew anything about the aims of Al Qaeda, such actions would clearly have been suicidal on his part.

2.  Of course you can analyze the last five years versus the previous five if you want to have a valid comparison.  Given the past ten years, five under Saddam and five under the occupation of the United States, when were Iraqi civilians safer?  How many were being killed a week during those first five years versus the past five years?  To claim that we need to look at the sweep of Saddam's entire rule and compare death totals of THAT period to the totals from the last five years is ridiculous.  Based upon that stupid illogic, one could say that Jews would be SAFER in Gaza then they would be in Germany because, over the last 70 years, WAY more Jews have died in Germany than have died in Gaza. 

3.  No on is denying that Hezbollah gets support from Lebanese Shiites - THAT IS WHO THEY ARE!  No in denying that Syria is providing them support...keeping Lebanon in turmoil is in Syria's best interest and has been for over thirty years.  But to suggest that Hezbollah is not supported by Iran is laughable.

http://www.usip.org/pubs/usipeace_briefings/2006/0922_iran_hezbollah.html

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/07/18/news/iran.php

http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2368658


----------



## mattskramer

jreeves said:


> 5. Obama has no 'tangible' plan for Iraq, only that we shouldn't have went in the first place.



Wrong.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/#bring-home


Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months[/U]. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

Press Iraqs Leaders to Reconcile
The best way to press Iraqs leaders to take responsibility for their future is to make it clear that we are leaving. As we remove our troops, Obama will engage representatives from all levels of Iraqi society  in and out of government  to seek a new accord on Iraqs Constitution and governance. The United Nations will play a central role in this convention, which should not adjourn until a new national accord is reached addressing tough questions like federalism and oil revenue-sharing.

Regional Diplomacy
Obama will launch the most aggressive diplomatic effort in recent American history to reach a new compact on the stability of Iraq and the Middle East. This effort will include all of Iraqs neighbors  including Iran and Syria. This compact will aim to secure Iraqs borders; keep neighboring countries from meddling inside Iraq; isolate al Qaeda; support reconciliation among Iraqs sectarian groups; and provide financial support for Iraqs reconstruction.

Humanitarian Initiative
Obama believes that America has a moral and security responsibility to confront Iraqs humanitarian crisis  two million Iraqis are refugees; two million more are displaced inside their own country. Obama will form an international working group to address this crisis. He will provide at least $2 billion to expand services to Iraqi refugees in neighboring countries, and ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find a safe-haven.


----------



## Annie

mattskramer said:


> Wrong.
> 
> http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/#bring-home
> 
> 
> Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months[/U]. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.
> 
> Press Iraqs Leaders to Reconcile
> The best way to press Iraqs leaders to take responsibility for their future is to make it clear that we are leaving. As we remove our troops, Obama will engage representatives from all levels of Iraqi society  in and out of government  to seek a new accord on Iraqs Constitution and governance. The United Nations will play a central role in this convention, which should not adjourn until a new national accord is reached addressing tough questions like federalism and oil revenue-sharing.
> 
> Regional Diplomacy
> Obama will launch the most aggressive diplomatic effort in recent American history to reach a new compact on the stability of Iraq and the Middle East. This effort will include all of Iraqs neighbors  including Iran and Syria. This compact will aim to secure Iraqs borders; keep neighboring countries from meddling inside Iraq; isolate al Qaeda; support reconciliation among Iraqs sectarian groups; and provide financial support for Iraqs reconstruction.
> 
> Humanitarian Initiative
> Obama believes that America has a moral and security responsibility to confront Iraqs humanitarian crisis  two million Iraqis are refugees; two million more are displaced inside their own country. Obama will form an international working group to address this crisis. He will provide at least $2 billion to expand services to Iraqi refugees in neighboring countries, and ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find a safe-haven.



Did you catch this, Matts:



Kathianne said:


> ...
> Did you catch Obama on LKL the other night? Anyone really think he's going to get the troops home, right now?
> 
> http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0803/20/lkl.01.html


----------



## jreeves

maineman said:


> 1.  Like I said, there is zero proof that Saddam trained Al Qaeda operatives... and for anyone who knew anything about the aims of Al Qaeda, such actions would clearly have been suicidal on his part.
> 
> 2.  Of course you can analyze the last five years versus the previous five if you want to have a valid comparison.  Given the past ten years, five under Saddam and five under the occupation of the United States, when were Iraqi civilians safer?  How many were being killed a week during those first five years versus the past five years?  To claim that we need to look at the sweep of Saddam's entire rule and compare death totals of THAT period to the totals from the last five years is ridiculous.  Based upon that stupid illogic, one could say that Jews would be SAFER in Gaza then they would be in Germany because, over the last 70 years, WAY more Jews have died in Germany than have died in Gaza.
> 
> 3.  No on is denying that Hezbollah gets support from Lebanese Shiites - THAT IS WHO THEY ARE!  No in denying that Syria is providing them support...keeping Lebanon in turmoil is in Syria's best interest and has been for over thirty years.  But to suggest that Hezbollah is not supported by Iran is laughable.
> 
> http://www.usip.org/pubs/usipeace_briefings/2006/0922_iran_hezbollah.html
> 
> http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/07/18/news/iran.php
> 
> http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2368658



1. Again you fail to read


----------



## jreeves

maineman said:


> 1.  Like I said, there is zero proof that Saddam trained Al Qaeda operatives... and for anyone who knew anything about the aims of Al Qaeda, such actions would clearly have been suicidal on his part.
> 
> 2.  Of course you can analyze the last five years versus the previous five if you want to have a valid comparison.  Given the past ten years, five under Saddam and five under the occupation of the United States, when were Iraqi civilians safer?  How many were being killed a week during those first five years versus the past five years?  To claim that we need to look at the sweep of Saddam's entire rule and compare death totals of THAT period to the totals from the last five years is ridiculous.  Based upon that stupid illogic, one could say that Jews would be SAFER in Gaza then they would be in Germany because, over the last 70 years, WAY more Jews have died in Germany than have died in Gaza.
> 
> 3.  No on is denying that Hezbollah gets support from Lebanese Shiites - THAT IS WHO THEY ARE!  No in denying that Syria is providing them support...keeping Lebanon in turmoil is in Syria's best interest and has been for over thirty years.  But to suggest that Hezbollah is not supported by Iran is laughable.
> 
> http://www.usip.org/pubs/usipeace_briefings/2006/0922_iran_hezbollah.html
> 
> http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/07/18/news/iran.php
> 
> http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2368658



1. again you fail to read my posts
2. No, to simply look at the previous past 5 years, isn't a logical comparison. For one, Iraq is in a war of course there are going to be dead Shiites, Sunnis and every other sector of the population. If you want a logical comparison, then look at the deaths following the end of the war. This would be an adequate comparison. Considering the previous five years were based in relative peace.
3. If I stated that Iran doesn't support Hezbollah I was wrong. Hezbollah is supported mainly by Syria and Labenese shi'ites.


----------



## jreeves

mattskramer said:


> Wrong.
> 
> http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/#bring-home
> 
> 
> Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months[/U]. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.
> 
> Press Iraqs Leaders to Reconcile
> The best way to press Iraqs leaders to take responsibility for their future is to make it clear that we are leaving. As we remove our troops, Obama will engage representatives from all levels of Iraqi society  in and out of government  to seek a new accord on Iraqs Constitution and governance. The United Nations will play a central role in this convention, which should not adjourn until a new national accord is reached addressing tough questions like federalism and oil revenue-sharing.
> 
> Regional Diplomacy
> Obama will launch the most aggressive diplomatic effort in recent American history to reach a new compact on the stability of Iraq and the Middle East. This effort will include all of Iraqs neighbors  including Iran and Syria. This compact will aim to secure Iraqs borders; keep neighboring countries from meddling inside Iraq; isolate al Qaeda; support reconciliation among Iraqs sectarian groups; and provide financial support for Iraqs reconstruction.
> 
> Humanitarian Initiative
> Obama believes that America has a moral and security responsibility to confront Iraqs humanitarian crisis  two million Iraqis are refugees; two million more are displaced inside their own country. Obama will form an international working group to address this crisis. He will provide at least $2 billion to expand services to Iraqi refugees in neighboring countries, and ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find a safe-haven.



Hello, like I said no 'tangible' plan, AQ is in Iraq now.  The political reconciliation is not going to happen if the US troops don't help to provide the security necessary until Iraq builds a sufficient security force of its own. Obama is going to Iran is laughable at best. Iran has stated that anyone supporting Israel will burn. Come on, how in the hell do you negotiate? We will burn if you deny your support to the insurgents in Iraq?Lmao
The best way to improve the humanitarian situation in Iraq is to help provide a secure government, not simply leaving them and hoping they get a stable government.


----------



## maineman

jreeves said:


> 1. again you fail to read my posts
> 2. No, to simply look at the previous past 5 years, isn't a logical comparison. For one, Iraq is in a war of course there are going to be dead Shiites, Sunnis and every other sector of the population. If you want a logical comparison, then look at the deaths following the end of the war. This would be an adequate comparison. Considering the previous five years were based in relative peace.
> 3. If I stated that Iran doesn't support Hezbollah I was wrong. Hezbollah is supported mainly by Syria and Labenese shi'ites.




1.  I don't fail to read your posts, I fail to find any proof of Saddam's training of Al Qaeda in them or anywhere else, which would make sense, because, as stated, it would be fucking INSANE for him to train and arm terrorists whose primary mission was the elimination of his own nation state. 

2.  I said that Saddam did a better job of keeping sunnis and shiites from killing one another than we have done.  THAT is a fact.

3.Hezbollah IS Lebanese shiites.  And you need to post a link to something factual (as oppsed to editorial) that would show that Syrian support is significantly greater than Iranian support.


----------



## jreeves

maineman said:


> 1.  I don't fail to read your posts, I fail to find any proof of Saddam's training of Al Qaeda in them or anywhere else, which would make sense, because, as stated, it would be fucking INSANE for him to train and arm terrorists whose primary mission was the elimination of his own nation state.
> 
> 2.  I said that Saddam did a better job of keeping sunnis and shiites from killing one another than we have done.  THAT is a fact.
> 
> 3.Hezbollah IS Lebanese shiites.  And you need to post a link to something factual (as oppsed to editorial) that would show that Syrian support is significantly greater than Iranian support.



1. From my previous post;
The agent reports (Extract 25) that The Army of Muhammad is working with Osama bin Laden. 
A later memorandum from the same collection to the Director of the IIS reports that the Army of Muhammad is endeavoring to receive assistance [from Iraq] to implement its objectives, and that the local IIS station has been told to deal with them in accordance with priorities previously established. The IIS agent goes on to inform the Director that this organization is an offshoot of bin Laden, but that their objectives are similar but with different names that can be a way of camouflaging the organization.
AoM had ambitious plans  including attacks on American interests. On page 35, the Iraqis list their aims as attacking Jewish and American interests anywhere in the world, attacking American embassies, disrupting American oil supplies and tankers, and attacking the American military bases in the Middle East. The Iraqi support for AoM may not be an operational link, but its certainly a financial link that goes right to Osama bin Laden. The Iraqis certainly understood that much, and hoped to keep it quiet.

2. Like said not a proper comparison, your just a hack trying to compare to dissimilar things.
3. You can't simply say 'all' Hezbollah are Labanese Shi'ites. They get there backing from Labenese Shi'ites, Syria, and Iran. That hardly makes Iran the supreme force in that equation.


----------

