President Obama: 487 documented examples of his lying, lawbreaking, corruption & cronyism!

[Spare_change]

Wait a second, I thouth it was the Saudis that were responsible, what in the hell gives? It is my opinion that there was little difference between the Taliban of Afghanistan and Saddam in Iraq. The only difference I see is that for whatever reason the left decided that Afghanistan was the "good" war. The one we had to fight. No we didn't have to fight either war. But we did and lying about it now doesn't help one bit.

That you think there was little difference between the Taliban and Saddam Hussein pretty much disqualifies you from any compelling contributions to this discussion.

I suppose you are going to qualify evil.

So now you're under the delusion that two things are pretty much the same because they share something in common?

There is a world of difference between the Taliban and Hussein. Most notably, in terms of terrorism which affected the U.S., the Taliban allowed and provided sanctuary to the terrorists which attacked us. Hussein, while he supported terrorism against Israel, did not support Al-Qaeda or global terrorism. Contrary to claims made by some on the right, there was no operational relationship between Hussein and Al-Qaeda. Another key difference was that Hussein was not actually a threat to the U.S.; whereas the Taliban, by supporting and harboring Al-Qaeda, was. Then you've got the religious differences. The Taliban are a radical rightwing of fanatical religious zealots stuck in the middle ages. Hussein led a secular Iraq. Another difference is that Hussein was the internationally recognized leader of Iraq. The same could not be said of the Taliban.

Tunnel vision again, my friend. Open your eyes ... consider the whole situation, not just that part that seems to support your argument.

It's not just what supports my position. There is a world of difference between the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. Just as there was a world of difference between the reasons for invading Afghanistan and invading Iraq.

Lot of difference between horseshit and snail droppings, too -- don't want to sleep in either.

But ... you are not allowing yourself to look at the whole situation. You are tunneled in on Iraq, not considering the overall Middle East situation at that time, ignoring the fact that Saddam subsidized suicide bombers, gassed Kurds, Iranians AND his own people, killed an estimated 3 million people while in control, and was actively engaged in terrorism.

From the government's 9/11 commission report:

• Baghdad actively sponsored terrorist groups, providing safe haven, training, arms, and logistical support, requiring in exchange that the groups carry out operations ordered by Baghdad for Saddam's objectives. Terrorist groups were not permitted to have offices, recruitment, or training facilities or freely use territory under the regime's direct control without explicit permission from Saddam.
• Saddam used foreign terrorist groups as an instrument of foreign policy. Groups hosted by Saddam were denied protection if he wanted to improve relations with a neighboring country and encouraged to attack those Saddam wanted to pressure. If they refused Saddam's "requests," they were exiled from Iraq

Conventional wisdom casts Saddam Husayn as a terrorist, a primary consumer of terrorist tactics and methods, and an enemy of the United States. That is true. Conventional wisdom describes Iraq under Saddam Husayn as a primary state sponsor of international terrorism-and that is true. If the mathematics is correct, then the conventional conclusion must be that Saddam and Iraq were responsible for acts of terrorism against the United States, including the 1993 Trade Towers attack and the events of September 11, 2001. Furthermore, Saddam and al-Qaida leader Usama bin Ladin cooperated in planning and conducting attacks on these U.S. targets. These assessments are incorrect in my personal view and in my professional judgment as a scholar and intelligence analyst on Iraq, the Middle East and the Persian Gulf region for more than 20 years. Simply put, Saddam Husayn supported extremist groups that would respond to his orders and work against his enemy. This, unfortunately, does not make him the primary suspect or emince grise for al-Qaida's attacks on the United States.

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

The larger picture, my friend, the larger picture.

 

[Faun]

That you think there was little difference between the Taliban and Saddam Hussein pretty much disqualifies you from any compelling contributions to this discussion.

I suppose you are going to qualify evil.

So now you're under the delusion that two things are pretty much the same because they share something in common?

There is a world of difference between the Taliban and Hussein. Most notably, in terms of terrorism which affected the U.S., the Taliban allowed and provided sanctuary to the terrorists which attacked us. Hussein, while he supported terrorism against Israel, did not support Al-Qaeda or global terrorism. Contrary to claims made by some on the right, there was no operational relationship between Hussein and Al-Qaeda. Another key difference was that Hussein was not actually a threat to the U.S.; whereas the Taliban, by supporting and harboring Al-Qaeda, was. Then you've got the religious differences. The Taliban are a radical rightwing of fanatical religious zealots stuck in the middle ages. Hussein led a secular Iraq. Another difference is that Hussein was the internationally recognized leader of Iraq. The same could not be said of the Taliban.

Tunnel vision again, my friend. Open your eyes ... consider the whole situation, not just that part that seems to support your argument.

It's not just what supports my position. There is a world of difference between the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. Just as there was a world of difference between the reasons for invading Afghanistan and invading Iraq.

Lot of difference between horseshit and snail droppings, too -- don't want to sleep in either.

But ... you are not allowing yourself to look at the whole situation. You are tunneled in on Iraq, not considering the overall Middle East situation at that time, ignoring the fact that Saddam subsidized suicide bombers, gassed Kurds, Iranians AND his own people, killed an estimated 3 million people while in control, and was actively engaged in terrorism.

From the government's 9/11 commission report:

• Baghdad actively sponsored terrorist groups, providing safe haven, training, arms, and logistical support, requiring in exchange that the groups carry out operations ordered by Baghdad for Saddam's objectives. Terrorist groups were not permitted to have offices, recruitment, or training facilities or freely use territory under the regime's direct control without explicit permission from Saddam.
• Saddam used foreign terrorist groups as an instrument of foreign policy. Groups hosted by Saddam were denied protection if he wanted to improve relations with a neighboring country and encouraged to attack those Saddam wanted to pressure. If they refused Saddam's "requests," they were exiled from Iraq

Conventional wisdom casts Saddam Husayn as a terrorist, a primary consumer of terrorist tactics and methods, and an enemy of the United States. That is true. Conventional wisdom describes Iraq under Saddam Husayn as a primary state sponsor of international terrorism-and that is true. If the mathematics is correct, then the conventional conclusion must be that Saddam and Iraq were responsible for acts of terrorism against the United States, including the 1993 Trade Towers attack and the events of September 11, 2001. Furthermore, Saddam and al-Qaida leader Usama bin Ladin cooperated in planning and conducting attacks on these U.S. targets. These assessments are incorrect in my personal view and in my professional judgment as a scholar and intelligence analyst on Iraq, the Middle East and the Persian Gulf region for more than 20 years. Simply put, Saddam Husayn supported extremist groups that would respond to his orders and work against his enemy. This, unfortunately, does not make him the primary suspect or emince grise for al-Qaida's attacks on the United States.

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

The larger picture, my friend, the larger picture.

Your "larger picture" is quite confusing. It appears to be the opinion of someone trying to establish Hussein of being responsible for the 1993 WTC attack (he wasn't), worked with to Osama bin-Laden (he didn't), responsible for 9.11 (he wasn't). But then that same individual, after claiming the above are established "conventional wisdom" (they weren't) then seeks to distance themselves from such blatantly false descriptions by stating they don't personally believe that?

Quite confusing, indeed.

Regardless, none of that "conventional wisdom" was a reality. Hussein was not a threat to us. Bush wanted to invade Iraq from early on in his presidency and he used 9.11 as the excuse to do it.

 

[Spare_change]

I suppose you are going to qualify evil.

So now you're under the delusion that two things are pretty much the same because they share something in common?

There is a world of difference between the Taliban and Hussein. Most notably, in terms of terrorism which affected the U.S., the Taliban allowed and provided sanctuary to the terrorists which attacked us. Hussein, while he supported terrorism against Israel, did not support Al-Qaeda or global terrorism. Contrary to claims made by some on the right, there was no operational relationship between Hussein and Al-Qaeda. Another key difference was that Hussein was not actually a threat to the U.S.; whereas the Taliban, by supporting and harboring Al-Qaeda, was. Then you've got the religious differences. The Taliban are a radical rightwing of fanatical religious zealots stuck in the middle ages. Hussein led a secular Iraq. Another difference is that Hussein was the internationally recognized leader of Iraq. The same could not be said of the Taliban.

Tunnel vision again, my friend. Open your eyes ... consider the whole situation, not just that part that seems to support your argument.

It's not just what supports my position. There is a world of difference between the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. Just as there was a world of difference between the reasons for invading Afghanistan and invading Iraq.

Lot of difference between horseshit and snail droppings, too -- don't want to sleep in either.

But ... you are not allowing yourself to look at the whole situation. You are tunneled in on Iraq, not considering the overall Middle East situation at that time, ignoring the fact that Saddam subsidized suicide bombers, gassed Kurds, Iranians AND his own people, killed an estimated 3 million people while in control, and was actively engaged in terrorism.

From the government's 9/11 commission report:

• Baghdad actively sponsored terrorist groups, providing safe haven, training, arms, and logistical support, requiring in exchange that the groups carry out operations ordered by Baghdad for Saddam's objectives. Terrorist groups were not permitted to have offices, recruitment, or training facilities or freely use territory under the regime's direct control without explicit permission from Saddam.
• Saddam used foreign terrorist groups as an instrument of foreign policy. Groups hosted by Saddam were denied protection if he wanted to improve relations with a neighboring country and encouraged to attack those Saddam wanted to pressure. If they refused Saddam's "requests," they were exiled from Iraq

Conventional wisdom casts Saddam Husayn as a terrorist, a primary consumer of terrorist tactics and methods, and an enemy of the United States. That is true. Conventional wisdom describes Iraq under Saddam Husayn as a primary state sponsor of international terrorism-and that is true. If the mathematics is correct, then the conventional conclusion must be that Saddam and Iraq were responsible for acts of terrorism against the United States, including the 1993 Trade Towers attack and the events of September 11, 2001. Furthermore, Saddam and al-Qaida leader Usama bin Ladin cooperated in planning and conducting attacks on these U.S. targets. These assessments are incorrect in my personal view and in my professional judgment as a scholar and intelligence analyst on Iraq, the Middle East and the Persian Gulf region for more than 20 years. Simply put, Saddam Husayn supported extremist groups that would respond to his orders and work against his enemy. This, unfortunately, does not make him the primary suspect or emince grise for al-Qaida's attacks on the United States.

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

The larger picture, my friend, the larger picture.

Your "larger picture" is quite confusing. It appears to be the opinion of someone trying to establish Hussein of being responsible for the 1993 WTC attack (he wasn't), worked with to Osama bin-Laden (he didn't), responsible for 9.11 (he wasn't). But then that same individual, after claiming the above are established "conventional wisdom" (they weren't) then seeks to distance themselves from such blatantly false descriptions by stating they don't personally believe that?

Quite confusing, indeed.

Regardless, none of that "conventional wisdom" was a reality. Hussein was not a threat to us. Bush wanted to invade Iraq from early on in his presidency and he used 9.11 as the excuse to do it.

Gee, did i mention the 1993 WTC attack? Did i write something in my sleep about Saddam and Osams sharing bread? Did I say anything about 'conventional wisdom'?

C'mon man, you're just making shit up ... try to stay on subject. We were talking about your claim that Saddam didn't support terrorist activities. We were also talking about that poll, but you've gotten awfully quiet about cherrypicking the ones you wanted, and ignoring the rest.

 

[Faun]

So now you're under the delusion that two things are pretty much the same because they share something in common?

There is a world of difference between the Taliban and Hussein. Most notably, in terms of terrorism which affected the U.S., the Taliban allowed and provided sanctuary to the terrorists which attacked us. Hussein, while he supported terrorism against Israel, did not support Al-Qaeda or global terrorism. Contrary to claims made by some on the right, there was no operational relationship between Hussein and Al-Qaeda. Another key difference was that Hussein was not actually a threat to the U.S.; whereas the Taliban, by supporting and harboring Al-Qaeda, was. Then you've got the religious differences. The Taliban are a radical rightwing of fanatical religious zealots stuck in the middle ages. Hussein led a secular Iraq. Another difference is that Hussein was the internationally recognized leader of Iraq. The same could not be said of the Taliban.

Tunnel vision again, my friend. Open your eyes ... consider the whole situation, not just that part that seems to support your argument.

It's not just what supports my position. There is a world of difference between the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. Just as there was a world of difference between the reasons for invading Afghanistan and invading Iraq.

Lot of difference between horseshit and snail droppings, too -- don't want to sleep in either.

But ... you are not allowing yourself to look at the whole situation. You are tunneled in on Iraq, not considering the overall Middle East situation at that time, ignoring the fact that Saddam subsidized suicide bombers, gassed Kurds, Iranians AND his own people, killed an estimated 3 million people while in control, and was actively engaged in terrorism.

From the government's 9/11 commission report:

• Baghdad actively sponsored terrorist groups, providing safe haven, training, arms, and logistical support, requiring in exchange that the groups carry out operations ordered by Baghdad for Saddam's objectives. Terrorist groups were not permitted to have offices, recruitment, or training facilities or freely use territory under the regime's direct control without explicit permission from Saddam.
• Saddam used foreign terrorist groups as an instrument of foreign policy. Groups hosted by Saddam were denied protection if he wanted to improve relations with a neighboring country and encouraged to attack those Saddam wanted to pressure. If they refused Saddam's "requests," they were exiled from Iraq

Conventional wisdom casts Saddam Husayn as a terrorist, a primary consumer of terrorist tactics and methods, and an enemy of the United States. That is true. Conventional wisdom describes Iraq under Saddam Husayn as a primary state sponsor of international terrorism-and that is true. If the mathematics is correct, then the conventional conclusion must be that Saddam and Iraq were responsible for acts of terrorism against the United States, including the 1993 Trade Towers attack and the events of September 11, 2001. Furthermore, Saddam and al-Qaida leader Usama bin Ladin cooperated in planning and conducting attacks on these U.S. targets. These assessments are incorrect in my personal view and in my professional judgment as a scholar and intelligence analyst on Iraq, the Middle East and the Persian Gulf region for more than 20 years. Simply put, Saddam Husayn supported extremist groups that would respond to his orders and work against his enemy. This, unfortunately, does not make him the primary suspect or emince grise for al-Qaida's attacks on the United States.

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

The larger picture, my friend, the larger picture.

Your "larger picture" is quite confusing. It appears to be the opinion of someone trying to establish Hussein of being responsible for the 1993 WTC attack (he wasn't), worked with to Osama bin-Laden (he didn't), responsible for 9.11 (he wasn't). But then that same individual, after claiming the above are established "conventional wisdom" (they weren't) then seeks to distance themselves from such blatantly false descriptions by stating they don't personally believe that?

Quite confusing, indeed.

Regardless, none of that "conventional wisdom" was a reality. Hussein was not a threat to us. Bush wanted to invade Iraq from early on in his presidency and he used 9.11 as the excuse to do it.

Gee, did i mention the 1993 WTC attack? Did i write something in my sleep about Saddam and Osams sharing bread? Did I say anything about 'conventional wisdom'?

C'mon man, you're just making shit up ... try to stay on subject. We were talking about your claim that Saddam didn't support terrorist activities. We were also talking about that poll, but you've gotten awfully quiet about cherrypicking the ones you wanted, and ignoring the rest.

WTF?? Are you saying you didn't just post ...

then the conventional conclusion must be that Saddam and Iraq were responsible for acts of terrorism against the United States, including the 1993 Trade Towers attack and the events of September 11, 2001. Furthermore, Saddam and al-Qaida leader Usama bin Ladin cooperated in planning and conducting attacks on these U.S. targets.​

I highly recommend you start reading what you post.

As far as Hussein supporting terrorism, I didn't deny he did. But it was limited to that region and was not a threat to the U.S. Most noteworthy, he paid surviving family members of suicide bombers the equivalent of about $25,000 after Israel demolished their homes as punishment for such terrorist attacks.

 

[Spare_change]

Tunnel vision again, my friend. Open your eyes ... consider the whole situation, not just that part that seems to support your argument.

It's not just what supports my position. There is a world of difference between the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. Just as there was a world of difference between the reasons for invading Afghanistan and invading Iraq.

Lot of difference between horseshit and snail droppings, too -- don't want to sleep in either.

But ... you are not allowing yourself to look at the whole situation. You are tunneled in on Iraq, not considering the overall Middle East situation at that time, ignoring the fact that Saddam subsidized suicide bombers, gassed Kurds, Iranians AND his own people, killed an estimated 3 million people while in control, and was actively engaged in terrorism.

From the government's 9/11 commission report:

• Baghdad actively sponsored terrorist groups, providing safe haven, training, arms, and logistical support, requiring in exchange that the groups carry out operations ordered by Baghdad for Saddam's objectives. Terrorist groups were not permitted to have offices, recruitment, or training facilities or freely use territory under the regime's direct control without explicit permission from Saddam.
• Saddam used foreign terrorist groups as an instrument of foreign policy. Groups hosted by Saddam were denied protection if he wanted to improve relations with a neighboring country and encouraged to attack those Saddam wanted to pressure. If they refused Saddam's "requests," they were exiled from Iraq

Conventional wisdom casts Saddam Husayn as a terrorist, a primary consumer of terrorist tactics and methods, and an enemy of the United States. That is true. Conventional wisdom describes Iraq under Saddam Husayn as a primary state sponsor of international terrorism-and that is true. If the mathematics is correct, then the conventional conclusion must be that Saddam and Iraq were responsible for acts of terrorism against the United States, including the 1993 Trade Towers attack and the events of September 11, 2001. Furthermore, Saddam and al-Qaida leader Usama bin Ladin cooperated in planning and conducting attacks on these U.S. targets. These assessments are incorrect in my personal view and in my professional judgment as a scholar and intelligence analyst on Iraq, the Middle East and the Persian Gulf region for more than 20 years. Simply put, Saddam Husayn supported extremist groups that would respond to his orders and work against his enemy. This, unfortunately, does not make him the primary suspect or emince grise for al-Qaida's attacks on the United States.

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

The larger picture, my friend, the larger picture.

Your "larger picture" is quite confusing. It appears to be the opinion of someone trying to establish Hussein of being responsible for the 1993 WTC attack (he wasn't), worked with to Osama bin-Laden (he didn't), responsible for 9.11 (he wasn't). But then that same individual, after claiming the above are established "conventional wisdom" (they weren't) then seeks to distance themselves from such blatantly false descriptions by stating they don't personally believe that?

Quite confusing, indeed.

Regardless, none of that "conventional wisdom" was a reality. Hussein was not a threat to us. Bush wanted to invade Iraq from early on in his presidency and he used 9.11 as the excuse to do it.

Gee, did i mention the 1993 WTC attack? Did i write something in my sleep about Saddam and Osams sharing bread? Did I say anything about 'conventional wisdom'?

C'mon man, you're just making shit up ... try to stay on subject. We were talking about your claim that Saddam didn't support terrorist activities. We were also talking about that poll, but you've gotten awfully quiet about cherrypicking the ones you wanted, and ignoring the rest.

WTF?? Are you saying you didn't just post ...

then the conventional conclusion must be that Saddam and Iraq were responsible for acts of terrorism against the United States, including the 1993 Trade Towers attack and the events of September 11, 2001. Furthermore, Saddam and al-Qaida leader Usama bin Ladin cooperated in planning and conducting attacks on these U.S. targets.​

I highly recommend you start reading what you post.

As far as Hussein supporting terrorism, I didn't deny he did. But it was limited to that region and was not a threat to the U.S. Most noteworthy, he paid surviving family members of suicide bombers the equivalent of about $25,000 after Israel demolished their homes as punishment for such terrorist attacks.

What you are quoting is from the 911 Commission report, in which the report says that the conventional wisdom, AT THAT TIME, was all those things.

Don't put them on me ... and don't blame me if you didn't bother to actually read the reference to understand them in context.

So, now you agree that Saddam did support terrorist activities, and that the Bush administration was right about that when it was cited as part of the rationale for invading Iraq?

 

[Faun]

It's not just what supports my position. There is a world of difference between the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. Just as there was a world of difference between the reasons for invading Afghanistan and invading Iraq.

Lot of difference between horseshit and snail droppings, too -- don't want to sleep in either.

But ... you are not allowing yourself to look at the whole situation. You are tunneled in on Iraq, not considering the overall Middle East situation at that time, ignoring the fact that Saddam subsidized suicide bombers, gassed Kurds, Iranians AND his own people, killed an estimated 3 million people while in control, and was actively engaged in terrorism.

From the government's 9/11 commission report:

• Baghdad actively sponsored terrorist groups, providing safe haven, training, arms, and logistical support, requiring in exchange that the groups carry out operations ordered by Baghdad for Saddam's objectives. Terrorist groups were not permitted to have offices, recruitment, or training facilities or freely use territory under the regime's direct control without explicit permission from Saddam.
• Saddam used foreign terrorist groups as an instrument of foreign policy. Groups hosted by Saddam were denied protection if he wanted to improve relations with a neighboring country and encouraged to attack those Saddam wanted to pressure. If they refused Saddam's "requests," they were exiled from Iraq

Conventional wisdom casts Saddam Husayn as a terrorist, a primary consumer of terrorist tactics and methods, and an enemy of the United States. That is true. Conventional wisdom describes Iraq under Saddam Husayn as a primary state sponsor of international terrorism-and that is true. If the mathematics is correct, then the conventional conclusion must be that Saddam and Iraq were responsible for acts of terrorism against the United States, including the 1993 Trade Towers attack and the events of September 11, 2001. Furthermore, Saddam and al-Qaida leader Usama bin Ladin cooperated in planning and conducting attacks on these U.S. targets. These assessments are incorrect in my personal view and in my professional judgment as a scholar and intelligence analyst on Iraq, the Middle East and the Persian Gulf region for more than 20 years. Simply put, Saddam Husayn supported extremist groups that would respond to his orders and work against his enemy. This, unfortunately, does not make him the primary suspect or emince grise for al-Qaida's attacks on the United States.

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

The larger picture, my friend, the larger picture.

Your "larger picture" is quite confusing. It appears to be the opinion of someone trying to establish Hussein of being responsible for the 1993 WTC attack (he wasn't), worked with to Osama bin-Laden (he didn't), responsible for 9.11 (he wasn't). But then that same individual, after claiming the above are established "conventional wisdom" (they weren't) then seeks to distance themselves from such blatantly false descriptions by stating they don't personally believe that?

Quite confusing, indeed.

Regardless, none of that "conventional wisdom" was a reality. Hussein was not a threat to us. Bush wanted to invade Iraq from early on in his presidency and he used 9.11 as the excuse to do it.

Gee, did i mention the 1993 WTC attack? Did i write something in my sleep about Saddam and Osams sharing bread? Did I say anything about 'conventional wisdom'?

C'mon man, you're just making shit up ... try to stay on subject. We were talking about your claim that Saddam didn't support terrorist activities. We were also talking about that poll, but you've gotten awfully quiet about cherrypicking the ones you wanted, and ignoring the rest.

WTF?? Are you saying you didn't just post ...

then the conventional conclusion must be that Saddam and Iraq were responsible for acts of terrorism against the United States, including the 1993 Trade Towers attack and the events of September 11, 2001. Furthermore, Saddam and al-Qaida leader Usama bin Ladin cooperated in planning and conducting attacks on these U.S. targets.​

I highly recommend you start reading what you post.

As far as Hussein supporting terrorism, I didn't deny he did. But it was limited to that region and was not a threat to the U.S. Most noteworthy, he paid surviving family members of suicide bombers the equivalent of about $25,000 after Israel demolished their homes as punishment for such terrorist attacks.

What you are quoting is from the 911 Commission report, in which the report says that the conventional wisdom, AT THAT TIME, was all those things.

Don't put them on me ... and don't blame me if you didn't bother to actually read the reference to understand them in context.

So, now you agree that Saddam did support terrorist activities, and that the Bush administration was right about that when it was cited as part of the rationale for invading Iraq?

Don't blame you?? YOU posted that shit here before you denied posting it.
And no, just because Hussein supported Hamas terrorists who struck Israel (which I never denied occurred) doesn't mean Bush was right as the Bush administration tried to establish a correlation between Hussein and terrorism which was a threat to the U.S., which Hamas wasn't.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

SC 10388130

ut ... you are not allowing yourself to look at the whole situation. You are tunneled in on Iraq, not considering the overall Middle East situation at that time, ignoring the fact that Saddam subsidized suicide bombers, gassed Kurds, Iranians AND his own people, killed an estimated 3 million people while in control, and was actively engaged in terrorism.

You are not thinking in accordance with your own standards. You must include a timeline of 'threat assessment'
by Americans in general and by their entire national security team from the President on down.

You must include a 'whole situation' look at the threat that Saddsm Hussein posed prior to October 2002 when Iraq had not allowed UN inspectors in for four years. Plus the active threat posed by Iraq when the vote was cast to authorize use of force in Iraq 'if' necessary in the days leading up to October 10, 2010. Plus the active threat when the pivotal UNSC Resolution 1441 was passed near mid-November 2002. Plus the threat that Saddam Hussein posed between 1441 passage and March 7 2003 which was 10 days before the announcement that war was coming.

Two key dates and their major turning points are not represented properly in your Iraq invasion thesis.

One Is the day 1441 was passed with US and unanimous Security Council approval giving Saddam Hussein a final opportunity to comply and stay in power despite all preceding crimes, acts of terror, genocides, invasions and inspection obstruction he committed.

The second has had little attention but it is a key date just the same. It is the date around March 7, 2003 when the US and UK offered a draft Resolution up for a vote at the UNSC that would have allowed Saddam Hussein to
Remain in power had one simple condition been met.

I will fill in more details on my 'whole picture' viewpoint on the run up to the invasion of Iraq in a short amount of time.

 

[DriftingSand]

Too bad only 487 were documented. I'd bet a thousand dollars that the actual number is 10 times greater. Got to give him credit, though. He's a perfect politician and mouthpiece for the powers that pull the strings.

A list of Obama's lies far exceeds a list of his each day in office. The man lies every single day. He is a pathological liar. I'd bet more on that!

I fully agree. He talks to hear himself talk (and likely watches re-runs of his own, taped speeches). It'll be good to see him go but there's another liar waiting somewhere in the wings all prepped and ready to take over.

 

[Freewill]

SC 10384688

The public was clamoring for the administration to do something - anything - to satisfy their need for revenge.

The public by the end of February 2004 was not clamoring for the administration to do something - anything - to satisfy their need for revenge by invading Iraq.

Get off your high horse and quit speaking for the majority of Americans that were satisfied with going into Afghanistan but wanted no part of invading Iraq without UN approval.

Polls tell us the majority of Americans by the end of February 2003 wanted Bush to give the UN inspectors more time,

So you are wrong.


SC 10384688

As for this absolute nonsense that Bush lied to Congress, the people, and everybody else in the world - every member of Congress was given the same information Bush got from his advisers, every member of the respective intel committees knew exactly what he did.

My view was and still is that Bush was correct in September 2002 to demand that Iraq get into compliance with its WMD disarmament obligations or face war because Iraq would be a threat to the region and US if it remained in illegal possession of WMD of the chemical or biological weapon type, it could give those types of weapons to an al Qaeda type operation. Bush had a point.

So your argument does not work on me.

Feel free to point out those polls that didn't want us to go into Iraq. Perhaps you can show me the Congressional action taken to stop it, as well. I'll wait here.

All intelligence, at that time, clearly indicated that Saddam was not in compliance, Saddam himself said they weren't in compliance, and did every thing to confuse and obfuscate the inspection processes. Look guilty - act guilty - be guilty.

First of all, Notfooled didn't say there were polls indicating the public didn't want us to invade, he said there were polls just before we invaded revealing that most preferred letting the U.N. inspectors complete the job they were sent in to do.

Secondly, while I agree Hussein was deliberately obfuscating, he was denying being in possession of WMD, which did turn out to be true.

He never denied it and if you believe he did that disqualifies you from further discussion.

Saddam Hussein 'lied about WMDs to protect Iraq from Iran'
Saddam Hussein told the FBI that he misled the world into believing Iraq still possessed weapons of mass destruction because he feared revealing his weakness to Iran, according to declassified interview transcripts.

Bush said Hussein did deny it. Was Bush lying??

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons — the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have." - George Bush, 2.8.2003

Source, provide sources. I remember back then and Saddam did lie, very unlike what you said so any quote you "quote" needs backed up. Thanks.

 

[Freewill]

That you think there was little difference between the Taliban and Saddam Hussein pretty much disqualifies you from any compelling contributions to this discussion.

I suppose you are going to qualify evil.

So now you're under the delusion that two things are pretty much the same because they share something in common?

There is a world of difference between the Taliban and Hussein. Most notably, in terms of terrorism which affected the U.S., the Taliban allowed and provided sanctuary to the terrorists which attacked us. Hussein, while he supported terrorism against Israel, did not support Al-Qaeda or global terrorism. Contrary to claims made by some on the right, there was no operational relationship between Hussein and Al-Qaeda. Another key difference was that Hussein was not actually a threat to the U.S.; whereas the Taliban, by supporting and harboring Al-Qaeda, was. Then you've got the religious differences. The Taliban are a radical rightwing of fanatical religious zealots stuck in the middle ages. Hussein led a secular Iraq. Another difference is that Hussein was the internationally recognized leader of Iraq. The same could not be said of the Taliban.

Tunnel vision again, my friend. Open your eyes ... consider the whole situation, not just that part that seems to support your argument.

It's not just what supports my position. There is a world of difference between the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. Just as there was a world of difference between the reasons for invading Afghanistan and invading Iraq.

Lot of difference between horseshit and snail droppings, too -- don't want to sleep in either.

But ... you are not allowing yourself to look at the whole situation. You are tunneled in on Iraq, not considering the overall Middle East situation at that time, ignoring the fact that Saddam subsidized suicide bombers, gassed Kurds, Iranians AND his own people, killed an estimated 3 million people while in control, and was actively engaged in terrorism.

From the government's 9/11 commission report:

• Baghdad actively sponsored terrorist groups, providing safe haven, training, arms, and logistical support, requiring in exchange that the groups carry out operations ordered by Baghdad for Saddam's objectives. Terrorist groups were not permitted to have offices, recruitment, or training facilities or freely use territory under the regime's direct control without explicit permission from Saddam.
• Saddam used foreign terrorist groups as an instrument of foreign policy. Groups hosted by Saddam were denied protection if he wanted to improve relations with a neighboring country and encouraged to attack those Saddam wanted to pressure. If they refused Saddam's "requests," they were exiled from Iraq

Conventional wisdom casts Saddam Husayn as a terrorist, a primary consumer of terrorist tactics and methods, and an enemy of the United States. That is true. Conventional wisdom describes Iraq under Saddam Husayn as a primary state sponsor of international terrorism-and that is true. If the mathematics is correct, then the conventional conclusion must be that Saddam and Iraq were responsible for acts of terrorism against the United States, including the 1993 Trade Towers attack and the events of September 11, 2001. Furthermore, Saddam and al-Qaida leader Usama bin Ladin cooperated in planning and conducting attacks on these U.S. targets. These assessments are incorrect in my personal view and in my professional judgment as a scholar and intelligence analyst on Iraq, the Middle East and the Persian Gulf region for more than 20 years. Simply put, Saddam Husayn supported extremist groups that would respond to his orders and work against his enemy. This, unfortunately, does not make him the primary suspect or emince grise for al-Qaida's attacks on the United States.

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

The larger picture, my friend, the larger picture.

Geez you can't use commission reports unless they say something a bad about Bush.

 

[Faun]

SC 10384688 The public by the end of February 2004 was not clamoring for the administration to do something - anything - to satisfy their need for revenge by invading Iraq.

Get off your high horse and quit speaking for the majority of Americans that were satisfied with going into Afghanistan but wanted no part of invading Iraq without UN approval.

Polls tell us the majority of Americans by the end of February 2003 wanted Bush to give the UN inspectors more time,

So you are wrong.


SC 10384688 My view was and still is that Bush was correct in September 2002 to demand that Iraq get into compliance with its WMD disarmament obligations or face war because Iraq would be a threat to the region and US if it remained in illegal possession of WMD of the chemical or biological weapon type, it could give those types of weapons to an al Qaeda type operation. Bush had a point.

So your argument does not work on me.

Feel free to point out those polls that didn't want us to go into Iraq. Perhaps you can show me the Congressional action taken to stop it, as well. I'll wait here.

All intelligence, at that time, clearly indicated that Saddam was not in compliance, Saddam himself said they weren't in compliance, and did every thing to confuse and obfuscate the inspection processes. Look guilty - act guilty - be guilty.

First of all, Notfooled didn't say there were polls indicating the public didn't want us to invade, he said there were polls just before we invaded revealing that most preferred letting the U.N. inspectors complete the job they were sent in to do.

Secondly, while I agree Hussein was deliberately obfuscating, he was denying being in possession of WMD, which did turn out to be true.

He never denied it and if you believe he did that disqualifies you from further discussion.

Saddam Hussein 'lied about WMDs to protect Iraq from Iran'
Saddam Hussein told the FBI that he misled the world into believing Iraq still possessed weapons of mass destruction because he feared revealing his weakness to Iran, according to declassified interview transcripts.

Bush said Hussein did deny it. Was Bush lying??

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons — the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have." - George Bush, 2.8.2003

Source, provide sources. I remember back then and Saddam did lie, very unlike what you said so any quote you "quote" needs backed up. Thanks.

Presidential Audio Video Archive -

If you can't hear the audio (Bush said it during a radio address) you can click on 'open document in new window' to view the transcript.

So was Bush lying when he said Hussein denied having WMD?

 

[Faun]

I suppose you are going to qualify evil.

So now you're under the delusion that two things are pretty much the same because they share something in common?

There is a world of difference between the Taliban and Hussein. Most notably, in terms of terrorism which affected the U.S., the Taliban allowed and provided sanctuary to the terrorists which attacked us. Hussein, while he supported terrorism against Israel, did not support Al-Qaeda or global terrorism. Contrary to claims made by some on the right, there was no operational relationship between Hussein and Al-Qaeda. Another key difference was that Hussein was not actually a threat to the U.S.; whereas the Taliban, by supporting and harboring Al-Qaeda, was. Then you've got the religious differences. The Taliban are a radical rightwing of fanatical religious zealots stuck in the middle ages. Hussein led a secular Iraq. Another difference is that Hussein was the internationally recognized leader of Iraq. The same could not be said of the Taliban.

Tunnel vision again, my friend. Open your eyes ... consider the whole situation, not just that part that seems to support your argument.

It's not just what supports my position. There is a world of difference between the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. Just as there was a world of difference between the reasons for invading Afghanistan and invading Iraq.

Lot of difference between horseshit and snail droppings, too -- don't want to sleep in either.

But ... you are not allowing yourself to look at the whole situation. You are tunneled in on Iraq, not considering the overall Middle East situation at that time, ignoring the fact that Saddam subsidized suicide bombers, gassed Kurds, Iranians AND his own people, killed an estimated 3 million people while in control, and was actively engaged in terrorism.

From the government's 9/11 commission report:

• Baghdad actively sponsored terrorist groups, providing safe haven, training, arms, and logistical support, requiring in exchange that the groups carry out operations ordered by Baghdad for Saddam's objectives. Terrorist groups were not permitted to have offices, recruitment, or training facilities or freely use territory under the regime's direct control without explicit permission from Saddam.
• Saddam used foreign terrorist groups as an instrument of foreign policy. Groups hosted by Saddam were denied protection if he wanted to improve relations with a neighboring country and encouraged to attack those Saddam wanted to pressure. If they refused Saddam's "requests," they were exiled from Iraq

Conventional wisdom casts Saddam Husayn as a terrorist, a primary consumer of terrorist tactics and methods, and an enemy of the United States. That is true. Conventional wisdom describes Iraq under Saddam Husayn as a primary state sponsor of international terrorism-and that is true. If the mathematics is correct, then the conventional conclusion must be that Saddam and Iraq were responsible for acts of terrorism against the United States, including the 1993 Trade Towers attack and the events of September 11, 2001. Furthermore, Saddam and al-Qaida leader Usama bin Ladin cooperated in planning and conducting attacks on these U.S. targets. These assessments are incorrect in my personal view and in my professional judgment as a scholar and intelligence analyst on Iraq, the Middle East and the Persian Gulf region for more than 20 years. Simply put, Saddam Husayn supported extremist groups that would respond to his orders and work against his enemy. This, unfortunately, does not make him the primary suspect or emince grise for al-Qaida's attacks on the United States.

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

The larger picture, my friend, the larger picture.

Geez you can't use commission reports unless they say something a bad about Bush.

Who said you can't use them? What you can't do is quote them but then deny posting the parts you don't like even though you posted it.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

NF 10387811

In your post 10384688 you started off your Iraq thesis with basically a complaint against everyone who blames Bush (NOW)'for 'his' decision to end the peaceful UN disarming process as if every American were in lockstep with your other view that Americans were hungry for revenge after the al Qaeda attack in September 2001. <> You wrote: .

1) It's really convenient, and comforting, to blame Bush for the war in Iraq, as if it were some personal canard of the president.

So I asked you, Who made the decision that the UN inspections from November 2002 through March 17, 2003 would not lead to enforcement of all relevant UNSC Resolutions in Iraq? If not Bush, Whom?" <>
Your complaint is unwarranted because there is no other human being on the planet to blame for ending the inspection process and starting a war other than Bush himself. <> And those of us who wanted Bush to give the inspectors more time have every right to criticize and blame Bush for not giving them the time. There was no pressing threat that Iraq had to be invaded in March. <> You have no right to criticize up to 60% of Americans who didn't agree with you back then.

21. Should the United States take military action against Iraq fairly soon, or should the United States wait and give the United Nations and weapons inspectors more time?
Take action soon
Give inspectors time
DK/NA
02/05-06/03 35 61 4
02/10-12/03 37 59 3
02/24-25/03 36 62 2
03/04-05/03 35 60 5
03/07-09/03 44 52 4
The New York Times CBS News Poll

SC 10387843.1

Given the question asked, I would not interpret that to be a valid reflection of the answer you're trying to construct. Try again.

SC 10388097

See? This is my point --- you selectively chose a single question that seemed to support your position. However, when you look at the survey in toto, you get a completely different picture. For example: <> The latest New York Times/CBS News Poll is based on telephone interviews conducted March 7 to 9, 2003, with 1,010 adults throughout the United States.

Regarding you post SC 10387843.1Spare_Change I am not 'trying to 'construct an answer'. I am demonstrating that there are FACTS behind my answer all my answers and points and arguments. How on earth do you interpret an affirmative answer to this question (Should the United States take military action against Iraq fairly soon, or should the United States wa it and give the United Nations and weapons inspectors more time?) to no mean those people including my self preferred the diplomatic peaceful route be 'EXHAUSTED' before contemplating starting a war. And Bush has stated ever since the Iraq invasion hoopla came up that he is a man of peace and that he himself preferred to avoid war and settle disarm Iraq peacefully.

You can't get a way with disparaging without any justification a key element in my argument. So What else does this answer mean? 21. Q Should the United States take military action against Iraq fairly soon, or should the United States wait and give the United Nations and weapons inspectors more time? On 03/04-05/03 60 percent of respondents answered YES to waiting and giving the UN inspectors more time to finish their work.

 

[Faun]

NF 10387811

In your post 10384688 you started off your Iraq thesis with basically a complaint against everyone who blames Bush (NOW)'for 'his' decision to end the peaceful UN disarming process as if every American were in lockstep with your other view that Americans were hungry for revenge after the al Qaeda attack in September 2001. <> You wrote: .

1) It's really convenient, and comforting, to blame Bush for the war in Iraq, as if it were some personal canard of the president.

So I asked you, Who made the decision that the UN inspections from November 2002 through March 17, 2003 would not lead to enforcement of all relevant UNSC Resolutions in Iraq? If not Bush, Whom?" <>
Your complaint is unwarranted because there is no other human being on the planet to blame for ending the inspection process and starting a war other than Bush himself. <> And those of us who wanted Bush to give the inspectors more time have every right to criticize and blame Bush for not giving them the time. There was no pressing threat that Iraq had to be invaded in March. <> You have no right to criticize up to 60% of Americans who didn't agree with you back then.

21. Should the United States take military action against Iraq fairly soon, or should the United States wait and give the United Nations and weapons inspectors more time?
Take action soon
Give inspectors time
DK/NA
02/05-06/03 35 61 4
02/10-12/03 37 59 3
02/24-25/03 36 62 2
03/04-05/03 35 60 5
03/07-09/03 44 52 4
The New York Times CBS News Poll

SC 10387843.1

Given the question asked, I would not interpret that to be a valid reflection of the answer you're trying to construct. Try again.

SC 10388097

See? This is my point --- you selectively chose a single question that seemed to support your position. However, when you look at the survey in toto, you get a completely different picture. For example: <> The latest New York Times/CBS News Poll is based on telephone interviews conducted March 7 to 9, 2003, with 1,010 adults throughout the United States.

Regarding you post SC 10387843.1Spare_Change I am not 'trying to 'construct an answer'. I am demonstrating that there are FACTS behind my answer all my answers and points and arguments. How on earth do you interpret an affirmative answer to this question (Should the United States take military action against Iraq fairly soon, or should the United States wa it and give the United Nations and weapons inspectors more time?) to no mean those people including my self preferred the diplomatic peaceful route be 'EXHAUSTED' before contemplating starting a war. And Bush has stated ever since the Iraq invasion hoopla came up that he is a man of peace and that he himself preferred to avoid war and settle disarm Iraq peacefully.

You can't get a way with disparaging without any justification a key element in my argument. So What else does this answer mean? 21. Q Should the United States take military action against Iraq fairly soon, or should the United States wait and give the United Nations and weapons inspectors more time? On 03/04-05/03 60 percent of respondents answered YES to waiting and giving the UN inspectors more time to finish their work.

Bush was talking about invading Iraq before he was even president. He said it on the campaign trail.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Faun 10389952

Bush was talking about invading Iraq before he was even president. He said it on the campaign trail.

Which is why Spare_Change carries so many flawed concepts in his Iraq invasion justification dissertation.

We know that Bush 43 is on record in word and deed as wanting both peaceful resolution of Iraq's WMD middle finger to the UN US and international law as well wanting to bomb invade and occupy Iraq for a plethora of WMD and non-WMD related crimes and violations.

Thats where Spare_Change is missing crucial factors in the run/up phase toward the US invasion of Iraq in his dissertation that he seems to be annoyed at any questioning of it.

Bush was the only human on earth who controlled the decision in March 2003 to ignore inspection progress and start a war instead.

He is to blame that his final day of decision was a disastrous and ill advised one.

And ill-advised by none other than the Democratic Party Candidate that became next in line to his office.

 

[Spare_change]

Lot of difference between horseshit and snail droppings, too -- don't want to sleep in either.

But ... you are not allowing yourself to look at the whole situation. You are tunneled in on Iraq, not considering the overall Middle East situation at that time, ignoring the fact that Saddam subsidized suicide bombers, gassed Kurds, Iranians AND his own people, killed an estimated 3 million people while in control, and was actively engaged in terrorism.

From the government's 9/11 commission report:

• Baghdad actively sponsored terrorist groups, providing safe haven, training, arms, and logistical support, requiring in exchange that the groups carry out operations ordered by Baghdad for Saddam's objectives. Terrorist groups were not permitted to have offices, recruitment, or training facilities or freely use territory under the regime's direct control without explicit permission from Saddam.
• Saddam used foreign terrorist groups as an instrument of foreign policy. Groups hosted by Saddam were denied protection if he wanted to improve relations with a neighboring country and encouraged to attack those Saddam wanted to pressure. If they refused Saddam's "requests," they were exiled from Iraq

Conventional wisdom casts Saddam Husayn as a terrorist, a primary consumer of terrorist tactics and methods, and an enemy of the United States. That is true. Conventional wisdom describes Iraq under Saddam Husayn as a primary state sponsor of international terrorism-and that is true. If the mathematics is correct, then the conventional conclusion must be that Saddam and Iraq were responsible for acts of terrorism against the United States, including the 1993 Trade Towers attack and the events of September 11, 2001. Furthermore, Saddam and al-Qaida leader Usama bin Ladin cooperated in planning and conducting attacks on these U.S. targets. These assessments are incorrect in my personal view and in my professional judgment as a scholar and intelligence analyst on Iraq, the Middle East and the Persian Gulf region for more than 20 years. Simply put, Saddam Husayn supported extremist groups that would respond to his orders and work against his enemy. This, unfortunately, does not make him the primary suspect or emince grise for al-Qaida's attacks on the United States.

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

The larger picture, my friend, the larger picture.

Your "larger picture" is quite confusing. It appears to be the opinion of someone trying to establish Hussein of being responsible for the 1993 WTC attack (he wasn't), worked with to Osama bin-Laden (he didn't), responsible for 9.11 (he wasn't). But then that same individual, after claiming the above are established "conventional wisdom" (they weren't) then seeks to distance themselves from such blatantly false descriptions by stating they don't personally believe that?

Quite confusing, indeed.

Regardless, none of that "conventional wisdom" was a reality. Hussein was not a threat to us. Bush wanted to invade Iraq from early on in his presidency and he used 9.11 as the excuse to do it.

Gee, did i mention the 1993 WTC attack? Did i write something in my sleep about Saddam and Osams sharing bread? Did I say anything about 'conventional wisdom'?

C'mon man, you're just making shit up ... try to stay on subject. We were talking about your claim that Saddam didn't support terrorist activities. We were also talking about that poll, but you've gotten awfully quiet about cherrypicking the ones you wanted, and ignoring the rest.

WTF?? Are you saying you didn't just post ...

then the conventional conclusion must be that Saddam and Iraq were responsible for acts of terrorism against the United States, including the 1993 Trade Towers attack and the events of September 11, 2001. Furthermore, Saddam and al-Qaida leader Usama bin Ladin cooperated in planning and conducting attacks on these U.S. targets.​

I highly recommend you start reading what you post.

As far as Hussein supporting terrorism, I didn't deny he did. But it was limited to that region and was not a threat to the U.S. Most noteworthy, he paid surviving family members of suicide bombers the equivalent of about $25,000 after Israel demolished their homes as punishment for such terrorist attacks.

What you are quoting is from the 911 Commission report, in which the report says that the conventional wisdom, AT THAT TIME, was all those things.

Don't put them on me ... and don't blame me if you didn't bother to actually read the reference to understand them in context.

So, now you agree that Saddam did support terrorist activities, and that the Bush administration was right about that when it was cited as part of the rationale for invading Iraq?

Don't blame you?? YOU posted that shit here before you denied posting it.
And no, just because Hussein supported Hamas terrorists who struck Israel (which I never denied occurred) doesn't mean Bush was right as the Bush administration tried to establish a correlation between Hussein and terrorism which was a threat to the U.S., which Hamas wasn't.

Grow up .... if you're more interested in playing linguistic gymnastics on the subject than an intelligent discussion, don't look at me. I don't have time for your nonsense.

Read the damn context - it was written in the 911 commission report, and it described the opinion of many at THAT time.

For you to try to blame me for that, or claim that, somehow, I support that, is childish and intellectually immoral. Would you have preferred that I edit the text so it only focused on MY point?

That's your trick ---- 50 question survey, 1 set of response support your position, and you pull it out of context, post it, and try to posture it as the prevailing opinion at the time.

Find somebody else to play your silly game with ...

 

[Spare_change]

Faun 10389952

Bush was talking about invading Iraq before he was even president. He said it on the campaign trail.

Which is why Spare_Change carries so many flawed concepts in his Iraq invasion justification dissertation.

We know that Bush 43 is on record in word and deed as wanting both peaceful resolution of Iraq's WMD middle finger to the UN US and international law as well wanting to bomb invade and occupy Iraq for a plethora of WMD and non-WMD related crimes and violations.

Thats where Spare_Change is missing crucial factors in the run/up phase toward the US invasion of Iraq in his dissertation that he seems to be annoyed at any questioning of it.

Bush was the only human on earth who controlled the decision in March 2003 to ignore inspection progress and start a war instead.

He is to blame that his final day of decision was a disastrous and ill advised one.

And ill-advised by none other than the Democratic Party Candidate that became next in line to his office.

Ok, it doesn't get any dumber than this ..... your ignorance is only exceeded by your prejudice.

 

[Spare_change]

NF 10387811

In your post 10384688 you started off your Iraq thesis with basically a complaint against everyone who blames Bush (NOW)'for 'his' decision to end the peaceful UN disarming process as if every American were in lockstep with your other view that Americans were hungry for revenge after the al Qaeda attack in September 2001. <> You wrote: .

1) It's really convenient, and comforting, to blame Bush for the war in Iraq, as if it were some personal canard of the president.

So I asked you, Who made the decision that the UN inspections from November 2002 through March 17, 2003 would not lead to enforcement of all relevant UNSC Resolutions in Iraq? If not Bush, Whom?" <>
Your complaint is unwarranted because there is no other human being on the planet to blame for ending the inspection process and starting a war other than Bush himself. <> And those of us who wanted Bush to give the inspectors more time have every right to criticize and blame Bush for not giving them the time. There was no pressing threat that Iraq had to be invaded in March. <> You have no right to criticize up to 60% of Americans who didn't agree with you back then.

21. Should the United States take military action against Iraq fairly soon, or should the United States wait and give the United Nations and weapons inspectors more time?
Take action soon
Give inspectors time
DK/NA
02/05-06/03 35 61 4
02/10-12/03 37 59 3
02/24-25/03 36 62 2
03/04-05/03 35 60 5
03/07-09/03 44 52 4
The New York Times CBS News Poll

SC 10387843.1

Given the question asked, I would not interpret that to be a valid reflection of the answer you're trying to construct. Try again.

SC 10388097

See? This is my point --- you selectively chose a single question that seemed to support your position. However, when you look at the survey in toto, you get a completely different picture. For example: <> The latest New York Times/CBS News Poll is based on telephone interviews conducted March 7 to 9, 2003, with 1,010 adults throughout the United States.

Regarding you post SC 10387843.1Spare_Change I am not 'trying to 'construct an answer'. I am demonstrating that there are FACTS behind my answer all my answers and points and arguments. How on earth do you interpret an affirmative answer to this question (Should the United States take military action against Iraq fairly soon, or should the United States wa it and give the United Nations and weapons inspectors more time?) to no mean those people including my self preferred the diplomatic peaceful route be 'EXHAUSTED' before contemplating starting a war. And Bush has stated ever since the Iraq invasion hoopla came up that he is a man of peace and that he himself preferred to avoid war and settle disarm Iraq peacefully.

You can't get a way with disparaging without any justification a key element in my argument. So What else does this answer mean? 21. Q Should the United States take military action against Iraq fairly soon, or should the United States wait and give the United Nations and weapons inspectors more time? On 03/04-05/03 60 percent of respondents answered YES to waiting and giving the UN inspectors more time to finish their work.

Make it easy --- explain the responses to the other 49 questions ... we'll wait. Clearly, they construct a picture far different from the nonsense you're trying to shovel.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

SC 10392994

Make it easy --- explain the responses to the other 49 questions ... we'll wait. Clearly, they construct a picture far different from the nonsense you're trying to shovel.

Clearly you are mistaken. On March 04&05 2003 60 percent of respondents answered YES in favor of Bush waiting and giving the UN inspectors more time to finish their work. I make no other point than exactly that.

It is a fact you cannot accept because it defies your false premise and slur against the majority of Americans around after the 9/11 attacks who
were not hungry for revenge to be taken out on Iraqis who had nothing to do with what sl Qaeds from Afghanistan leadership did,

FYI I would have answered other question that I approved of taking military action against Iraq if Iraq did not allow inspectors to return as he actually did. So the other question do not change my strong preference that Bush give the inspectors the time they needed to finish and avoid war.

So I was not hungry for revenge with regard to Iraq and WMD, I was hungrier for the UN and Iraq to resolve the matter peacefully.

Your characterization of my views and those of 6 of 10 Americans prior to the invasion as hungry for revenge is careless and foolish on your part.

I was not hungry for revenge in 2003 and that is exactly why I am certain that the best course back then was to let the inspections play out.

That there was no threat from Iraq when the invasion was launched is obvious by your stunt to blame it on hunger for revenge rather than a credible threat in the first place. Had there truly been a credible threat there wouid have been no such option to respondents in a poll to have ongoing inspections continue. Now would there?

I have no doubt that using the threat of military force backed in advance of resumed inspections by the US Congress in October 2002 contributed to the fact that Saddam did in fact allow the inspectors to return and begin resolving the WMD issues in unprecedented actions taken by the Iraqi regime.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

21. Should the United States take military action against Iraq fairly soon, or should the United States wait and give the United Nations and weapons inspectors more time?

Take action soon

Give inspectors time


How would you have answered that question Spare_Change if you were back in time looking at the situation and the calendar told you the date was March 9 2003. That is assuming you were not hungry for revenge to be taken out on Iraq for the 9/11 attacks.