Algore would have invaded Iraq

[DiveCon]

lets see your proof he did?

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

if its not on the internet, it didnt happen

 

[Truthmatters]

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


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

 

[DiveCon]

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


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

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


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

 

[Gord]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[DiveCon]

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



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

thats just the tip of the iceberg


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

 

[Gord]

thats just the tip of the iceberg


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

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

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

 

[DiveCon]

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

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

don't count on it

the ABDS runs deep in these people

 

[Gord]

don't count on it

the ABDS runs deep in these people

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

...oops!

 

[DiveCon]

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

...oops!

either way, he is a liar

 

[Gord]

either way, he is a liar

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

Maybe a little water boarding... he he

 

[Truthmatters]

Richard A. Clarke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

 

[Gord]

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

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

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

Amanda, Truthmatters, Tuatara

Others who I have invited from other threads:

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

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

...

 

[Truthmatters]

OK lets see the rest of the Iceberg?

 

[Truthmatters]

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


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


Hans Blix told the world that the inspections were working


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

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


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


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


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


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

I think you missed this post.

 

[Gord]

Richard A. Clarke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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

 

[DiveCon]

Richard A. Clarke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

so, was he lying then too?

 

[Truthmatters]

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

He told you already

 

[Gord]

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


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


Hans Blix told the world that the inspections were working


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

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


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


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


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

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

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

Hmmm...

 

[Truthmatters]

So many disgruntled employees.

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

 

[Truthmatters]

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

Hmmm...

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