How many more will come forward?

[Palestinian Jew]

How many more Bush staffers and cabinet members are going to come forward to say Bush was looking for any way into iraq before republicans finally admit it?

Bush is one of the worst presidents ever. Misleading a country into a totally unnecessary war is completely wrong. Its pitiful that he calls himself a christian. Saddam Hussein had no connections to al queda, he was not planning any attack on the U.S., the people of Iraq didn't support Saddam: it was not a danger to he U.S. I now believe that Bush deceived the country and the senators with handpicked intelligence on WMD and misleadings about Iraq-9/11 connections.

Does anyone actually believe the Bush lie about faulty intelligence? The CIA and Bush knew that there weren't any WMDs, in Tenet's speech about the failure of WMD in Iraq he also said that the CIA did know about Libya giving up its WMD beforehand and that it did posess WMD, so how could they not know that in all of Iraq, there weren't any WMDs to be had? They knew.

Attacking Iraq was a failure in the war on terror. The only link to training terrorists was a training camp in KURDISH CONTROLLED TERRITORY. Just as Mr. Clarke said, there is not and has never been a connection between alqueda and Iraq.

The newest Bush lie is it was always about the "liberation". Wrong. Enough senators have said that they wouldn't have voted to go to war if the WMD issue was given. Paul Wolfowitz said liberating Iraq wasn't enough of an issue alone to risk American lives. And if Bush had spent more time on the relationships between the ethnicities of Iraq then bragging about not reading the newspaper, we might not be in the total mess we are in. The Iraqis will not be liberated. They hate each other.

I liked Mr. Clarkes analogy of the situation: Its like attacking Mexico after Pearl Harbor.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Palestinian Jew
How many more Bush staffers and cabinet members are going to come forward to say Bush was looking for any way into iraq before republicans finally admit it?

I guess that depends on how many people decide they want to sell their books. O'neill did the same thing and made outrageous claims. That was many months ago, why has he not produced any of the thousands of documents he claims he has to backup what he say's?

I think a former high ranking official leaving the government and then trying to make money off of his political woes is pathetic. Funny that this Clarke fellow now blames Bush when just 2 years ago he was blaming Clinton. I guess blaming the sitting president will sell more books.

 

[jon_forward]

Is it just me or alot of Democrats just plain old stupid? trying to explain something to them is like potty training a one year old baby, it just aint happening. Sen. Kennedy used the words that G.W. always is blamed for today on the tv. I dont hear the dems saying anything about that. It was also interesting to watch an hour-long show that was question and answer , the moderator asks the ? and the Sen. gives the answers, well it was an hour of no answers just political gooble-degook. no matter what was asked it was side-stepped in an all out effort to slam G.W. even when Lies were pointed out that Kennedy himself made. Kerry learned has trade from the true master of talking without saying anything

 

[kcmcdonald]

I liked Mr. Clarkes analogy of the situation: Its like attacking Mexico after Pearl Harbor.

Or attacking Germany after Pearl Harbor. Germany didn't attack us but we went to war with them first. Thy had nothing to do with Japan. Germany wasn't at war with us before we went to war with Japan. AQ is a terror orginization that needs govt. sympathetic to it's cause. Saddam was sympathetic. Saddam was a risk, if not now then later.

 

[tim_duncan2000]

Exactly. No one cares about how Democrats made the same claims about Iraq's weapons. We're they lying too, or maybe Bush tricked them from 1998 to now?

And no one seems to want to address this one either:

In addition to these legal obligations to remove Saddam from power, regime change in Iraq became the aim of US foreign policy by law in 1998. Clinton signed Public Law 105-235, which declared Iraq "in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations", followed by the Iraq Liberation Act, which stated in Section 3:

SEC. 3. POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES.
It should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.

Link

 

[wade]

Originally posted by kcmcdonald
Or attacking Germany after Pearl Harbor. Germany didn't attack us but we went to war with them first. Thy had nothing to do with Japan. Germany wasn't at war with us before we went to war with Japan. AQ is a terror orginization that needs govt. sympathetic to it's cause. Saddam was sympathetic. Saddam was a risk, if not now then later.

Ummm... you should at least do some minimal research before making such statements. A simple google search on "German US declaration war wwII " would have shown you that it was Germany that declared war on the USA on Dec. 11th, 1941. This was in accordance with an existing treaty between Germany and Japan. Had Hitler chosen not to honor the treaty, the USA would undoubtedly have had to focus on Japan first.

Your other assertations are equally uninformed. Al-Queda was diametrically opposed to Saddam, they considered him a bad Moslim and rejoiced when the USA focused on Iraq for war. This is exactly what they wanted as it would surely polarize the remaining Arab States against the USA and will undoubtedly lead to a fundamentalist regime in Iraq.

Wade.

 

[DKSuddeth]

welcome to the board wade

 

[wade]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
welcome to the board wade

Thank you DKS, I happened accross it last night while conducting various research.

BTW: Before I start being called a "liberal" (as if that would be a bad thing), let me point out that I'm not opposed to the diposing of Saddam. However I am opposed to being decieved by our own Government.

Personally, I think we should have simply handled Saddam with a small volley of carefully timed and targeted neutron bombs. W/o warning, Saddam and the Baath party leaders, and his base of support of Tikrit could have been eliminated. There would have been little or no destruction of infrastructure. And the political fallout would have been less than what we are suffering from this extended, extremely expensive, and pointless war.

But... there would have been no oil profits and no ability to funnel US tax money into the hands of the right criminals.

Also, I feel that if we are going to do this because Saddam was such a bad guy, which is the position the Bush Administration and his conservative mindless lackey base are now trying to claim as an post-facto alternate justification, we should apply such a policy to all the despot regimes in the world, not just the one that has oil booty.

Just my opinion.

Wade.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by wade
Personally, I think we should have simply handled Saddam with a small volley of carefully timed and targeted neutron bombs. W/o warning, Saddam and the Baath party leaders, and his base of support of Tikrit could have been eliminated. There would have been little or no destruction of infrastructure. And the political fallout would have been less than what we are suffering from this extended, extremely expensive, and pointless war.

Welcome to the board, Wade!

Just out of curiousity. You stated in your first paragraph that you don't like being deceived by your own government. I'm assuming that's in direct reference to the Iraq intelligence and subsequent invasion.

Yet you go on to say you would have targeted them with neutron bombs.

If we were deceived, and there wasn't a threat like they stated, why the need for the neutron bombs?

 

[wade]

Very good point.

What I meant was if we are going to play the regime change game, which is another topic for debate, we should do it in the most sensible manner possible. I'm not opposed to having toppled Iraq's corrupt regime, there are several others that I think we should also topple.

But if we are going to do such things, it needs to be done in an altruistic manner. That means minimizing the loss of innocent life, and the suffering of innocent people. Which in turn means excising the cancer (dictatorial regime) as quickly and with as little collateral and infrastructure damage as possible, AND NOT PROFITING FROM THE RESULT!

Somolia, North Korea, etc... are all nations that need to be freed from tyranni. Of course, if we go down that road, we need to also deal with the PRC, and that is one tough nut to crunch.

Wade.

 

[5stringJeff]

wade,

Welcome to the board. It looks like you are one of a handful of liberals who actually do research! I think you will find most people here worthy to have meaningful conversations with.

Jeff

 

[Palestinian Jew]

Exactly. No one cares about how Democrats made the same claims about Iraq's weapons. We're they lying too, or maybe Bush tricked them from 1998 to now?

Remember when Clinton dropped those bombs on Iraq that you guys said were to distract from Lewinski? Well, we can assume that those weapons did exist then and from Clinton's targetting of specific locations, he sucessfully ended Saddam's WMD programs.

Good one KCMcDonald, maybe next time you'll get there.

:

Would anyone like to show me how I didn't back up my opinion with fact?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Palestinian Jew
Would anyone like to show me how I didn't back up my opinion with fact?

I've yet to see any facts to backup these opinions:

"Bush is one of the worst presidents ever."

"Misleading a country into a totally unnecessary war is completely wrong."

"handpicked intelligence on WMD and misleadings about Iraq-9/11 connections."

"The CIA and Bush knew that there weren't any WMDs"

"Attacking Iraq was a failure in the war on terror"

"The newest Bush lie is it was always about the "liberation"."

 

[jon_forward]

you would make a good score-keeper

 

[kcmcdonald]

Originally posted by wade


Ummm... you should at least do some minimal research before making such statements. A simple google search on "German US declaration war wwII " would have shown you that it was Germany that declared war on the USA on Dec. 11th, 1941. This was in accordance with an existing treaty between Germany and Japan. Had Hitler chosen not to honor the treaty, the USA would undoubtedly have had to focus on Japan first.

Your other assertations are equally uninformed. Al-Queda was diametrically opposed to Saddam, they considered him a bad Moslim and rejoiced when the USA focused on Iraq for war. This is exactly what they wanted as it would surely polarize the remaining Arab States against the USA and will undoubtedly lead to a fundamentalist regime in Iraq.

Wade.

You're correct, Germany did declare war on us after Japan attacked us(or declared war on us) Still the US had a policy of Europe first. Germany didn't attack us Japan did. AQ didn't support Saddam but they supported hima lot more than they supported us. They wanted the topple of this man so they could prove to the muslim world that the US was an imperalistic oil hunger nation bent on dominating the middle east. Saddam was just a flash of luck for them.

 

[MtnBiker]

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX MON MARCH 22, 2004 1225 ET XXXXX

NEWS FOR SALE: CBS PUSHED BOOK IT OWNS; '60 MINUTES' DID NOT REVEAL PARENT COMPANY'S FINANCIAL STAKE IN CLARKE PROJECT

CBSNEWS did not inform its viewers last night that its parent company owns and has a direct financial stake in the success of the book by former White House terror staffer turned Bush critic, Dick Clarke, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal.

60 MINUTES aired a double-segment investigative report on the new book "Against All Enemies" -- but did not disclose how CBSNEWS parent VIACOM is publishing the book and will profit from any and all sales!

ETHICAL BREACH

CBS even used heavy promotion for the 60 MINUTES/book launch during its Sunday sports shows.

It is not clear who made the final decision at CBSNEWS not to inform the viewer during 60 MINUTES how they were watching a news story about a VIACOM product.

60 MINUTES pro Lesley Stahl is said to have been aware of the conflict before the program aired.

[CBSNEWS.COM did add a disclaimer to its Internet coverage of the book over the weekend: "Against All Enemies," which is being published Monday by FREE PRESS, a subsidiary of SIMON & SCHUSTER. Both CBSNews.com and SIMON & SCHUSTER are units of VIACOM." And CBS RADIO did carry a disclaimer in its news coverage of the book.]

SIMON & SCHUSTER INFO-COMMERCIAL

Earlier this year, it was Stahl who also profiled another author on 60 MINUTES -- for another book owned by VIACOMCBS -- without any disclaimer!

"The Price of Loyalty" by former Treasury Secretary, turned Bush critic, Paul O'Neill was financed, produced and released [and rolled-out at CBSNEWS] by VIACOM's SIMON & SCHUSTER.

Coming in future weeks, best-selling author Bob Woodward is set to release his PLAN OF ATTACK, a fresh look at the Bush White House.

Will the Woodward VIACOMSIMON&SCHUSTER product debut on: VIACOMSIMON&SCHUSTERCBS's 60 MINUTES?


Link

 

[Palestinian Jew]

"Bush is one of the worst presidents ever."

I thought everyone accepted that as a fact.

"Misleading a country into a totally unnecessary war is completely wrong."

As debated before many times and many times to come, Saddam was not a threat to the United States. He had no WMD and the only terrorists ties were to support Palestinian terrorist groups who only last sunday have threatend the US. Oh, and his people weren't loyal to him. That and he was still using the old soviet make tanks and scuds.

"handpicked intelligence on WMD"

As I said before, in Tenet's speech he claims they knew about Libya's WMDs, but not Iraq having no WMDs. Which is it, it can't be both ways. Then there were the defectors who the CIA said weren't credible but they used the evidence anyway, the "mobile labs" came out of defectors. Then there was the statement that Iraq had nuclear weapons, which the CIA knew from the very start was wrong, but Bush and Cheney kept using it.

misleadings about Iraq-9/11 connections."

In polls late last year, 30% of Americans were saying Iraq had ties to 9/11. I wonder where they got that idea from? Probably from the Bush Admin's vague references to an al Qadea Iraq connection. Of course there is absolutely no connection between Iraq and 9/11.

"The CIA and Bush knew that there weren't any WMDs"

This one goes back to Tenet's Libya-Iraq claim and that the Iraqis weren't loyal to Saddam(it seems his scientists lied to him that they were building WMD while doing nothing). So I don't see why they couldn't easily get people on the ground or simply bribe those around Saddam.

"Attacking Iraq was a failure in the war on terror"

Easy. The war on terror was supposed to focus on terroristic organizations that could deal harm to America. Saddam wasn't creating terrorist. Saddam was not part of a terrorist organization.

"The newest Bush lie is it was always about the "liberation"."

It was not about liberation. As Paul Wolfowitz said, its not worth American lives to liberate a country. It was always about wmd and terrorists.
------------------------------------------------------
this is my opinion based on facts and critical thinking, but I am always open to changing my mind and opinions, so blast away!

 

[jimnyc]

You claimed you could backup those words with facts but all you've offered was your opinion. Although I agree that a few things are a bit fishy, that still isn't enough to make accusations and call them fact.

 

[wade]

I got on your case only because, when you make such comments, you spread dis-information. Some kid will read this and remember it as if it were fact.

As for the policy of Germany first... well that was a reasonable decision. Germany had declared war on the USA, and Germany was the bigger threat. Japan was conquering 3rd world territory, where Germany was conquering 1st world territory. Had Germany been given the time to consolidate it's position, and perhaps to defeat the Soviets, they would have been unstoppable in Europe. Japan on the otherhand, was not going to aquire much in the way of skilled workers or industrial power from China, Korea, etc... Also to take the war to Japan required the time to build up the US fleet, an undertaking that was going to require years no matter which front the emphasis was on, where in Europe.

Once Hitler declared war, it made total sense to take Germany out first. Had he chosen not to delcare war, the story may well have turned out differently, though my personal belief is that FDR would have found a way to get the USA into the European part of the war anyway (though probably to a lesser initial degree).

Good day, did not mean to offend,

Wade.

 

[tim_duncan2000]

Some kid will read this and remember it as if it were fact.

Why say that? You could say that about a lot of the comments on here.

He had no WMD

Right, because the missiles that Clinton had them launch destroyed them all.

How do you know that the missiles hit all of the WMD production and storage? How can you be sure that they knew where it all was then but not now?

Oh, and his people weren't loyal to him.

Surely there were enough who were because he wasn't getting overthrown anytime soon.