Some Leaders Actually Serve & Lead

[jillian]

don't insult my intelligence.

have you not posted the quotes from swifties?

you use them yet blast democrats for quoting a former lieutenant governor of texas because he is a democrat?

liberals were 4.9 times as likely as conservatives to show activity in the brain circuits that deal with conflicts, and 2.2 times as likely to score in the top half of the distribution for accuracy.

Sulloway said the results could explain why President Bush demonstrated a single-minded commitment to the Iraq war and why some people perceived Sen. John F. Kerry, the liberal Massachusetts Democrat who opposed Bush in the 2004 presidential race, as a “flip-flopper” for changing his mind about the conflict.

Based on the results, he said, liberals could be expected to more readily accept new social, scientific or religious ideas.

http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/...conservative-difference-in-brain-functioning/

 

[rayboyusmc]

So, Alpha, from one of those who lie, please answer a question about the Swifties.

Did they lie during the run up to the election, or were they telling the truth? One of his crew sided with them, the rest backed up Kerry.

Were they men of honor or lying Democrats in Right Wing Clothing?

All the good shit said about Bush was from a Colonel who was a Bush Supporter. Was he a liar or honest?

Was the enlistment agreement a fake where Bush said he didn't volunteer to go to Vietnam?

Here is an article you might find interesting, but probably not.

Too bad it never affects those on the far right.

Cognitive dissonance is a psychological state that describes the uncomfortable feeling between what one holds to be true and what one knows to be true. Similar to ambivalence, the term cognitive dissonance describes conflicting thoughts or beliefs (cognitions) that occur at the same time, or when engaged in behaviors that conflict with one's beliefs. In academic literature, the term refers to attempts to reduce the discomfort of conflicting thoughts, by performing actions that are opposite to one's beliefs.

In simple terms, it can be the filtering of information that conflicts with what one already believes, in an effort to ignore that information and reinforce one's beliefs. In detailed terms, it is the perception of incompatibility between two cognitions, where "cognition" is defined as any element of knowledge, including attitude, emotion, belief, or behavior. The theory of cognitive dissonance states that contradicting cognitions serve as a driving force that compels the mind to acquire or invent new thoughts or beliefs, or to modify existing beliefs, so as to reduce the amount of dissonance (conflict) between cognitions. Experiments have attempted to quantify this hypothetical drive. Some of these have examined how beliefs often change to match behavior when beliefs and behavior are in conflict.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So, Alpha, from one of those who lie, please answer a question about the Swifties.

Did they lie during the run up to the election, or were they telling the truth? One of his crew sided with them, the rest backed up Kerry.

Were they men of honor or lying Democrats in Right Wing Clothing?

All the good shit said about Bush was from a Colonel who was a Bush Supporter. Was he a liar or honest?

Was the enlistment agreement a fake where Bush said he didn't volunteer to go to Vietnam?

Here is an article you might find interesting, but probably not.

Too bad it never affects those on the far right.

You should pay close attention to that disorder, maybe get tested for it yourself?

 

[rayboyusmc]

Wrong again, Gunny. I don't have any fucking shrines of Clinton in my house like yours of Bush.

I have admitted he fucking lied about his BJ. He had a problem with his zipper. But he left US a surplus which your boy has squandered. You will never be able to admit Bush lied about anything involved with the war in Iraq because it would rock your little partisan world to the roots.

I have made major changes in my belief system over the years. I doubt that you have. I guess if you know you're right, why ever look at the other side.

So for now, more real American Patriots die for the lie of Iraq being connected to 9-11.

PS. Do you make enough money to worry about the tax cuts for the rich being cancelled?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Wrong again, Gunny. I don't have any fucking shrines of Clinton in my house like yours of Bush.

I have admitted he fucking lied about his BJ. He had a problem with his zipper. But he left US a surplus which your boy has squandered. You will never be able to admit Bush lied about anything involved with the war in Iraq because it would rock your little partisan world to the roots.

I have made major changes in my belief system over the years. I doubt that you have. I guess if you know you're right, why ever look at the other side.

So for now, more real American Patriots die for the lie of Iraq being connected to 9-11.

PS. Do you make enough money to worry about the tax cuts for the rich being cancelled?

Once again Bush never linked Iraq to 9/11. You are lying when you claim he did. In fact he took great care to point out Iraq had nothing to do with the attack on 9/11.

 

[maineman]

Once again Bush never linked Iraq to 9/11. You are lying when you claim he did. In fact he took great care to point out Iraq had nothing to do with the attack on 9/11.

RGS.... this is not a court of law. this is the court of public opinion. You know and I know that often times it is not exactly what you say but what you nearly say or what omit saying or what you imply that sways public opinion. In speech after speech after speech, Bush and all of his minions mentioned 9/11 and Al Qaeda (but hardly EVER Osama) and Iraq and weapons of mass destruction and Saddam and "gassed his own people" and 9/11 and mushroom clouds and Al Qaeda over and over and over again. I will admit that George Bush -nor any of his minions - ever said that Saddam Hussein planned and executed 9/11 and if we don't attack him today, he will undoubtedly give Osama bin Laden all of his chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and Osama will undoubtedly successfully use them against us. But that was the not so very subtle implication. Seriously, from the early fall of 2002, Osama bin Laden dropped off the talking points of everyone in the Bush administration and Saddam took center stage along with Al Qaeda, 9/11, mushroom clouds, gassing his own people, and weapons of mass destruction. Tie those things together often enough in speech after speech after speech for months on end and the results are predictable. To suggest otherwise is really nothing more than loving Bush to the point of being in denial about the success of that marketing campaign.

I will tell you that if I had ever believed that Saddam had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and he also had a collaborative supportive relationship with Osama bin Laden and had anything to do with 9/11, I would have been a supporter of invading Iraq along with the majority of Americans who DID believe just that. But unfortunately, most Americans are not as well informed as you or me. A majority of Americans do not know the difference between a sunni and shiite, or a baathist and a wahabbist. A majority of Americans cannot find Iraq on a map... a majority of Americans cannot name the chief justice of the supreme court...a majority of Americans are woefully ignorant of the world around them. A majority of Americans were powerfully pissed off at 9/11. A majority of Americans were scared about it happening again. A majority of Americans wanted to take the offensive against muslims who they viewed as a non-specific pervasive threat. They wanted action.

And that groundswell of public support for that invasion (based on anger and fear) is what put the political pressure on a MINORITY of congressional democrats to vote for the use of force resolution. Without public support, that resolution would have been as nearly unanimously rejected by congressional democrats as it was nearly unanimously supported by congressional republicans. Without that public support, I doubt that the support would have been as solid among congressional republicans, for that matter.

And again...critical to developing that groundswell of public support was the implication that attacking Iraq and deposing Saddam was an appropriate thing to do in light of 9/11. The Bush team made that implication. It had the desired effect.

 

[Alpha1]

RGS.... this is not a court of law. this is the court of public opinion. You know and I know that often times it is not exactly what you say but what you nearly say or what omit saying or what you imply that sways public opinion. In speech after speech after speech, Bush and all of his minions mentioned 9/11 and Al Qaeda (but hardly EVER Osama) and Iraq and weapons of mass destruction and Saddam and "gassed his own people" and 9/11 and mushroom clouds and Al Qaeda over and over and over again. I will admit that George Bush -nor any of his minions - ever said that Saddam Hussein planned and executed 9/11 and if we don't attack him today, he will undoubtedly give Osama bin Laden all of his chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and Osama will undoubtedly successfully use them against us. But that was the not so very subtle implication. Seriously, from the early fall of 2002, Osama bin Laden dropped off the talking points of everyone in the Bush administration and Saddam took center stage

These infamous quotes cover Dec. 01 to Dec. 02. All from Dems.
These are only the few saved for posterity, I witnessed them live and in color, and there were many many more than just these few....practially every day, on every news show they could get themselves on...the Dems harped on and on about Saddam and Iraq and WMD.....
But YOUR selective memory only remembers Bush droning on and on about Iraq and Saddam....well that ain't the way it happened....
We had just entered Afghanistan in Oct. of 01, Tora Bora was in Dec. 01, and Operation Anaconda was fought in March or 02.....
and all this while what the Dims harping about...you guessed it...Saddam< Iraq and WMD....over and over....like we weren't busy enough Afghanistan....



Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continue.......There is no doubt that & Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies. Letter to President Bush, Signed by
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them. Sen. Carl Levin (D,MI) Sept. 19, 2002

We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.
Iraqs search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D,MA) 9/2702

We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons. Sen. Robert Byrd (D,WV)10/3/02

I will be voting to give the President of the United States the Authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly
arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security. Sen. John F. Kerry (D,MA) 10/9/02

There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years & We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction. Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D,WV)10/10/02

He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. Rep. Henry Waxman (D,CA) 10/10/02

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members & It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Sen Hillary Clinton, (D,NY) 10/10/02

\we are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. Sen Bob Graham (D,FL) 12/8/02



along with Al Qaeda, 9/11, mushroom clouds, gassing his own people, and weapons of mass destruction. Tie those things together often enough in speech after speech after speech for months on end and the results are predictable. To suggest otherwise is really nothing more than loving Bush to the point of being in denial about the success of that marketing campaign.

I will tell you that if I had ever believed that Saddam had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and he also had a collaborative supportive relationship with Osama bin Laden and had anything to do with 9/11, I would have been a supporter of invading Iraq along with the majority of Americans who DID believe just that. But unfortunately, most Americans are not as well informed as you or me. A majority of Americans do not know the difference between a sunni and shiite, or a baathist and a wahabbist. A majority of Americans cannot find Iraq on a map... a majority of Americans cannot name the chief justice of the supreme court...a majority of Americans are woefully ignorant of the world around them. A majority of Americans were powerfully pissed off at 9/11. A majority of Americans were scared about it happening again. A majority of Americans wanted to take the offensive against muslims who they viewed as a non-specific pervasive threat. They wanted action.

And that groundswell of public support for that invasion (based on anger and fear) is what put the political pressure on a MINORITY of congressional democrats to vote for the use of force resolution. Without public support, that resolution would have been as nearly unanimously rejected by congressional democrats as it was nearly unanimously supported by congressional republicans. Without that public support, I doubt that the support would have been as solid among congressional republicans, for that matter.

And again...critical to developing that groundswell of public support was the implication that attacking Iraq and deposing Saddam was an appropriate thing to do in light of 9/11. The Bush team made that implication. It had the desired effect.

iii

 

[RetiredGySgt]

RGS.... this is not a court of law. this is the court of public opinion. You know and I know that often times it is not exactly what you say but what you nearly say or what omit saying or what you imply that sways public opinion. In speech after speech after speech, Bush and all of his minions mentioned 9/11 and Al Qaeda (but hardly EVER Osama) and Iraq and weapons of mass destruction and Saddam and "gassed his own people" and 9/11 and mushroom clouds and Al Qaeda over and over and over again. I will admit that George Bush -nor any of his minions - ever said that Saddam Hussein planned and executed 9/11 and if we don't attack him today, he will undoubtedly give Osama bin Laden all of his chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and Osama will undoubtedly successfully use them against us. But that was the not so very subtle implication. Seriously, from the early fall of 2002, Osama bin Laden dropped off the talking points of everyone in the Bush administration and Saddam took center stage along with Al Qaeda, 9/11, mushroom clouds, gassing his own people, and weapons of mass destruction. Tie those things together often enough in speech after speech after speech for months on end and the results are predictable. To suggest otherwise is really nothing more than loving Bush to the point of being in denial about the success of that marketing campaign.

I will tell you that if I had ever believed that Saddam had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and he also had a collaborative supportive relationship with Osama bin Laden and had anything to do with 9/11, I would have been a supporter of invading Iraq along with the majority of Americans who DID believe just that. But unfortunately, most Americans are not as well informed as you or me. A majority of Americans do not know the difference between a sunni and shiite, or a baathist and a wahabbist. A majority of Americans cannot find Iraq on a map... a majority of Americans cannot name the chief justice of the supreme court...a majority of Americans are woefully ignorant of the world around them. A majority of Americans were powerfully pissed off at 9/11. A majority of Americans were scared about it happening again. A majority of Americans wanted to take the offensive against muslims who they viewed as a non-specific pervasive threat. They wanted action.

And that groundswell of public support for that invasion (based on anger and fear) is what put the political pressure on a MINORITY of congressional democrats to vote for the use of force resolution. Without public support, that resolution would have been as nearly unanimously rejected by congressional democrats as it was nearly unanimously supported by congressional republicans. Without that public support, I doubt that the support would have been as solid among congressional republicans, for that matter.

And again...critical to developing that groundswell of public support was the implication that attacking Iraq and deposing Saddam was an appropriate thing to do in light of 9/11. The Bush team made that implication. It had the desired effect.

That is nothing more than YOUR opinion. It is not fact and is not in fact what happened. You, as a liberal chose to believe the people are to stupid to run their own affairs and so equate to them the ignorance of the above. Bush was clear OVER and OVER. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Saddam was not an Imminent Threat. Saddam DID , as was nearly unanomoiuslly believed before we invaded, have stock piles of WMD. Saddam WAS in the process of developing a nuclear weapon , again a nearly unanomoius belief among ALL western nations. Saddam was trying to make deals with Terrorist, again almost everyone believed that.

Bush did not make anything up. Clinton before him BELIEVED exactly the same thing, Europe BELIEVED exactly the same thing. Bush was clear , given that Saddam Hussein had weapons, was developing Nukes and wanted to make deals with terrorists, given that Saddam Hussein HATED the US, he was a threat that would explode sometime in the future. Bush was clear, rather then wait until Saddam ATTACKED us with WMD's or gave them to some terrorist organization to do JUST that, unless he PROVED, as REQUIRED by the cease fire, he had no weapons and no programs, we had little chose but to remove him from power. THAT is the message that Bush and his people spread. THAT is what they said over and over.

And given what was Universally believed about Iraq and Saddam Hussein, it was a reasonable claim. While we found no stockpiles of weapons ( or rather what you and your buddies will admit to) we DID find the proof he was biding his time to do EXACTLY what Bush claimed, he was bribing France, Russia and China to remove sanctions so he could return to mass production of Biological and Chemical weapons AND he kept his team together and would return to Nuclear research as soon as sanctions were lifted. HE was working on longer range more accurate missiles as well. The future threat EXISTED and we have the documents to PROVE it. Further we have documents that prove Saddam was trying to find a terrorist group willing to do his dirty work he could trust.

This is not an opinion, it is documented facts, read Bush's speeches, watch his public addresses. It IS what he said. Read what Clinton said, watch HIS speeches, he also said the same when HE was President.

Osama Bin Laden was contained and no threat. He was hiding in caves or dead in Afghanistan or the edge of Pakistan. Iraq was a potential threat and Bush, right or wrong, acted against that threat. Not with lies and not with half truths. Those are what you and others spread.

Did we need to invade Iraq? I do not know. I think in the long run it was the RIGHT decision. If we hadn't it is quite likely France, Russia and China would have managed to lift sanction by the end of 2003 or early 2004. Saddam would have returned to his weapons programs and we would now be faced with the potential of a nuclear armed Iraq and most definately a resurgent Chemical and Biological threat to the region and us.

So instead of Just Iran to worry about we would have Iran and Iraq both pursuing Nuclear weapons right now.

 

[maineman]

and those are YOUE opinions....no more valid than mine.

If Al Qaeda was a non-issue and "Osama Bin Laden (and, by extension, Al Qaeda) was contained and no threat. He was hiding in caves or dead in Afghanistan or the edge of Pakistan", why did our intelligence agencies state that Al Qaeda was just as strong as it had been on 9/11? Are you suggesting that they were not a threat to us then? Are you suggesting that islamic extremism does not remain our primary threat in the war against terror and that it ALWAYS was more of an urgent threat than secular Iraqi baathists were?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

and those are YOUE opinions....no more valid than mine.

If Al Qaeda was a non-issue and "Osama Bin Laden (and, by extension, Al Qaeda) was contained and no threat. He was hiding in caves or dead in Afghanistan or the edge of Pakistan", why did our intelligence agencies state that Al Qaeda was just as strong as it had been on 9/11? Are you suggesting that they were not a threat to us then? Are you suggesting that islamic extremism does not remain our primary threat in the war against terror and that it ALWAYS was more of an urgent threat than secular Iraqi baathists were?

I am saying in 2002 and 2003 Osama Bin Laden was NOT viewed as a major threat. It does NOT MATTER what he is NOW, it only matters what was believed in 2002 and 2003. Unless of course you think our leaders have crystal balls and can see in the future.

You could make a similar argument about selling scrap metal and oil to Japan in the 30's and early 40's. Damn were we stupid, we gave them what they needed to build a fleet and military to attack us with in 1941. So in 1942 we should have arrested FDR and any member of Congress that was in congress before 1941, right? I mean they LIED to the US about the selling of scrap metal and oil to Japan, right?

You do NOT get to make judgements about decisions made in the past with information they DID NOT have then. You do not get to say "gee it didn't pan out so that means it was a lie" unless the information provided actually WAS intended to deceive and those using it KNEW it was not true. That is NOT true in this case. And we know it is not true because EVERYONE believed it, including your own leaders of your own party. The world believed it to be true.

Further your argument that dems voted for war because they were afraid of not being reelected does NOT hold water. Half of the Dems that voted for war in the Senate were NOT up for Reelection and 126 dems in the house voted against war even though they WERE up for reelection. Your claim carries no weight.

 

[Alpha1]

and those are YOUE opinions....no more valid than mine.

If Al Qaeda was a non-issue and "Osama Bin Laden (and, by extension, Al Qaeda) was contained and no threat. He was hiding in caves or dead in Afghanistan or the edge of Pakistan", why did our intelligence agencies state that Al Qaeda was just as strong as it had been on 9/11?

LOL....I remember you jumping on this report and posting about it for days...you sure believed this without question then

well....did our intelligence agencies state that "Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade" in Oct of 2002....???

How come you didn't believe this report? How come you call Bush a liar for repeating this intell. conclusion....
Are you gonna tell us about those imaginary caveats again....?
The Exact QUOTE is in quotations marks...no caveats in sight...


Are you suggesting that they were not a threat to us then? Are you suggesting that islamic extremism does not remain our primary threat in the war against terror and that it ALWAYS was more of an urgent threat than secular Iraqi baathists were?

...

 

[maineman]

I am saying in 2002 and 2003 Osama Bin Laden was NOT viewed as a major threat. It does NOT MATTER what he is NOW, it only matters what was believed in 2002 and 2003. Unless of course you think our leaders have crystal balls and can see in the future.

You could make a similar argument about selling scrap metal and oil to Japan in the 30's and early 40's. Damn were we stupid, we gave them what they needed to build a fleet and military to attack us with in 1941. So in 1942 we should have arrested FDR and any member of Congress that was in congress before 1941, right? I mean they LIED to the US about the selling of scrap metal and oil to Japan, right?

You do NOT get to make judgements about decisions made in the past with information they DID NOT have then. You do not get to say "gee it didn't pan out so that means it was a lie" unless the information provided actually WAS intended to deceive and those using it KNEW it was not true. That is NOT true in this case. And we know it is not true because EVERYONE believed it, including your own leaders of your own party. The world believed it to be true.

Further your argument that dems voted for war because they were afraid of not being reelected does NOT hold water. Half of the Dems that voted for war in the Senate were NOT up for Reelection and 126 dems in the house voted against war even though they WERE up for reelection. Your claim carries no weight.

It is clearly bullshit revisionist history to claim that Al Qaeda was not viewed as a threat in 2002 and 2003. Saddam's WMD cache was supposedly an urgent issue primarily because he COULD and supposedly WOULD give them to islamic extremists who would use them against us. Hence the need to tie Saddam to terrorists....Salman Pak.... payments to suicide bombers, etc.

Regarding the democrat's reasons for voting for the war, we have had this debate before and your simplistic analysis that completely disregards the political aspirations of some, the relative safety of seats of others, and the overall blue-ness or red-ness of the states which they represented has been pretty soundly debunked earlier.

And it also disregards my statements - as a long time democrat, which certainly give me more credence into the feelings of democrats around the nation - that many democrats who were opposed to the war from the outset were, and remain furious at those elected democrats who DID vote for the war and who have not repented for that mistake.

 

[maineman]

alpha:
I rarely believe anything my government tells me without question.

I called Bush a liar for claiming there was no doubt.... when doubt, within our own intelligence community, did, in fact, exist.

 

[Alpha1]

alpha:
I rarely believe anything my government tells me without question.

I called Bush a liar for claiming there was no doubt.... when doubt, within our own intelligence community, did, in fact, exist.

Already kicked your ass on that Bush(no doubt) lie you keep repeating, gonna did up that bush quote again and parse it? go ahead, save me the bother...
and we'll kick you ass again

 

[DeadCanDance]

I am saying in 2002 and 2003 Osama Bin Laden was NOT viewed as a major threat. It does NOT MATTER what he is NOW, it only matters what was believed in 2002 and 2003. Unless of course you think our leaders have crystal balls and can see in the future.

You could make a similar argument about selling scrap metal and oil to Japan in the 30's and early 40's. Damn were we stupid, we gave them what they needed to build a fleet and military to attack us with in 1941. So in 1942 we should have arrested FDR and any member of Congress that was in congress before 1941, right? I mean they LIED to the US about the selling of scrap metal and oil to Japan, right?

You do NOT get to make judgements about decisions made in the past with information they DID NOT have then. You do not get to say "gee it didn't pan out so that means it was a lie" unless the information provided actually WAS intended to deceive and those using it KNEW it was not true. That is NOT true in this case. And we know it is not true because EVERYONE believed it, including your own leaders of your own party. The world believed it to be true.

Further your argument that dems voted for war because they were afraid of not being reelected does NOT hold water. Half of the Dems that voted for war in the Senate were NOT up for Reelection and 126 dems in the house voted against war even though they WERE up for reelection. Your claim carries no weight.

I am saying in 2002 and 2003 Osama Bin Laden was NOT viewed as a major threat.

LMAO!


Al Qaeda Attacks 2002-2003:

2002 (April): Explosion at historic synagogue in Tunisia left 21 dead, including 11 German tourists.
2002 (May): Car exploded outside hotel in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 14, including 11 French citizens.
2002 (June): Bomb exploded outside American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12.
2002 (Oct.): Boat crashed into oil tanker off Yemen coast, killing 1.
2002 (Oct.): Nightclub bombings in Bali, Indonesia, killed 202, mostly Australian citizens.
2002 (Nov.): Suicide attack on a hotel in Mombasa, Kenya, killed 16.
2003 (May): Suicide bombers killed 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
2003 (May): 4 bombs killed 33 people targeting Jewish, Spanish, and Belgian sites in Casablanca, Morocco.
2003 (Aug.): Suicide car-bomb killed 12, injured 150 at Marriott Hotel in Jakarta, Indonesia.
2003 (Nov.): Explosions rocked a Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, housing compound, killing 17.
2003 (Nov.): Suicide car-bombers simultaneously attacked 2 synagogues in Istanbul, Turkey, killing 25 and injuring hundreds.
2003 (Nov.): Truck bombs detonated at London bank and British consulate in Istanbul, Turkey, killing 26.

 

[Alpha1]

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.".....G. Bush.....

We gonna argue about what the NIE clearly stated in Oct. and what Bush said in March....?

 

[Alpha1]

alpha:
I rarely believe anything my government tells me without question.

I called Bush a liar for claiming there was no doubt.... when doubt, within our own intelligence community, did, in fact, exist.

What you clearly ignore....is the Oct. NIE ..I quote

"Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade"

Does this conclusion of 16 intell. agencies show doubt ..?

It only states 2 things....without caveats

Baghdad has CW and BW
Baghdad has missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions

 

[Alpha1]

It is clearly bullshit revisionist history to claim that Al Qaeda was not viewed as a threat in 2002 and 2003. Saddam's WMD cache was supposedly an urgent issue primarily because he COULD and supposedly WOULD give them to islamic extremists who would use them against us. Hence the need to tie Saddam to terrorists....Salman Pak.... payments to suicide bombers, etc.

Don't forget the wonderful Mr. Clark that tied AQ to Saddam in 1998....
PAGE 128 9/11 report
Time....11/1998
....this passage led Clark, who for years had read intell reports on Iraqi-Sudanese
cooperation on chemical weapons, to specualte to Berger that a large Iraqi presence at chem
facilities in Khartoum was "probably a direct result of the Iraq-Al Qida
agreement." Clark added that VX precursor traces found near al Shifa were the
"exact formula" used by Iraq."

Regarding the democrat's reasons for voting for the war, we have had this debate before and your simplistic analysis that completely disregards the political aspirations of some, the relative safety of seats of others, and the overall blue-ness or red-ness of the states which they represented has been pretty soundly debunked earlier.

And it also disregards my statements - as a long time democrat, which certainly give me more credence into the feelings of democrats around the nation - that many democrats who were opposed to the war from the outset were, and remain furious at those elected democrats who DID vote for the war and who have not repented for that mistake.

..

 

[maineman]

What you clearly ignore....is the Oct. NIE ..I quote

"Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade"

Does this conclusion of 16 intell. agencies show doubt ..?

It only states 2 things....without caveats

Baghdad has CW and BW
Baghdad has missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions

for you to suggest that because one sentence in the unclassified summary of the NIE does NOT express doubt, that such a sentence proves that the entire NIE with all its supporting documentation does not contain doubts is silly.

 

[maineman]

Don't forget the wonderful Mr. Clark that tied AQ to Saddam in 1998....
PAGE 128 9/11 report
Time....11/1998
....this passage led Clark, who for years had read intell reports on Iraqi-Sudanese
cooperation on chemical weapons, to specualte (your shitty spelling or was it Time's? LOL) to Berger that a large Iraqi presence at chem
facilities in Khartoum was "probably a direct result of the Iraq-Al Qida
agreement." Clark added that VX precursor traces found near al Shifa were the
"exact formula" used by Iraq."

news flash: "speculate" and "probably" don't play well together with "certainty"