US just launched missiles into Libya.......

[bodecea]

Didn't Saddam also kill many of his own people? And isn't that why we had no fly zones there?

Yes, he did..and he was hanged for killing 150 of them. But that is not why we invaded Iraq, that was something that happened way before our invasion.

Please don't try to rewrite history.

I believe that he was routinely having political opponents tortured to death right up until the point where he got the **** out of dodge, but I agree that wasn't the reason for the invasion. Arguably it would have been a reason.

How many reasons were gone thru? I lost track.

 

[gautama]

Yes, he did..and he was hanged for killing 150 of them. But that is not why we invaded Iraq, that was something that happened way before our invasion.

Please don't try to rewrite history.

I believe that he was routinely having political opponents tortured to death right up until the point where he got the **** out of dodge, but I agree that wasn't the reason for the invasion. Arguably it would have been a reason.

How many reasons were gone thru? I lost track.

B.O......DUH......C'ya,

Just keep track of your dildos, the world can worry about the rest.

 

[tigerbob]

Yes, he did..and he was hanged for killing 150 of them. But that is not why we invaded Iraq, that was something that happened way before our invasion.

Please don't try to rewrite history.

I believe that he was routinely having political opponents tortured to death right up until the point where he got the **** out of dodge, but I agree that wasn't the reason for the invasion. Arguably it would have been a reason.

How many reasons were gone thru? I lost track.

Beats me. I was in England in '03, so there were a whole different set of issues. Doesn't seem like 8 years ago.

 

[Trajan]

exactly right, and as far as geo-politics goes, we have backed SOB's because they are our SOB's. However, that has not prevented those opposed to such from voicing their opposition, loudly with the willing and sometimes venal help of the media, from Vietnam to Nicaragua to Grenada to Afghanistan to iraq etc etc and some of the very same who now laud the Libyan venture to include again, the msm don't appear to have much to say.

Much of the American Media doesn't have much to say on most important topics. The internet is changing that to a certain extent, but we live in an age of the 24 hour news cycle and such a large amount of new information everyday.

Take for example the last financial crisis. How many people know about the role that Goldman Sachs played? Or Alan Greenspan? Or what Wall Street is doing/did to the Commodities Market?

And that's just one topic. There are many, many, others.

well, I have been bouncing around the tube, cnn, fox, abc, nbc, cbs.....Libya has no small amount of air time, yet I have not see anywhere any corollary being drawn between the contradictions at work here; Yemen, Bahrain and Darfur, this isn't rocket science science and the news just loops back to airing the same 'experts' saying the something.


edit- well well well, props to CNN, Candy Crawly is speaking with Edward Walker and Robert Malley, she asked them how we walk the line between Libya Bahrain and Yemen, chapter 7 Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace and Acts of Aggression, of the UN charter and all that which would never be approved by the arab league unless they had found the one nit that left the rest of them out of the equation, mentioned how difficult it will be to navigate these contradictions as we move forward and as each Arab or Persian sect uses this against us or in sppt. of themselves. They spent about 3 minutes on it but its a start.

A great point was made in that Qaddafi tribe is western Libyan and the largest, the other tribes inhabit the eastern portion of the country, the western tribes know they will be under the gun if the eastern tribes win and they will fight. What happens if the eastern tribe wins, reprisals etc. may start, walker said almost certainly they would and then what? We go in and takeout the head of the eastern tribes for doing what Qadaffi was doing?

They were also pretty critical of obama for declaring Qadaffi must go before they even had a resolution the table let alone approved and even making that statement at all, and he is going to have to live with the consequences down the road if he goes or not , and what Libya winds up being in his absence.

well done panel.

 

[tigerbob]

exactly right, and as far as geo-politics goes, we have backed SOB's because they are our SOB's. However, that has not prevented those opposed to such from voicing their opposition, loudly with the willing and sometimes venal help of the media, from Vietnam to Nicaragua to Grenada to Afghanistan to iraq etc etc and some of the very same who now laud the Libyan venture to include again, the msm don't appear to have much to say.

Much of the American Media doesn't have much to say on most important topics. The internet is changing that to a certain extent, but we live in an age of the 24 hour news cycle and such a large amount of new information everyday.

Take for example the last financial crisis. How many people know about the role that Goldman Sachs played? Or Alan Greenspan? Or what Wall Street is doing/did to the Commodities Market?

And that's just one topic. There are many, many, others.

well, I have been bouncing around the tube, cnn, fox, abc, nbc, cbs.....Libya has no small amount of air time, yet I have not see anywhere any corollary being drawn between the contradictions at work here; Yemen, Bahrain and Darfur, this isn't rocket science science and the news just loops back to airing the same 'experts' saying the something.


edit- well well well, props to CNN, Candy Crawly is speaking with Edward Walker and Robert Malley, she asked them how we walk the line between Libya Bahrain and Yemen, chapter 7 Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace and Acts of Aggression, of the UN charter and all that which would never be approved by the arab league unless they had found the one nit that left the rest of them out of the equation, mentioned how difficult it will be to navigate these contradictions as we move forward and as each Arab or Persian sect uses this against us or in sppt. of themselves. They spent about 3 minutes on it but its a start.

A great point was made in that Qaddafi tribe is western Libyan and the largest, the other tribes inhabit the eastern portion of the country, the western tribes know they will be under the gun if the eastern tribes win and they will fight. Why happens if the eastern tribe wins, reprisals etc. may start, walker said almost certainly they would and then what? We go in and takeout the head of the eastern tribes for doing what Qadaffi was doing?

They were also pretty critical of obama for declaring Qadaffi must go before they even had a resolution the table let alone approved and even making that statement at all, and he is going to have to live with the consequences down the road if he goes or not , and what Libya winds up being in his absence.

well done panel.

Tribes. Jeez. It seems nothing good ever came out of alignment solely along tribal lines.

 

[elvis]

Since Gaddafi has played the Hitler card, does that mean he's already lost?

CNN.com - Breaking News, U.S., World, Weather, Entertainment & Video News

 

[LibocalypseNow]

I swear i just saw a loony Leftist/Democrat on TV claiming Gaddafi had to be bombed because he was much worse than Saddam Hussein. Say Whaaa? Oh yea,the Left/Democrats are in full Cheerlead/Justification Mode for sure. Bizarre stuff.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

And didn't DA BOOOOOOSH at least go to Congress for some kind of authorization? The Left/Democrat spin on these bombings is pretty ludicrous.

 

[tigerbob]

And didn't DA BOOOOOOSH at least go to Congress for some kind of authorization? The Left/Democrat spin on these bombings is pretty ludicrous.

Spin usually is.

 

[Modbert]

And didn't DA BOOOOOOSH at least go to Congress for some kind of authorization? The Left/Democrat spin on these bombings is pretty ludicrous.

Except it can be argued that the Bush Administration either willfully or ignorantly lied to Congress about the intelligence that was the justification to go to war. Those trying to defend the Iraq War while bashing President Obama are being hypocritical.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

People shouldn't forget that Hillary Clinton & Joe Biden were big supporters of the Iraq War. There is no doubt they pushed this President very hard to start bombing. Looks like he decided to go along. It's very sad.

 

[elvis]

And didn't DA BOOOOOOSH at least go to Congress for some kind of authorization? The Left/Democrat spin on these bombings is pretty ludicrous.

Except it can be argued that the Bush Administration either willfully or ignorantly lied to Congress about the intelligence that was the justification to go to war. Those trying to defend the Iraq War while bashing President Obama are complete neocon hypocrites.

You can't ignorantly lie. So I'm assuming you have proof that Bush willfully lied.

 

[elvis]

People shouldn't forget that Hillary Clinton & Joe Biden were big supporters of the Iraq War. There is no doubt they pushed this President very hard to start bombing. Looks like he decided to go along. It's very sad.

as did Rahm Emanuel.

 

[Trajan]

And didn't DA BOOOOOOSH at least go to Congress for some kind of authorization? The Left/Democrat spin on these bombings is pretty ludicrous.

Except it can be argued that the Bush Administration either willfully or ignorantly lied to Congress about the intelligence that was the justification to go to war. Those trying to defend the Iraq War while bashing President Obama are being hypocritical.

how so?

 

[Modbert]

You can't ignorantly lie. So I'm assuming you have proof that Bush willfully lied.

That is true. I suppose the word would be ignorantly bungle.

The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com

In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.

Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.

Sources knowledgeable about US intelligence say there is no evidence that Hussein played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, nor that he has been or is currently aiding Al Qaeda. Yet the White House appears to be encouraging this false impression, as it seeks to maintain American support for a possible war against Iraq and demonstrate seriousness of purpose to Hussein's regime.

Polling data show that right after Sept. 11, 2001, when Americans were asked open-ended questions about who was behind the attacks, only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Hussein. But by January of this year, attitudes had been transformed. In a Knight Ridder poll, 44 percent of Americans reported that either "most" or "some" of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens. The answer is zero.

According to Mr. Kull of PIPA, there is a strong correlation between those who see the Sept. 11-Iraq connection and those who support going to war.

Of course, in reality:



Report: 9/11-Iraq link refuted immediately - U.S. news - Security - msnbc.com

Ten days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, President Bush was advised that U.S. intelligence found no credible connection linking the attacks to the regime of Saddam Hussein, or evidence suggesting linkage between Saddam and the al-Qaida terrorist network, according to a published report.

The report, published Tuesday in The National Journal, cites government records, as well as present and former officials with knowledge of the issue. The information in the story, written by National Journal contributor Murray Waas, points to an abiding administration concern for secrecy that extended to keeping information from the Senate committee charged with investigating the matter.

In one of the Journal report's more compelling disclosures, Saddam is said to have viewed al-Qaida as a threat, rather than a potential ally.

After Sept. 11, the administration insisted that a connection existed between Iraq and al-Qaida. President Bush, in an October 2002 speech in Cincinnati, said the United States had “learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaida members in bomb-making and poisons and gas.”

And Vice President Cheney, in a September 2003 appearance on NBC's “Meet the Press,” alleged there was “a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s.”

And from 2004:
Bush Defends Assertions of Iraq-Al Qaeda Relationship (washingtonpost.com)

President Bush yesterday defended his assertions that there was a relationship between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda, putting him at odds with this week's finding of the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission.

Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Bush administration initially suggested the discrepancy between the allegations and the subsequent findings was due to failure by the intelligence community. However, it became apparent that, prior to the invasion, these allegations had already been widely disputed,[34] which had purportedly been reported to the U.S. administration.

Skeptics argue that the administration knowingly distorted intelligence reports or ignored contrary information in constructing their case for the war.[41][42] The Downing Street memo and the Bush-Blair memo are used to substantiate that allegation.[43]

9/11 was even included in the Authorization for the Iraq War.

Bill Summary & Status - 107th Congress (2001 - 2002) - H.J.RES.114 - CRS Summary - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

Authorizes the President to use the U.S. armed forces to: (1) defend U.S. national security against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. Directs the President, prior to or as soon as possible (but no later than 48 hours) after exercising such authority, to make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that: (1) reliance on further diplomatic or peaceful means alone will not achieve the above purposes; and (2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization for use of the armed forces, consistent with requirements of the War Powers Resolution.

At least on the issue of the 9/11-Iraq link alone, there is a great deal of evidence that the Bush Administration lied to the American people.

Of course, the worst Secretary of Defense in history was gearing up for War with Iraq from 9/11:

Plans For Iraq Attack Began On 9/11 - CBS News

At 9:53 a.m., just 15 minutes after the hijacked plane had hit the Pentagon, and while Rumsfeld was still outside helping with the injured, the National Security Agency, which monitors communications worldwide, intercepted a phone call from one of Osama bin Laden's operatives in Afghanistan to a phone number in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia.

Rumsfeld felt it was "vague," that it "might not mean something," and that there was "no good basis for hanging hat." In other words, the evidence was not clear-cut enough to justify military action against bin Laden.

With the intelligence all pointing toward bin Laden, Rumsfeld ordered the military to begin working on strike plans. And at 2:40 p.m., the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying he wanted "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H." – meaning Saddam Hussein – "at same time. Not only UBL" – the initials used to identify Osama bin Laden.

Now, nearly one year later, there is still very little evidence Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. But if these notes are accurate, that didn't matter to Rumsfeld.

 

[elvis]

Bush said they weren't connected. Cheney made the connection. have any videos that don't contain Olberfuckhead? I really hope you don't think he represents reality.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Even their BOOOOOOOSH Boogeyman went to Congress for some kind of authorization. The Left/Democrat spin on these bombings just doesn't add up. Gaddafi is much worse than Saddam Hussein and these Bombings have nothing to do with Oil? Seriously,who believes that Shite? Very very weak spin in my opinion.

 

[elvis]

as I was saying...

BBC NEWS | Americas | Bush rejects Saddam 9/11 link

 

[Modbert]

Bush said they weren't connected. Cheney made the connection. have any videos that don't contain Olberfuckhead? I really hope you don't think he represents reality.

Ignore what Keith says and skip to the part of the video where Bush is speaking.

 

[elvis]

Bush said they weren't connected. Cheney made the connection. have any videos that don't contain Olberfuckhead? I really hope you don't think he represents reality.

Ignore what Keith says and skip to the part of the video where Bush is speaking.

see my above link.