Gitmo and GoDaddy: Changing one man's mind on torture.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

So, Bob Parson's, Founder and President of GoDaddy.com decides it'd be a good idea to publicize his thoughts on Gitmo, by linking his "personal" blog to the front page of his company's website. Myself and a few other Liberal GoDaddy customers decide to speak out.

I take it to the people I think may be most interested (savvy netizens)....

GoDaddy.com condones torture.
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/42906

Parsons back pedals after the backlash... (from all over the net, not just my post)

GoDaddy.com no longer condones torture.
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/42957

The original link of the front page of GoDaddy.com


Is this an honest apology, was he enlightened to new facts, or did he just lose enough business and recant? Should he have ever mixed his personal opinion on such a controversial issue w/ a supposed "neutral" business? (I mean, this issue has politicians openly sobbing on the Senate floor fer' christsakes)

Btw, Bobby says he never expressly condoned torture, but that's just not true. His "original" first draft of this post was certainly a LOT different than the one he's now trying to defend.


mrC

[Stingray]

Why oh why didn't Saint create a politics & religion forum?

*sigh*

-S

[Zero_Hour]

As a rule I try not to look for political insight from a guy who thinks large breasts are the best method to promote a technology business. He's entitled to his opinion, but if he didn't expect at least some response from his customer base, (especially when linking to it from his company site) he's a fool. I don't doubt he would have had a similar response from conservatives if he had linked to a blog post about how Gitmo is a bad thing.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

As a rule I try not to look for political insight from a guy who thinks large breasts are the best method to promote a technology business.

lol. Probably a good rule of thumb.

mrC

[quarterback]

Is there a link to the full text of his original blog post?

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Is there a link to the full text of his original blog post?

He altered it at least a dozen times, I believe this is the closest to the original, if not *thee* original:
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/42906#962554

This post talks about the alterations:
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/42906#962265

mrC

[TOK]

Simple solution is to vote with your wallet and not support companies that offers views in opposition to your own.

I stopped buying Leatherman tools in 2001 based on the CEO's liberal quackery.
That's probably cost them about $500 of my cash so far. The CEO of Gerber might feel the same way, but at least he has the common sense to keep his mouth shut and that's what I buy.

[Avery]

As a rule I try not to look for political insight from a guy who thinks large breasts are the best method to promote a technology business.

This is posibly the wisest thing I have ever seen said on the internet.  Is there someplace I can apply to be your diciple. 

[Zakk]

As a rule I try not to look for political insight from a guy who thinks large breasts are the best method to promote a technology business.

Umm, what technology business is it, and where do I buy stock?

[DrewKaree]

Perhaps you'll be telling us how you've also started a petition to send to Mr Durbin to offer an apology for the ignorance of his remarks, without the load-of-crap "if my remarks have offended you". 

So I SHOULDN'T look at that piss-poor excuse of an apology as "If my remarks haven't offended you, I'm not sorry for saying them"?  Ask Trent Lott how that would have gone over - or have we forgotten that already?

The Durbin story has been out for a few days, and your comments focus on the opinions of a business man?  I see you're really "taking our elected officials to task" as you often sanctimoniously prattle about.  Odd no one's noticed you're remarkably silent on Durbin other than to mention someone sobbing on the Senate floor.

[Zakk]

I'm still looking for the technological breasts dammit.

[fredster]

*sigh*

"Torture" is defined as enduring these endless liberal political threads.

[paigeoliver]

What does the CEO of a companies opinion matter one bit to your decision to do business with that company? Most people would be hard pressed to find ANYONE who held their exact opinion on all the hot issues. Unless they were one of the (very few) people who actually believed the magical liberal/conservative default belief on every issue (I have met quite a few of those people).

[Dexter]

"or wear Rush Limbaugh's "Institutional Orange Club Gitmo" apparel (Now in XXXL & XXXXL!)"

Classic, nearly fell off the chair when I read that one

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Dos anybody care to make a guesstimate of how many human beings american tax dollars have destroyed??

Pssst.....you're not supposed to talk about that!


mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Odd no one's noticed you're remarkably silent on Durbin other than to mention someone sobbing on the Senate floor.

Then allow me to break the silence...

So I SHOULDN'T look at that piss-poor excuse of an apology

No, you should consider it a piss-poor apology (just as I do), because it was ABSOLUTELY unnecessary. Durbin should NEVER have apologized for telling the truth.

I'm furious with Durbin's pathetic backtrack. When asked for an apology, I think he should have channeled Cheney instead, and offered a very candid, "Go f*ck yourself!" (also spoken on the Senate floor)

Now, if you'll excuse me....I've got some American flags to burn.



mrC

[Dartful Dodger]

Now, if you'll excuse me....I've got some American flags to burn.

You can burn all the flags you want. Bush is president, so your first amendment rights are secure.

In fact this Fall when I'm burning leaves, I'll be burning them legally because I'm burning them in protest against laws against burning leaves.

[TOK]

Odd no one's noticed you're remarkably silent on Durbin other than to mention someone sobbing on the Senate floor.

Then allow me to break the silence...

So I SHOULDN'T look at that piss-poor excuse of an apology

No, you should consider it a piss-poor apology (just as I do), because it was ABSOLUTELY unnecessary. Durbin should NEVER have apologized for telling the truth.

I'm furious with Durbin's pathetic backtrack. When asked for an apology, I think he should have channeled Cheney instead, and offered a very candid, "Go f*ck yourself!" (also spoken on the Senate floor)

Now, if you'll excuse me....I've got some American flags to burn.



mrC

Just for the record (as if that matters to the left)  Rowan Scarborough in the Washington Times reminds us of the following:

Adolf Hitler - About 9 million dead
Soviet gulags - About 2.7 million dead
Pol Pot - About 1.7 million dead
Gitmo - zero dead
Gitmo - five instances of Koran abuse by prison guards
Gitmo-15 instances of Koran abuse by prisoners.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

You can burn all the flags you want. Bush is president, so your first amendment rights are secure.

This absolutely makes no sense what-so-ever....given that my joke references the amendment banning the burning of flags, an amendment passing through the legislature UNDER BUSH. So NO, my first amendments rights are not secure because of Bush, unless Bush plans to VETO this bill.

lol.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Just for the record (as if that matters to the left)

I LOVE this defense...the "we haven't killed 9 million people YET, so how can you say we're Nazis?" defense.

It doesn't work. It's a flawed argument. Durbin's statement wasn't that our troops ARE Nazis, but that the actions being carried out in their name are similar to those, and could be mistaken for those carried out by Nazis. ie: ("If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, etc....")

Based on the FBI report he was referencing, the torture techniques outlined within it are undeniably similiar to tactics used by the despotic regimes he mentioned. So, how again is Durbin wrong?

Just because you don't like it, doesn't make something erroneous.

mrC

[Dartful Dodger]

given that my joke references the amendment banning the burning of flags, an amendment passing through the legislature UNDER BUSH.

Passing through does not equal passed.

The bill will not pass, but you know that, you probably have a two page thread already written describing it as a defeat for Bush.

<cue patriotic music>

I won't see this as a loss, but as a win for the American people.

A win that happened while Bush was president.

God Bless America.

</fade out music>

Sorry if this will taint the two page thread that you've worked so hard on.

Don't worry, the bill wont officially be rejected for another month, plenty of time for people to forget about this post.

[TOK]

Just for the record (as if that matters to the left)

I LOVE this defense...the "we haven't killed 9 million people YET, so how can you say we're Nazis?" defense.

It doesn't work. It's a flawed argument. Durbin's statement wasn't that our troops ARE Nazis, but that the actions being carried out in their name are similar to those, and could be mistaken for those carried out by Nazis. ie: ("If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, etc....")

Based on the FBI report he was referencing, the torture techniques outlined within it are undeniably similiar to tactics used by the despotic regimes he mentioned. So, how again is Durbin wrong?

Just because you don't like it, doesn't make something erroneous.

mrC

He likened the situation in Gitmo to far worse scenarios. His apology was about as hypocritical as it could be. How many times did he say how much he respected US soldiers after calling them Nazi's? He knows he screwed the pooch, and I'm pleased he chose to commit political Hari-Kari right in plain view. Unfortunately, its going to take until election time for his corpse to hit the floor.

I think I'm done with this. I know better to even read your mind-numbing threads, but in Durbin-ese, I'd say you're like a BYOAC Nazi, your inane threads keep torturing me wha-whaa. 

With any luck, this is how your flag burning will turn out. 

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Passing through does not equal passed.

Still doesn't make your original statement any more thoughtful or relevant.

Honestly, I don't think it'll pass either, which is EXACTLY why I said "passing through" (so you assumed wrong, again)...I was making a joke, after which I responded to your hypothetical statement about Bush protecting our civil liberties/1st amendment rights. I'll definitely make a point of spelling things out for you in clearer, more concise terms, just so this confusion doesn't happen again.

the bill wont officially be rejected for another month, plenty of time for people to forget about this post.

That interesting, because this whole flag debate has nothing to do with this post anyhow (ie: Gitmo/GoDaddy)...


mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

With any luck, this is how your flag burning will turn out. 

With any luck, you'll be able to answer this question: Do you know the proper way to dispose of a flag?

I think I'm done with this. I know better to even read your mind-numbing threads, but in Durbin-ese, I'd say you're like a BYOAC Nazi, your inane threads keep torturing me wha-whaa.

Aw. You will be missed.

I'm always amazed at how you tough guys ("I gotta' big bad gun") are the first ones to run away screaming from a debate you can't win.

Oh well...

Unfortunately, its going to take until election time for his corpse to hit the floor.

This is unfortunate. It's really hard for a weak-kneed, blubbering coward like Durbin to defend the truth.  I'd vote him out NOW.

[fredster]

I'm always amazed at how you tough guys ("I gotta' big bad gun") are the first ones to run away screaming from a debate you can't win.

Yeah, you should know about that one huh?

MRC: The sun is actually PURPLE

Everybody else: NO IT's NOT you twit!

MRC: The sun is purple you rightwingnut!

<nobody bothers to post because it's obvioulsy pointless to argue with a madman>

MRC: BWAHAHAHA I won!

[TOK]

With any luck, this is how your flag burning will turn out. 

With any luck, you'll be able to answer this question: Do you know the proper way to dispose of a flag?

I think I'm done with this. I know better to even read your mind-numbing threads, but in Durbin-ese, I'd say you're like a BYOAC Nazi, your inane threads keep torturing me wha-whaa.

Aw. You will be missed.

I'm always amazed at how you tough guys ("I gotta' big bad gun") are the first ones to run away screaming from a debate you can't win.

Oh well...

Unfortunately, its going to take until election time for his corpse to hit the floor.

This is unfortunate. It's really hard for a weak-kneed, blubbering coward like Durbin to defend the truth.  I'd vote him out NOW.

FWIW, I didn't run away I'm just tired of wasting my time. Fortunately, the more you post the more views you get with a relative lack of posts. Perhaps you're finally wearing everyone out.

PS: I have lots of big guns.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

The sun is actually PURPLE

You seem to miss the point that the guy in question (In relevance to this thread), Bob Parsons, actually changed his mind based on new information presented to him.

Unlike YOU, who thinks I'm trying to convince you that the sky is purple. Don't ever change fredster, the "Flat-Earth Society" needs your donations.


mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

TOK,

PS: I have lots of big guns.

I don't doubt that you do...goes nicely with a very small Penis. 

[Dartful Dodger]

You seem to miss the point that the guy in question (In relevance to this thread), Bob Parsons, actually changed his mind based on new information presented to him.

The point to all these threads are: Gore lost.

[fredster]

The point is "lost" alright.

[TOK]

TOK,

PS: I have lots of big guns.

I don't doubt that you do...goes nicely with a very small ---auto-censored---. 

No, I have a big auto too. Crew cab 4wd pickup with a V8.

Kind of funny that you say I'm a wimp that runs away from arguments with a super intellectual such as you, then resort to small dick jokes.
Your political party is imploding due to self-righteous mental midgets just like you.

[DrewKaree]

No, you should consider it a piss-poor apology (just as I do), because it was ABSOLUTELY unnecessary. Durbin should NEVER have apologized for telling the truth.

Well, you're in luck.  As I clearly pointed out, and is obvious by your reply, he hasn't offended you because "he's telling the truth", so to you, he hasn't apologized one bit.  You can now rest easy tonight, knowing his half-assed apology wasn't directed at your half of the ass. 

That poster should have a look at the right wing governments of america since 1960 and add up the body count of innocents in Vietnam, Cambodia etc and keep his tot open while the 100,000+ dead civilian estimate in Iraq grows. Dos anybody care to make a guesstimate of how many human beings american tax dollars have destroyed??

What you choose to ignore is the obvious reference to torture.  What you choose to do instead is lump ANY AND ALL casualties together, and somehow equate them with the torture committed by all who Durbin referenced.  Nice try.  Someday someone will have to explain what casualties of war mean, since you seem to view ANY death caused by American soldeirs as torture.  If you DON'T, then your ridiculous point above is meaningless, for the reasons stated.

Next.

[Dartful Dodger]

Your political party is imploding due to self-righteous mental midgets just like you.

I have to defend mr.Curmudgeon against this personal attack.

By saying the political party is imploding due to people like him, you're assuming people like him are actively participating in politics.

That is not a wise assumption.

[DrewKaree]

I LOVE this defense...the "we haven't killed 9 million people YET, so how can you say we're Nazis?" defense.

Attempting to wipe out a race and take over the world is a vastly different stance than the one America is taking.  You know it, I know it, but it suits your purpose, so you have to act as if that's what TOK is doing.  He's clearly pointing out the staggering differences in the death toll, since that's who Durbin was comparing Americans to.  It's called perspective, something you're choosing not to use here, but you certainly try to use it with your next sleight of mouth.  With a little practice and usage, you'll get it down in no time:

It doesn't work. It's a flawed argument. Durbin's statement wasn't that our troops ARE Nazis, but that the actions being carried out in their name are similar to those

When referencing Nazi's, he made no effort to single out any one soldier, nor did he make an effort to single out anyone when comparing the treatment at Gitmo.  He was clear in his words, but you don't like what you imagine to be going on at Gitmo, so you've got to do some convolutions.  What did Durbin say?

describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have happened by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime

[Dexter]

Attempting to wipe out a race and take over the world is a vastly different stance than the one America is taking.

[DrewKaree]

And what stance is that?

1)  Remove the guys in power. 
     Helps with that whole "kill your own people for whatever reason you dream up, like "he looked at you cross-wise"  Oh, and get rid of his offspring, since they have even less concern for the people.

2)  Allow the people of the region to see what it's like to have freedom
     Helps with that whole "we've gotta keep doing things the old way because trying something different will get us killed....the old guy really IS still in power, so we can't cross him....that hasn't worked as long as he's in power"

3)  Help them set up some way to police themselves
     Helps with that whole "nothing will be done if I try to enjoy my life with my newfound freedom and someone beats the living crap out of me because their version of Allah says I'm an infidel in my own country" 

4)  Help them set up some way to govern themselves
     Helps with that whole "we need representation to help make our country a nice place to live for all the people, not just the ones the former mad dictator hated less than the others"

5)  Keep the people there who can stop the country from being over-run yet again, sending it right back to the hellhole it once was
     Now, stay with me, because I know you want us all to believe it's still the hellhole it once was, but there will be no exit strategy given anytime soon. 

I know you're smarter than all the rest of the people in the room, Dex, but you'll have to explain to us first why we would set up an exit strategy that tells the people (you know, those wanting to kill anyone INCLUDING THE WOMEN AND CHILDREN OF THEIR COUNTRY in order to get wingnut sympathizers to pressure everyone into leaving - you call them insurgents all you want, they're properly named terrorists) how long they have to disappear before we leave and they can come back out and undo all the work we did.  That's the problem with your idea.  If I tell you I'm not going to punch you in the face again if you stop fighting, and that I'll turn my back on you in 10 minutes, if you have even less than half a brain in your body, you'll stop fighting and wait the 10 minutes until I turn my back (hide out and stop killing in Iraq, since I have a feeling you're having a hard time following logic) and then jump me from behind and start trying to beat the hell out of me again (come out of hiding and continue car-bombing and killing Iraqi women and children, blowing up mosque's (you know, the things that make Americans evil oppressors?) in order to take back the country from the people yet again, taking away the freedoms from Iraqi's that you and I experience daily)

It's what you don't get that makes the difference, and you'll NEVER get it, because you look at the situation as if we're the problem rather than working with the Iraqi's for a solution of what to do after removing the deadly dictator and oppressive way of life they used to live.  We're not trying to wipe out an "idea", we're trying to instill an idea that freedom for each Iraqi makes the country stronger as a whole, an idea that will demonstrate to their country that those who think like those you are speaking of are the problem.  We're bringing a bit of Ireland to Iraq, if that makes you feel any better   We're bringing to them the concept of speaking out against government, without having to worry that they'll end up dead. 

This isn't a perpetual war, it's starting with one country, and allowing the rest of the region to make up its own mind about how things are going.  Seems to be working, but if you're invested in seeing America fail, you'll always look for the worst in the situation to extrapolate back into a hellhole, instead of seeing the progress being made, and the thanks being given for the opportunities that have been made.

Tell us all how many stories your unbiased media and news sources have run on the good things happening in Iraq.  I'd love to hear what they've said, and what they consider a "good thing" that's happened over there.  Listening to you, I get the impression that you've never heard that ANYTHING has gone well over there, but you're the one who will have to tell us what your media has said. 

[Dexter]

Tell us all how many stories your unbiased media and news sources have run on the good things happening in Iraq.

[fredster]

I heard the insurgencys going well....

Yeah, from outside entities from Syria and Iran.  They apparently don't like the idea of a free Iraq.  Shakes them up.

And what stance is that? Waging a perpetual war that cannot be won? Invading a country without an exit strategy? Trying to wipe out an idea??

Dexter, just because you can't figure out how to win, doesn't mean it can't be won, okay? 

Name a war with an "exit strategy".  What the hell is an "exit strategy" anyway?  What was the exit strategy we had in WWI and WWII?  Did we worry about that then?  When did we ever need an "exit stategy"?  It's not a game with rules, it's war.

Trying to wipe out an idea is the idea.  Why does that "idea" exist? Who is bringing it along?  That is why we invaded and why we are fighting.  We are doing what we said we'd do and enforcing international Law.

[DrewKaree]

Tell us all how many stories your unbiased media and news sources have run on the good things happening in Iraq.  I'd love to hear what they've said, and what they consider a "good thing" that's happened over there.  Listening to you, I get the impression that you've never heard that ANYTHING has gone well over there, but you're the one who will have to tell us what your media has said. 

I heard the insurgencys going well....

So there's nothing you're willing to tell us that has gone well, or are we to assume by your non-answer that I'm correct that your unbiased media doesn't report anything good that's happening in Iraq? 




Do you have anything to say about the terrorists-not-from-America who strap bombs to themselves and kill women, children and the elderly....or go into mosque's and blow them up?  You know them, the the people trying to kill Americans who TARGET these kinds of situations....are those things are ok with you?  I ask because you were acting concerned a while back when the war was going on and Americans were doing it, and I've never heard it described as a bad thing if a non-American did it.

Hopefully we can all get together in a circle and sing "Kumbya" and the world will be a better place then.

[Dexter]

Name a war with an "exit strategy".

[fredster]

Dexter,

What is your military training and background?

Are you a war historian and know the details of the Vietnam war?

[TOK]

These guys don't care about a headline saying 50 insurgents were killed, or that a top Al-Quaida operative was killed at the Syrian border. They also don't care that there haven't been ANY terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11, even though those scumbags said we'd be swimming in rivers of our own blood.

Drew pegged it. They spout veiws but lack perspective. If we didn't push into the Middle East and a bomb went off at a college campus in Massachussets, MrC would be blaming Bush for that. Nobody is changing anyones mind here. I'm going to try my best to just ignore this nonsense.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

These guys don't care about a headline saying 50 insurgents were killed, or that a top Al-Quaida operative was killed at the Syrian border. They also don't care that there haven't been ANY terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11, even though those scumbags said we'd be swimming in rivers of our own blood.

Killing 50 insurgents isn't productive if we are creating thousands more every day by our perceived imperialist actions in Iraq, and catching one dude who can easily be replaced isn't going to stop Al Qaeda. Also, you seem to still think Iraq had something to do with 9-11, which has not been born out by facts. Unfortunately, the man truly responsible for 9-11, Bin Laden, is still running free, and the man in charge here, Bush, has seem to forgotten all about him.

Drew pegged it. They spout veiws but lack perspective.

"We" just have a different perspective than you.

Nobody is changing anyones mind here. I'm going to try my best to just ignore this nonsense.

I thought you said that already?

mrC

[TOK]

These guys don't care about a headline saying 50 insurgents were killed, or that a top Al-Quaida operative was killed at the Syrian border. They also don't care that there haven't been ANY terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11, even though those scumbags said we'd be swimming in rivers of our own blood.

Killing 50 insurgents isn't productive if we are creating thousands more every day by our perceived imperialist actions in Iraq, and catching one dude who can easily be replaced isn't going to stop Al Qaeda. Also, you seem to still think Iraq had something to do with 9-11, which has not been born out by facts. Unfortunately, the man truly responsible for 9-11, Bin Laden, is still running free, and the man in charge here, Bush, has seem to forgotten all about him.

Drew pegged it. They spout veiws but lack perspective.

"We" just have a different perspective than you.

Nobody is changing anyones mind here. I'm going to try my best to just ignore this nonsense.

I thought you said that already?

mrC

We're in Afghanistan. It's a network of mountains and caves, very difficult to search. He's protected by a very organized underground network of assistants.
There is actually no real proof that he is even alive or in any kind of condition to lead or mastermind other attacks. There is less news out of Afghanistan, and I think that is a good thing. What do you suggest we do?
We're not neccessarily creating new insurgents, they're just flooding into one place. They danced in the streets when the WTC was attacked, we didn't create that. Look, I'll admit that Iraq is a quagmire and we should have pushed harder on Afghanistan, but the proximity of these places and the unsecured borders makes the area very unlike somewhere that has a defined ocean border or a guarded border like North America.

Stop replying directly to my messages, and I'll go away, I swear.
I'm in this now, but I'm going to try to stay out of new threads. Maybe we could both turn over a new leaf and you could post something about games in one of the other forums? 

[fredster]

"catching one dude who can easily be replaced isn't going to stop Al Qaeda"

So there is a link, huh?  Now Al Qaeda is in Iraq.

There didn't have to be a link to 9/11 for us to take out Saddam.  That wasn't the premise of the war.  WMD and his assistance to the palestinian terrorists was enough.  The link between Iraq and Atta was just icing on the cake. 

Forget that all of the congress overwhelmingly approved the war act to go there.  I guess the senate intell committee (with Kerry on it) must be useless, so they shouldn't have them anymore.

[Dexter]

We're not neccessarily creating new insurgents, they're just flooding into one place. They danced in the streets when the WTC was attacked, we didn't create that.

Thats right, the US is killing women and children but not turning their husbands/fathers into insurgents. Dear oh dear

[fredster]

Prove that Dexter

[TOK]

Iraqi's are doing most of the civilian killing, unfortunately.
You know it's not US troops driving into the city and detonating cars full of explosives, right?

Not that I totally disagree with the premise that we'll get blamed for it. We are there, and it's just one more reason to hate us. That area is not going to be stable for 10 years. I have a buddy that has been in the reserves since the early 90's and not seen any action. He's over there now. It's bad.

[markrvp]

We're not neccessarily creating new insurgents, they're just flooding into one place. They danced in the streets when the WTC was attacked, we didn't create that.

Thats right, the US is killing women and children but not turning their husbands/fathers into insurgents. Dear oh dear

[patrickl]

Trying to stabilize the political climate in the Middle East will benefit the whole world, unless you prefer chaos.

[fredster]

That's just it. The US is responsible for creating the chaos there.

And how did we do that? By giving them money? By protecting Kuwait? Exactly how did we do that?

Going to war doesn't always solve a problem.

Didn't Chamberland say that right before the Nazi's attacked?  Worked great then didn't it? 

Going to war on terrorists does exactly the same. You create a thousandfold of the original number of terrorists.

Really. Worked pretty good to stop them in every other war we had.

[SirPeale]

You're all forgetting one thing: a woman can have huge boobs, but if they're a funky shape, it kind of ruins the whole deal.

Saw this picture of this woman once who had twisted hers into a pretzel of types.  Not what I'm looking for.

[patrickl]

Going to war doesn't always solve a problem.

Didn't Chamberland say that right before the Nazi's attacked?

[markrvp]

The first gulf war created Osama bin laden. Does that name ring a bell? Not really my point (cause that war indeed solved a conflict to a certain extent) , but it does illustrate how a war can create terrorists.

Actually Colonel Oliver North had already alerted our Congress to Bin Laden's threat during the Reagan presidency.  Congress' lack of action 18 years ago was a mistake.  He should have been taken out a long time ago.  He was not "created" during the Gulf War.

[DrewKaree]

Thats right, the US is killing women and children but not turning their husbands/fathers into insurgents. Dear oh dear 

What about the terrorists you commonly mislabel as insurgents?  Do those middle-eastern terrorists who are killing women, children and elderly....are the middle-eastern terrorists keeping their mssion alive by killing women, children and elderly of middle-eastern descent?

The women, children and elderly being killed now are being killed by the middle-eastern terrorists coming to the area to fight the Americans.  They are killing the women, children and elderly knowing that people such as yourself have no interest in acknowledging it, as you yourself continue to ignore the point, because it doesn't fit in nicely with your "America is wrong" mantra.

Women, children and the elderly are still being killed, but it's being done by the people you seem to think are their "countrymen". 

Your unbiased media seems to have done a good job helping you form a bias Dexter.

Can you point us to your unbiased media writing, producing or publishing a story about the good America has and is doing in Iraq?  Can you point us to your unbiased media writing, producing or publishing a story about the Iraqi's who welcome our involvement in their country?  They exist out there, and if your media sources were as unbiased as you say they are, surely you can point to where these things are done.  I'm interested, because it seems either they DON'T do these things, which would demonstrate the bias you claim doesn't exist, or they DO do these things, and they truly ARE unbiased. 

Your "Americans are killing women and children" rant is most tiresome precisely because you fall all over yourself to point it out, while your continued silence on the middle-eastern terrorists who do this leads me to believe you think it's ok, "just as long as it ain't those evil 'mercans".

Why do you continue to ignore the point? 

[TOK]

The people that became Osama bin Ladens crew were given weapons and training by the United States when Russia was trying to occupy Afghanistan. That was at the end of the Cold War, and we had a vested interest in seeing Russia fail in Afghanistan (which they did). The people we called Freedom Fighters when Reagan was in office are now called Insurgents.

Thats the problem with helping anyone in the Middle East. You give them a hand up and 10 years later you're trying to beat them back down.

[namzep]

Edit: Actually, I don't want to get into any of this.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Edit: Actually, I don't want to get into any of this.

Funniest thing I've ever read on this forum!! ROFL.

[patrickl]

The first gulf war created Osama bin laden. Does that name ring a bell? Not really my point (cause that war indeed solved a conflict to a certain extent) , but it does illustrate how a war can create terrorists.

Actually Colonel Oliver North had already alerted our Congress to Bin Laden's threat during the Reagan presidency.

[fredster]

Patrickl,

We really didn't have a choice in NOT working through Gulf War 1 did we?  What was the alternative?  Do you think "negotiation" would have made Saddam back off? Do you really think that?

Well he stated in an interview he decided he wanted to "hurt" the US after the US troops came to Saudia Arabia.

And other psychos have voices in their head.  So what?  Do you in your personal life cowtow to nut cases? It has nothing to do with anything.  Maybe if we didn't go, he may have said he wanted to "hurt" us because of "bay watch"?

Missed the word "always" did ya? A single example of succes does not prove a general statement like that.

And saying "Going to war doesn't always solve a problem." isn't a "general" statement?  Simplistic and naive too.

The "chimp in charge" (that's what CIC stands for?) made the same mistake.

I guess it's a matter of definition. One man's mistake is another man's helluva good idea.  If you were in charge then you could decide. Fortunately, you aren't.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

What was the alternative?

[patrickl]

Missed the word "always" did ya? A single example of succes does not prove a general statement like that.

And saying "Going to war doesn't always solve a problem." isn't a "general" statement?

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I wonder if even Bush himself believes in his war enough to ask the American people in his upcoming speech Tues night to help defend freedom by enlisting in the Armed Forces?

I'm betting he doesn't. Instead, look for more of the same platitudinous B.S. we've heard over and over again since "Mission Accomplished". (ie: Spreading Freedom, Freedom Is On The March, Defending Liberty, Defeating Tyranny, Liberty Liberty Freedom Tyranny, Saddam Tortured His People, Look At The Purple Fingers, We've Turned A Corner, blah...blah...blah)


mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

We really didn't have a choice in NOT working through Gulf War 1 did we?

[TOK]

Haven't there been libs on here saying he attacked Iraq and captured Sadaam just to finish what his father started?

With the Bush Sr. comments, that logic sure doesn't add up. If anything, it sounds like Sr. would have tried talking him out of it.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Haven't there been libs on here saying he attacked Iraq and captured Sadaam just to finish what his father started?

With the Bush Sr. comments, that logic sure doesn't add up. If anything, it sounds like Sr. would have tried talking him out of it.

There isn't really a disconnect between the words Sr. spoke and the idea that Dubya wanted to outshine his father and simply ignored his advice. These two notions can coexist peacefully.

Reading through a little of Dubya's early history (before politics), it's pretty easy to believe he has a complex about proving himself to his dad.

[fredster]

MrC,

I'm sure you'd like to break everything the President does down into some kind of simplistic stimulus/response to prove to yourself he's the CIC that Patrickl called him.

Don't forget that at the start of the war well over 85% of the people of the US supported it.  It was overwhelmingly approved by the joint houses of congress, etc.  Last time I checked, the President doesn't have the power to declare war, the congress holds that card.  It wasn't ONE man or ONE idea.  It was a lot of people involved.  Kerry voted for it didn't he?

I wonder if even Bush himself believes in his war enough to ask the American people in his upcoming speech Tues night to help defend freedom by enlisting in the Armed Forces?

I bet he does. 

Just because these people are a political dynasty, doesn't mean they're above petty squabbling, avarice and/or any other human failings we mere mortals suffer.

Yeah we know that.  Ask Mrs. Clinton about Monica.

Patrickl,

So, I only need to give a single negative example and my statement is proven. There are actually lots of examples where the war didn't end so well. If "they" had remembered that at the time then maybe now we didn't have to add this latest Iraq invasion to that long list of failures.

I'm a little confused as to what has actually "failed".  What has failed?  Is Saddam still in power?  Is there no government in Iraq? Are the people starving? What exactly has gone wrong in your opinion? 

There are lots of people turning out from other countries trying to disstablize the government.  Looks like they are trying, but it doesn't seem to be having major success.  We haven't abandoned any city or withdrew to some line.  We lost more people in one day in WWII and in Vietnam than we have in the entire campaign.   Bush didn't say it would be easy.  He said that in his speech after 9/11 that the road would be hard.

Since we invade Iraq, Lybia gave up it's weapon's program, Syria pulled out of Lebannon, Saudi Arabia held some free elections, Egypt is going to hold free elections.

Iraq held a free election (look at the purple fingers) and Afghanistan held it's first free election in written history.

So, where's the failure here? Just because we have nutcases blowing things up it's a failure?  As long as there are religious zealots willing to blow themselves up we should stop, is that what you are saying?  We should just back off and let them do whatever they want?

Abandon Israel?  Bow down to the fanatics because it's hard to stop them?  Let Saddam take Kuwait and the middle east just melt down anyway the wind blows? 

Peace at any cost?

Talk about simplistic.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I'm sure you'd like to break everything the President does down into some kind of simplistic stimulus/response...

...

Yeah we know that.  Ask Mrs. Clinton about Monica.

Do as you say, not as you do I suppose.

Don't forget that at the start of the war well over 85% of the people of the US supported it. 

Yeah, well....now they don't. If you're trumpeting the idea that 85% of the people supporting something makes it right, then what do these new numbers tell you?

• Some 53% of people surveyed say the United States made a mistake going to war in Iraq in March 2003, according to an AP-Ipsos poll released Friday [Link]
• 65% of Republicans, 81% of Independents and 87% of Democrats do not believe the insurgency in Iraq is weakening. [Link]
• Bush's Job Approval ratings are the lowest he's faced during his presidency. [link]

It was overwhelmingly approved by the joint houses of congress, etc.  Last time I checked, the President doesn't have the power to declare war, the congress holds that card.  It wasn't ONE man or ONE idea.  It was a lot of people involved.  Kerry voted for it didn't he?

Apparently all based on evidence that was fixed to push forward Bush's agenda. The Downing Street Memo is still floating around the capitol, so, ya' know...if it turns out that this administration knowingly stretched the credibility of non-existent evidence in an attempt to get the vote to go to war, that may change the equation a little.

I wonder if even Bush himself believes in his war enough to ask the American people in his upcoming speech Tues night to help defend freedom by enlisting in the Armed Forces?

I bet he does. 

We shall see. How much you want to wager? I'll say $100 he doesn't specifically ask civilians to enlist in support of the War in Iraq...(ie: "go march down to the local recruitment center and sign up to help fight in Iraq!") ....I'm good for it.


mrC

[fredster]

Yeah, well....now they don't

Now's a little late, isn't it? 

Apparently all based on evidence that was fixed to push forward Bush's agenda. The Downing Street Memo is still floating around the capitol, so, ya' know...if it turns out that this administration knowingly stretched the credibility of non-existent evidence in an attempt to get the vote to go to war, that may change the equation a little.

  Dude, there were probes and probes into this in London, and the Blair Administration was cleared of the very same charges you level at Bush.  Forget it, it's old news.  I read these memos.  It's a tactical approach to the media.  It's a policy outline.  It is nothing, absolutely nothing.

Do as you say, not as you do I suppose.

Exactly.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Yeah, well....now they don't

Now's a little late, isn't it?

Not really, given we should have never been there in the first place. The public seems to be awakening to that fact, as well as to the fact that they were bamboozled. So maybe it'd be a "little late" if things were going as was promised, and people suddenly changed their minds. But that isn't quite the case if the administration wasn't giving it to them straight from the beginning.

Dude, there were probes and probes into this in London, and the Blair Administration was cleared of the very same charges you level at Bush.

This is simply not true. Blair's gauntlet through the Memos has only just begun. So far, he has paid dearly in the elections, losing his party a historic amount of seats in parliament. He still has his job, but that might soon be remedied as new revelations are leaked.

Forget it, it's old news.  I read these memos.  It's a tactical approach to the media.  It's a policy outline.  It is nothing, absolutely nothing.

You think it's nothing, I think it's just the beginning. Remember, even Watergate started not with a roar, but a whimper. The memos will be making their appearance on the floor of the house tomorrow, prompted by a 560,000 petition asking for further investigation into the allegations made in the memo. Which are "minutes" really, not memos, meaning two things...one, they are a factual account of the meetings between British and American officials and two, they are admissible in court as evidence. Memos are not. Furthermore, other memos supporting the original minutes have been leaked, so I think it's safe to say we haven't heard the last of this issue. Much to your chagrin.

Do as you say, not as you do I suppose.

Exactly.

Spoken like a true fascist.


Btw, I guess you didn't want to put your money where your mouth is, eh?
mrC

[Dartful Dodger]

Do as you say, not as you do I suppose.

If you did anything, you'd understand and say nothing.

But you enjoying doing nothing, and saying anything I suppose.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Do as you say, not as you do I suppose.

If you did anything, you'd understand and say nothing.

But you enjoying doing nothing, and saying anything I suppose.

About as well spoken as anything else you've ever said.

mrC
P.S. Dartful, can you slow down on your posts, please. My Dartful Dodger Decoder Ring hasn't come in the mail yet...so I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say.

[DrewKaree]

How much you want to wager? I'll say $100 he doesn't specifically ask civilians to enlist in support of the War in Iraq...(ie: "go march down to the local recruitment center and sign up to help fight in Iraq!") ....

I'm good for it.

I've learned never to bet with or trust a guy who says "I'm good for it" after asking for advice regarding possible bankruptcy.  Prodding Fredster to bet with you may make you feel better, but I'm betting a stump would know better than to make a bet with you.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

How much you want to wager? I'll say $100 he doesn't specifically ask civilians to enlist in support of the War in Iraq...(ie: "go march down to the local recruitment center and sign up to help fight in Iraq!") ....

I'm good for it.

I've learned never to bet with or trust a guy who says "I'm good for it" after asking for advice regarding possible bankruptcy.  Prodding Fredster to bet with you may make you feel better, but I'm betting a stump would know better than to make a bet with you.

Did I ask you?

I thought a stump would know better than to vote for Bush, but that didn't stop you, did it?


mrC

[DrewKaree]

Did I ask you?

I didn't know this was a "mother-may-I" type of forum.  If those are the rules, I hereby state that I never am asking you anything, and that you should always keep your opinions to yourself, no matter the relevance your points may bring to the thread (in your mind), and all future postings by yourself to me must be addresses to "Sir Bootylicious" before I might consider replying to. 

What's next?  "Drew, I'm rubber and you're glue...."?  Or are you going to talk about how there's small genitalia somewhere you've got to comment on....or perhaps you're gonna swear at me.  Whatever shall I do at the hands of such treatment?

If you're such a shrinking violet, play nice in the sandbox so the other kids named Sadaam won't be mean to you and will do what you want them to.

[Dartful Dodger]

I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say yet.

I understand what you are saying.

That is how I know you are wrong.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I didn't know this was a "mother-may-I" type of forum. 

Either he believes in this war, and his commander-in-chief enough to put his money where his mouth is, or he doesn't.

Btw, fredster said "I bet he does"...so in all actuality, I'm taking him up on his own challenge. So butt out.

Or are you going to talk about how there's small genitalia somewhere you've got to comment on....or perhaps you're gonna swear at me.

Cracks me up how you presume to speak for everyone on your side. TOK didn't seem to be as bothered by my joke as you are? Is there something you want to tell us?

Whatever shall I do at the hands of such treatment?

Hide behind snarky sarcasm and numerous smiley faces?

Aw, I think I guessed right.


mrC

[DrewKaree]

Btw, fredster said "I bet he does"...so in all actuality, I'm taking him up on his own challenge. So butt out.

I didn't know this was a "mother-may-I" type of forum. 

Since you're acting as if it is, I've got to refer you to my rules regarding "butting out".  Is there a problem with me commenting on the foolishness of believing "you're good for it"?  Asking people to "butt out" regarding your comments on a public forum?  Methinks you'd be well served to follow the "...than open your mouth and remove all doubt" adage.  When did you suddenly become MrCwitIt? 

Cracks me up how you presume to speak for everyone on your side. TOK didn't seem to be as bothered by my joke as you are? Is there something you want to tell us?

Yes, there is.  As with stocks, your past performance isn't necessarily an indicator of future actions (but it certainly IS a fairly good bet that you'll revert to the actions that "work" for you.  I fail to see how you twisted that into me "speaking for everyone on my side", but you certainly HAVE seemed to speak TO everyone on my side that way.  I was just trying to guess what way you were going to go.

Hide behind snarky sarcasm and numerous smiley faces?

If you consider sitting here taking a "beating" at your hands to be "hiding", I guess I'm guilty as charged.  Maybe I should ask you to butt out of the "making fun of Drew" game.  Nah.  You're almost out of material.  I'm sticking around until all that's left is my gun/car compensating for some phallic item you can dream up.


Oh, before I forget, here's the daily Kool-Aid dose from my NeoCon Zionist master, Glenn Beck. 

Should we accept Dick Durbin's so called "apology" and let him off the hook for comparing our fighting men and women Nazis? Click to hear Glenn's comments.  Windows Media Player required

There.  Something you can comment on....and I can request that you "butt out" of it.  Don't reply about that link there. 

[DrewKaree]

....and you may call me "Sir Bootylicious"

[patrickl]

Patrickl,

So, I only need to give a single negative example and my statement is proven. There are actually lots of examples where the war didn't end so well. If "they" had remembered that at the time then maybe now we didn't have to add this latest Iraq invasion to that long list of failures.

I'm a little confused as to what has actually "failed".

[TOK]

Patrick, as much as I will agree that Iraq will be a quagmire, the objective of this thing was to prevent future attacks on American soil. In that sense, it has been successful. Perhaps having the troops in Iraq gives the people that would be targeting continental US targets a shorter ride to work, but I really don't think thats true. The US has hardenend its borders.

What you see now are desperate grasps at soft targets of opportunity. Civilians, not even necessarily Americans working overseas and soft targets like train stations in Spain. They had their guard down just like the US did pre-9/11.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

As with stocks, your past performance isn't necessarily an indicator of future actions (but it certainly IS a fairly good bet that you'll revert to the actions that "work" for you.

Listen "St." Bootylicious, you ain't no angel. So stop acting as if you don't ask for it.

I was just trying to guess what way you were going to go.

Ok. Thank you for admitting that you are, in fact, actually asking for it. Why don't you practice acting how you'd like to be treated instead? I'll play along nicely...

You're almost out of material.

[DrewKaree]

With your sig, I think it's supposed to be

"Same drat time, same drat channel"

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Patrick, as much as I will agree that Iraq will be a quagmire, the objective of this thing was to prevent future attacks on American soil. In that sense, it has been successful.

Prevent further attacks by attacking a country that did not have the means to attack us? No WMD, no nuclear capabilities, no long range missiles capable of hitting Britain, let alone the United States. I don't think I'd call that successful.

It took Al Qaeda years to plan a successful attack. They were planning 9-11, specifically, for well over 10 years. Men were living and training as pilots in the United States over that entire period of time. What makes you think, just because there hasn't been an attack in a short 3-4 year span, that that constitutes "success"?

Furthermore, what would you have to say, if (god forbid) we are attacked again? I mean, if you can conclude that Bush's actions are right because we haven't been attacked, I guess the flip-side would mean that his actions are wrong if we are attacked again?

The "fly-paper" argument, to anti-Iraq War people, is nothing but smoke and mirrors. The CIA has just released a report stating that Iraq has now, quite possibly, become an advanced training area in ground warfare for terrorists wanting to fight against Americans, then LEAVE Iraq and use that training to destablize their own region/government. We anti-Iraq War types want Bin Laden, and we want Afghanistan secure. Unfortunately, even that has yet to happen and now, we fear, even if Bin Laden *is* captured, we've already created 1000 replacements through Americas actions in Iraq.

Perhaps having the troops in Iraq gives the people that would be targeting continental US targets a shorter ride to work, but I really don't think thats true. The US has hardenend its borders.

Or, as I mentioned above, it gives them more effective training for killing Americans. Read about the report here: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/22/international/middleeast/22intel.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1119456668-

What you see now are desperate grasps at soft targets of opportunity.

It really sounds like you've bought the administrations spin; hook, line and sinker. I'm not trying to be offensive or condescending, but that line above is almost an exact quote of some of Cheney and Rumsfelds comments. Why would you take their assesment at face value? Wouldn't they, of course, want everyone to believe that everything is going A-OK? If you are an objective thinker, wouldn't you want to form an opinion based on info gathered from soldiers actually on the ground, and the Generals commanding them? (most of which have recently concluded that the insurgency is GROWING, and the attacks are becoming bolder, more sophisticated and more frequent.

How did you come to this conclusion that they are desperate? Which - again - according to this administration, they've been since the start of the war in Iraq, over three years ago. See here: http://www.hairyfishnuts.com/archive/00_desperate.htm (Scroll down to see how long ago this administration began using the term "desperate.")

How long do they have to be desperate, before we consider them "undesperate"?


mrC

[Dexter]

on a brighter note, things are going just swell in eye-raq (sarcasm off)

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=650186

[fredster]

Dexter, that's an editorial. Not news okay? One man's opinion.

[Dartful Dodger]

Was that the goal of the war?

I don't know what reasons you have for fighting in this war, but no more planes have been flown into buildings, so my goals have been reached.

[Dexter]

Looks like he likes to throw around allegations without any proof.

Well if you can invade a nation without proof.....

Sort it out chuckles.

ROTFLMAO

[fredster]

Well if you can invade a nation without proof....

We had proof he broke the UN sanctions.  We have proof he violated the treaty.

That's enough proof Dexter.

plus this - http://www.husseinandterror.com/

[mr.Curmudgeon]

We will see what he has to say tonight without filters.

Well, I wouldn't go that far...a speech is a filter. It's pre-scripted, rehearsed and performed. A news conference where the press were allowed to ask questions would be a better example of seeing him speak without filters.

But he doesn't do many of those, in fact, Bush has given the least amount of press conferences of any President since the advent of television.

Don't fool yourself. Tonight's speech is nothing more than a public relations event, meant to prop up his horribly sagging poll numbers (even though Bush claims not to care about polls). He's performing it in front of soldiers at Bragg because they'll make a nice propogandists backdrop, since they're trained not to question leaders, nor protest questionable actions. He most likely will not outline an exit strategy, he won't give us a timeline for a withdrawal from Iraq, and he won't acknowledge the reality of the battle on the ground, nor give a true estimation of the depth of the insurgency (He'll say they're "desperate").

However, if he's honest, I'll be suprised...and I'll give him credit. If he just spouts off more moral platitudes, and jingoist bullsh!t...I'll be drunk, since I'm playing the "Bush Speech Drinking Game."

A list of phrases to drink at every time they are uttered (please add to this list):

    * any variation on "hard work"
    * "purple fingers"
    * "democracy/liberty/freedom is on the march"
    * "the world is better off without Saddam"
    * "I think about ... everyday"
    * "evildoers/deadenders/murderers/suiciders"
    * anything to the effect of "the insurgency doesn't want democracy to take hold"
    * "desperate"
    * "rape/torture/murder rooms are now closed"
    * any scripted line that illicits the mandatory "Hoo Rah" or "Hooah" from the military backdrop.

mrC

[patrickl]

plus this - http://www.husseinandterror.com/

Pfft that old lame cop out again. Saddam pays money to familiy of victims == Saddam supports terrorist groups -> mention total number of people killed by terrorist group and thus imply that he was totally responsible for all deaths. Typical propaganda stuff.

The US gave much more support to terrorist groups. To make things worse, that was actually to the terrorists who eventually attacked the US.

The Iraq invasion is a lie, a mess, a bloodbath and it created problems for decades to come. What little good has come of it cannot explain all that away.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Well if you can invade a nation without proof....

We had proof he broke the UN sanctions.  We have proof he violated the treaty. That's enough proof Dexter.

Since when did your side start caring about what the U.N. has to say? When it suits your needs? Annan also declared the way the U.S. finally went to war illegal, the U.N. also declared our elections process entirely flawed. Do you support those allegations by the U.N., or again, just the ones that suit your needs?

plus this - http://www.husseinandterror.com/

Too bad the 9-11 commission concluded that there is absolutely no link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. Al Qaeda attacked us. I read through ALL the "interesting" evidence presented on the site you linked too, and their entire premise boils down to one case decided by a district court judge. Flimsy at best....I'd rather take the word of an entire government bi-partisan commission, that spent 2 years investigating that very thing.

Links: (registration required)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58899-2004Jun21.html

Funny thing too, both Blair and Bush stated they could not prove a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda. But that seems to be forgotten; drowned out by all the other propoganda.
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/no-saddam-qaeda.htm

[fredster]

Me? Care about the UN? No.  Patrickl does, so I just pointed up the fact.  Keep repeating "The Iraq invasion is a lie, a mess, a bloodbath and it created problems for decades to come. What little good has come of it cannot explain all that away. " Over and over. 

I'll give you this, we'll know before the close of the decade just how much impact this has had on the middle east. 

MRC, No connection in the 9/11 report? Check this - http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/357lnryy.asp

It's the sky is purple thing again MrC.

[TOK]

Patrick, as much as I will agree that Iraq will be a quagmire, the objective of this thing was to prevent future attacks on American soil. In that sense, it has been successful.

Prevent further attacks by attacking a country that did not have the means to attack us? No WMD, no nuclear capabilities, no long range missiles capable of hitting Britain, let alone the United States. I don't think I'd call that successful.

mrC

I'll address this part first without quoting your whole post... How are you so sure that Iraq didn't have chemical weapons? Because they didn't find any, after getting into inspect 6 months after the US requested? The UN screwed our chances of ever having the answer to this question by being too passive. You'll say that it's just as likely they didn't have them. If not, why would Sadaam Hussein PRETEND to have them, stalemate the UN and cause the US to invade?

Was this a ruse and he didn't think his bluff was going to be called? Even if he hates the US, why would he not let non-US UN weapons inspectors in until months later under threat of force, then still try to stymie them? It doesn't add up.

I don't tow any political party line, I align myself with the party that is going to screw me the least. I also try not to forget what has happened to lead up to the events as they are. I never hear CNN address simple, direct issues like that about what lead to our occupation of Iraq. Al Quada has been linked to both the attack on the USS Kohl and the first World Trade Center attack (bomb in the truck). If the US didn't sit on its hands for that, we wouldn't be in the predicament we're in now. If this is what it take to prevent attacks on US targets every 5 years, or at least teach war mongering Middle East muslims that we will hit back hard when they hit us, I'm OK with it. Unfortunately, nothing is ever solved diplomatically with them.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I'll give you this, we'll know before the close of the decade just how much impact this has had on the middle east. 

I'll agree with you there...that statement seems entirely plausible.

MRC, No connection in the 9/11 report? Check this - http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/357lnryy.asp

It's the sky is purple thing again MrC.

Yeah, it's not me who's painting it purple though...

FROM THE ARTICLE YOU LINKED:
"We have found no relationship whatever between Iraq and the attack on 9/11," asserted Kean. "That just doesn't exist."

...

"The final report also amends the staff statement in two important ways, finding only no "collaborative operational relationship" and specifying that these contacts did not indicate "that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States."

That article was written by Stephen Hayes, a conservative journalist known for bolstering a discredited Defense Department intelligence memo in order to claim this Iraq-Al Qaeda connection. The article you linked to has been debunked fairly well here: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3540586

Investigative Correspondents Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball wrote that Hayes's article was "mostly based on unverified claims that were first advanced by some top Bush administration officials (mrc: BIG SUPRISE!) more than a year ago -- and were largely discounted at the time by the U.S. intelligence community, according to current and former U.S. intelligence officials."

In other words, your claim that Saddam was linked to Al-Qaeda is based on info from the same people that said there were WMD's in Iraq.

No wonder you have trouble distinguising the color of the sky. 
mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I'll address this part first without quoting your whole post... How are you so sure that Iraq didn't have chemical weapons? Because they didn't find any, after getting into inspect 6 months after the US requested?

If Bush would have let to inspectors continue/finish their work, we would have reached the very same conclusion, in terms of WMD, we've reached now, which is, that he did not have any viable program, nor the means to manufactor a program. Furthermore, we would have reached that conclusion without shedding one drop of American blood, nor spending one damn American cent. Immediately before Bush rushed to war, the weapons inspectors had unfettered access to any area that wanted.

The UN screwed our chances of ever having the answer to this question by being too passive.

I can't say anything is absolute, but I'd say BUSH screwed our chances of ever really having the answer by being too aggressive.

If not, why would Sadaam Hussein PRETEND to have them, stalemate the UN and cause the US to invade?

Bush decided to invade, there was no cause.

Was this a ruse and he didn't think his bluff was going to be called? Even if he hates the US, why would he not let non-US UN weapons inspectors in until months later under threat of force, then still try to stymie them? It doesn't add up.

I imagine he was projecting a public image of defiance, but the reality behind the scenes, as testified by weapons inspectors, was that an 11th hour agreement had been reached and they would not, in fact, be stymied. Bush forced the inspectors out before this agreement could take effect. Face it, he wanted the war, he rushed to judgement, he got the war he wanted. Now we're all going to pay (both in our soldier's blood and our citizen's tax money) for his hasty actions.

Al Quada has been linked to both the attack on the USS Kohl and the first World Trade Center attack (bomb in the truck). If the US didn't sit on its hands for that, we wouldn't be in the predicament we're in now.

Exactly. And this is WHY the war in Afghanistan was the right thing to do. Too bad the war in Iraq has pulled almost all the necessary resources away from Afghanistan and that country is slipping back into the hands of the Taliban.

If this is what it take to prevent attacks on US targets every 5 years, or at least teach war mongering Middle East muslims that we will hit back hard when they hit us, I'm OK with it.

Again, how does your theory hold up if we are attacked again? The Al Qaeda network is a network of individuals from various countries around the world. They are not beholden to any state or government. Members are created when people in impovrished environments percieve the actions of greater states as imperialist and without justification. Most of the muslim world understood and supported our actions in Afghanistan, with Iraq, not only have we destroyed that support, but we've given the people of their region more reason to fight against us.

Unfortunately, nothing is ever solved diplomatically with them.

Then why have our military general's, under Rumsfeld command, recently decided to meet with the insurgent's in Iraq?


mrC

[Dartful Dodger]

Bush decided to invade, there was no cause.

Roosevelt decided to invade Germany, there was no cause.

[TOK]

All thats going to come of a US meeting with insurgents is a lot of blown up Iraqi civilians (by the insurgents). These people don't want peace, just like Palestinians and Israeli's don't. It might go for a day or so, but someone is going to give someone else a crooked look and the bullets will start flying again.

I don't have a solution for this, some people just aren't happy or know how to act without a cause/war. If they'd stick to blowing each other up, I wouldn't even care.
I was in Ontario for a few days last week and got a taste of how America felt pre-9/11... Not getting bombarded with Iraq news, not hearing about the economy going south, just not a lot of general crappy news. I'm not the type to stick my head in the sand over bad news, but I must admit it was refreshing not to have it for a couple of days!

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Bush decided to invade, there was no cause.

Roosevelt decided to invade Germany, there was no cause.

Yes, there was Dear DD! Germany (and Italy) declared war on us after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and had already conquered most of Europe. So, Roosevelt invading Germany makes a LOT more sense than invading...say, Spain! (ie: Saudi funded terrorists, harbored by Afghanistan, with no links to Iraq, attacked us on 9-11...yet Bush decides to put 95% of our resources into a war with Iraq?!)

Furthermore, are you really equating Nazi Germany w/ Saddam's Iraq?

WWII Germany = Conquered most of Europe, MASSIVE & advanced Army, Navy, Air Force.
Modern-Day Iraq = Completely contained, crawling w/ weapons inspectors, veiled in No-Fly Zones, no WMD, decrepit Army, no Navy, no functioning Air Force.

Even if I give you the benefit of the doubt, your statement still makes no sense. Iraq was a "War of Choice." Whether one thinks it's good or bad for America is debateble...whether or not it's comparable to WWII, is absolutely not.


mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Btw, fredster...not sure how we would have outlined the criteria, had you accepted the bet, but you *may* have been a $100 richer!

Bush did mention enlistment, but with the caveat of "those interested in the military." Not quite the shot in the arm our Armed Forces need, but it's more than I thought Bush would say.


mrC

[fredster]

I know MrC.

I didn't watch it, I had some friends come in from out of town.

You have never understood the President.  It's to the point that when you say something about, I know the truth has to be the opposite by default.

At least we don't have to argue about if that statement met your criteria for me to cash in.  Besides, I know you are tight on cash and you couldn't afford it anyway. 

[Dexter]

I didn't watch it, I had some friends come in from out of town.

Heres a quick rundown...

WHERE: Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
LENGTH: About 29 minutes.
APPLAUSE: The speech was interrupted once with applause. Soldiers also clapped at the end.

SEPT. 11: Bush mentioned "September Eleventh" 5 (five) separate times.*
TERROR: Bush mentioned "terror", "terrorism" or "terrorists" 35 times.*
IRAQ: Bush mentioned "Iraq" or "Iraqis" more than 100 times.*
* according to written copy provided by White House.

Some Democrats accused him of falsely reviving the link that he originally used to help justify launching strikes against Baghdad:
"The president's frequent references to the terrorist attacks of September 11 show the weakness of his arguments," House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said. "He is willing to exploit the sacred ground of 9/11, knowing that there is no connection between 9/11 and the war in Iraq."

[Dartful Dodger]

So, Roosevelt invading Germany makes a LOT more sense than invading...say, Spain!

Invading Iraq makes a LOT more sense than invading...say, Spain!

[fredster]

Quotes from the speech.

And when the Middle East grows in democracy, prosperity, and hope, the terrorists will lose their sponsors, lose their recruits, and lose their hopes for turning that region into a base for attacks on America and our allies around the world.

As German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said at the White House yesterday, "There can be no question a stable and democratic Iraq is in the vested interest of not just Germany, but also Europe."

 recognize that Americans want our troops to come home as quickly as possible. So do I. Some contend that we should set a deadline for withdrawing U.S. forces. Let me explain why that would be a serious mistake. Setting an artificial timetable would send the wrong message to the Iraqis

[Dexter]

We will stay in Iraq as long as we are needed

[fredster]

Bring it out Thursday.

[patrickl]

And when the Middle East grows in democracy, prosperity, and hope, the terrorists will lose their sponsors, lose their recruits, and lose their hopes for turning that region into a base for attacks on America and our allies around the world.

Good idea. Too bad starting a war only makes matters worse on all accounts.

[fredster]

Good idea. Too bad starting a war only makes matters worse on all accounts.

And your solution is --?

[mr.Curmudgeon]

You have never understood the President.  It's to the point that when you say something about, I know the truth has to be the opposite by default.

That's a cheap, disingenuous statement. For one, I understand Bush completely (once he's finished mangling his sentences). Just because I disagree with most of what he says, doesn't mean I have no idea what he's trying to get at. In fact, I'd bet I listen more carefully to what he has to say than YOU DO. I'd imagine you just take everything he says at face value, and you couldn't care less if it's true or not. You simply have "faith" in him, and you need nothing more.

So, in all actuality, it's to the point that I've inundated you with so much material that is counter to your views that you have simply decided to bury your head in the sand and accuse me of "trying to paint the sky purple" every chance you get. Albeit, without ever showing exactly *how* I'm doing so.

You rarely support anything you say with solid facts, and you - quite often - throw out blanket statements that have no bearing in reality, nor proof to back them up.

I, however, back up the things I say with as much supporting material as I can find. I work to steer clear of op-ed's when possible, and I try to present . In the past, I've even gone so far as to telephone the parties involved, to prove a point. I've been right in the past, and I've been wrong in the past, but for you to accuse me of lying...is just pathetic. I incur as many (if not more) personal attacks as I dish out, yet I still make attempts to prove my point.

Yes, I do have strong opinions on things, and I distinguish between them and the things I'd put forward as "evidence" whenever possible.

Lastly, it's funny how I actually watched the speech and you were too busy, yet you'd accuse me of never understanding the president...what a joke. Just goes to show you how important you really think his statements & leadership are.

Some things from his speech that you may find interesting:

[Dartful Dodger]

Good idea. Too bad starting a war only makes matters worse on all accounts.

This was started when 3000+ people were killed.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

This was started when 3000+ people were killed.

Bears repeating, since you seem to have "Dubya Spunk" in your ears...IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9-11. Jesus H. Christ you people are delusional.

[Dartful Dodger]

Bears repeating, since you seem to have "Dubya Spunk" in your ears...IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9-11. Jesus H. Christ you people are delusional.

If it wasn't for the 3000+ people getting killed we would not have gone into Iraq.

That reminded us the just because the people that hate us are across an ocean, we can still be hurt.

So the 3000+ people that died had EVERYTHING to do with us stopping Sadam.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

That reminded us the just because the people that hate us are across an ocean, we can still be hurt.

So we kind of did exactly the same thing to the Iraqis...unjustly attacked 'em, and reminded them they can be killed, even if they had nothing to do with the attack on us. In short, we've given their entire region every reason to feel threatened by us now, most likely condeming our nation to more serious attacks.

Code: [Select]

So the 3000+ people that died had EVERYTHING to do with us stopping Sadam.
It's clear that you don't plan on changing your mind any time soon, but I really wish you developed a better argument for your support of the War in Iraq. They are NOT tied to the attacks on 9/11 and your attempt to justify the war against Saddam/Iraq based on administration propaganda isn't working.

I mean, let's take ChadTower's argument for example (We are there to establish a forward base of operations in the Middle East, not to "spread freedom" or "avenge 9/11"..I'm paraphrasing a bit)...Although, I disagree completely with his assessment of the potential outcome, he has at least used logic, instead of blatant emotional appeals, to arrive at his conclusion and thus, his is a valid argument.

Bush's constant grandstanding on the graves of 3000+ dead U.S. citizens is really wearing thin with the American public. His speech last night is recieving criticism from both sides of the aisle for his gratuitous use of the 9/11 "trump card." It appears he presumes to speak for them every time he tries to link 9/11 with Iraq, when the reality is we will never know what they would have wanted, although I can BET they sure as hell would have rather have BIN LADEN captured as opposed to SADDAM!

You'd do your side a much bigger favor if you developed an argument based on more solvent grounds. Just because Bush has used 9/11 as a pre-text to invade Iraq doesn't mean the two events are linked. In fact, there is ample mounting evidence that Bush had already WANTED to invade Iraq and oust Saddam, irregardless of whether 9/11 had ever happened. These revelations completely undercut your (and the Bush Administration's) argument that 9/11 had anything to do with going to war with Iraq, and vice versa.


mrC

[JCL]

Good idea. Too bad starting a war only makes matters worse on all accounts.

And your solution is --?

It's pretty simple where to start: STOP SUPPORTING THE DESPOTS IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND ELSEWHERE!

We shouldn't have overthrown democratic movements in Iran to install the Shah.
We shouldn't have helped Saddam in his rise to power.
We shouldn't have helped keep Saddam in power when he was gassing his own people and waging war against Iran.
We shouldn't be supporting Saudi Arabia (over and over again).
We shouldn't be dependant on theocratic (Saudi Arabia, etc) or secular (Iraq) shitholes for so much of our energy needs.
We shouldn't have supported the worst elements of Afganistani resistance.

Don't you know that there is a reason why people scoff at Bush's fine words about freedom and democracy? The idea that the US supports freedom and democracy in the Middle East is a freakin' joke!

If we stopped supporting these ---daisies---, maybe their own people would demand changes. Saudi Arabia is just about the worst and the Bush's have a special relationship with them. The US has zero credibility in this area.

But you just don't get it do you? You seem so ignorant of history as to believe in crap when it is spoon fed to you.

Can you imagine what a couple of hundred billion dollars (and counting!) would do if invested in energy self-sufficiency? The US spends less than a percent of this on fusion research.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

APPLAUSE: The speech was interrupted once with applause. Soldiers also clapped at the end.

Not to add insult to injury...but that one and only applause line in the middle of the speech was staged. It was prompted by Bush White House Staffers in the back of the auditorium. Fox News, ABC, and NBC all reported this in their commentary after the speech.

From AmericaBlog:
"ABC's Terry Moran just reported that the only time Bush got applause was in the middle of his speech when a White House advance team member started clapping all on their own in order to cajole the soldiers into clapping, which they dutifully did."
mrC

[fredster]

MrC, you really ought to take your medication.  Really.

You rarely support anything you say with solid facts, and you - quite often - throw out blanket statements that have no bearing in reality, nor proof to back them up.

yeah? when?

I don't recall a direct link to 9/11 from Iraq in the arguments for the war in 2002 and 2003.  The so called "link" was a generalization of all terrorists and countries that support terrorists.  Remember the catch phrase from 2001 - "You are with us or the terrorists?".  Saddam was in fact supporting terrorists, that's fact and reiterated in the 9/11 commission report.  He was also supporting terrorists in Palestine.  Plus, he had the capablitity of sometime getting out of the box the UN put him in with the oil-for-food money.  Left unchecked, he would have been 100X the threat we thought he was with WMD.

Now get this - Bush is in until 2008.  The war is on. No amount of hindsight will change that. It's a done deal. 

Now where do we go from here? That's the issue isn't it? Rehashing this in every freaking thread over and over isn't helping anything. 

It's pretty simple where to start: STOP SUPPORTING THE DESPOTS IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND ELSEWHERE!

We shouldn't have overthrown democratic movements in Iran to install the Shah.
We shouldn't have helped Saddam in his rise to power.
We shouldn't have helped keep Saddam in power when he was gassing his own people and waging war against Iran.
We shouldn't be supporting Saudi Arabia (over and over again).
We shouldn't be dependant on theocratic (Saudi Arabia, etc) or secular (Iraq) shitholes for so much of our energy needs.
We shouldn't have supported the worst elements of Afganistani resistance.

I agree.  Too little too late though.  Each of these has a counter.
Carter should have supported the Shaw.  We have to support Saudi Arabia for the energy or we'll suffer more collapse.  Look at what gas prices have done to us just going up .60 in the last year.

We couldn't choose which despots to NOT support. We can't even NOT support N.Korea now.  We still send them money.

Each time we did one of these steps, it was for a reason. D or R, it was for a diplomatic / strategic reason. We still do it.  Who knows what will the ramifications of diplomacy would / will be with each zig and zag. 

[Dartful Dodger]

In fact, there is ample mounting evidence that Bush had already WANTED to invade Iraq and oust Saddam, irregardless of whether 9/11 had ever happened. These revelations completely undercut your (and the Bush Administration's) argument that 9/11 had anything to do with going to war with Iraq, and vice versa.

Dude you even put wanted in all caps.

[patrickl]

Remember the catch phrase from 2001 - "You are with us or the terrorists?".

[Dartful Dodger]

Bush might invade the US next!

Nope, everybody on this planet now knows not to mess with the US.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Nope, everybody on this planet now knows not to mess with the US.

*yawn*

[Dartful Dodger]

*yawn*

See, those of us that live in the great USA, can rest easy.

Thank you Bush.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Now get this - Bush is in until 2008.  The war is on. No amount of hindsight will change that. It's a done deal. 

You are definitely right about that, and you'd sure like it if he was never held accountable for anything, wouldn't you?



mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

*yawn*

See, those of us that live in the great USA, can rest easy.

Thank you Bush.

I still want to know when you plan on signing up to fight in Iraq? Do you have kids? Are they old enough to enlist? If so, why aren't they over there fighting your "good fight"?

Or do you prefer that other people's children die just to help you feel so smug?

[TOK]

[

I still want to know when you plan on signing up to fight in Iraq? Do you have kids? Are they old enough to enlist? If so, why aren't they over there fighting your "good fight"?

Or do you prefer that other people's children die just to help you feel so smug?

We do have a completely enlisted armed forces now, so these "Silver Spoon" arguments don't really carry much weight. Nobody who is there was drafted in against their will.
I had a friend come back from Iraq for a two week leave. There is something that you don't seem to hear in the news going on. The Iraqi police they are training and even civilians are thanking them for what they're doing. They are understanding they were supressed, and as bad as things are right now, there is hope for democracy there. This is nearly an every day occurrance.

[DrewKaree]

I'd imagine you just take everything he says at face value

Reading into what someone means or trying to read between the lines INSTEAD of taking someone's words at face value is best done only to other members of a forum that you belong to. 

See?

[DrewKaree]

I don't recall a direct link to 9/11 from Iraq in the arguments for the war in 2002 and 2003.  The so called "link" was a generalization of all terrorists and countries that support terrorists.  Remember the catch phrase from 2001 - "You are with us or the terrorists?". 

No need to recall.  I listened to it.  The war on terror started on 9/11.  The war is AGAINST terrorists who are commonly mislabeled "insurgents" for reasons unbeknownst to anyone.  A good lot of those terrorists were in or are coming into Iraq to fight their holy war against the infidel Americans and garner a special place with virgins aplenty. 

Saddam was in fact supporting terrorists, that's fact and reiterated in the 9/11 commission report.  He was also supporting terrorists in Palestine.  Plus, he had the capablitity of sometime getting out of the box the UN put him in with the oil-for-food money.  Left unchecked, he would have been 100X the threat we thought he was with WMD.

I'll put this up in case anyone missed it the last time:

"If Saddam Hussein fails to comply and we fail to act or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of sanctions and ignore the commitments he's made? Well, he will conclude that the international community's lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on doing more to build an arsenal of devastating destruction. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow. The stakes could not be higher. Some way, someday, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal." 

We couldn't choose which despots to NOT support....Each time we did one of these steps, it was for a reason. D or R, it was for a diplomatic / strategic reason. We still do it.  Who knows what will the ramifications of diplomacy would / will be with each zig and zag. 

Exactly.  Just think about it....if we had just left Hitler alone, perhaps we wouldn't have felt the need to build all those nukes to keep a step ahead of the Russians because they wouldn't have been our enemy we were worried about.

[DrewKaree]

I'll be drunk, since I'm playing the "Bush Speech Drinking Game."

A list of phrases to drink at every time they are uttered (please add to this list):

    * "democracy/liberty/freedom is on the march"
    * any scripted line that illicits the mandatory "Hoo Rah" or "Hooah" from the military backdrop.

mrC

When did the ideals this country was founded on become something to be derided, to be used in a "how can I get plastered through drinking" game?  It should upset you if he uses them in a way you detest, but to drink to the "idea" does nothing but demean the concepts and shows you lack imagination in your protest. 

Not to add insult to injury...but that one and only applause line in the middle of the speech was staged. It was prompted by Bush White House Staffers in the back of the auditorium. Fox News, ABC, and NBC all reported this in their commentary after the speech.

Please look back at the last time the President gave a speech.  Remember?  He was "all dolled up, obviously trying to create a photo-op moment" on a ship.  Ring a bell?  Go back and look at it.  Please report back to us about all the times he received applause (and when) during that speech as well.  The "hooah" lines weren't there either, but they're similar to liberal's "this is a quagmire" sound bites.  People use speeches to elicit a response from the audience they expect.  That speech had a purpose, this speech did as well.  That you don't understand the replies of the last speech from the soldiers simply means those points weren't meant for you.  In spite of that response, there still was something missing from that speech that happened in the speech the other night. 

To quote why:
"The military does not applaud during official speeches. The only reason they did is because they were led, but there is a protocol. They don't applaud. It is a sign of respect. This was not a rally. This was a presidential address."

I've been to a couple of "official speeches".  Certainly you have too, I'm thinking.  Somehow this never registered with you.  Perhaps while you were watching, you noticed something else as well.  I don't know your military background or knowledge of things military, but something should have STOOD OUT.

[JCL]

"If Saddam Hussein fails to comply ..."

Comply with what exactly? Ending his weapon programs? He did it. Allowing UN inspectors in? He did it. Cooperating with UN inspectors? He did it.


So what exactly is your point?

Did you fail to notice that the inspectors said they found no weapons of mass destruction? Did you fail to notice that Bush invaded anyways? Did you fail to notice that after tens of thousands of needless deaths, and billions of dollars of wasted money, no weapons of mass destruction were found?

[DrewKaree]

I still want to know when you plan on signing up to fight in Iraq? Do you have kids? Are they old enough to enlist? If so, why aren't they over there fighting your "good fight"?

Or do you prefer that other people's children die just to help you feel so smug?

You should be thankful that other people's children died for your right to speak out against our government.

What you miss is that none of those people signed up to fight in Iraq.  They signed up to serve their country.  What difference would it make if he had signed up? Would it make his sacrifice, and therefore his words, somehow more valid to be put forth than yours?  Fredster has served his country, and I'm betting tall cash he's felt smug a few times in his responses to you.  Does that make you the inferior one in that matchup?

The same question can be posed to you, and have the exact same non-meaning.  Why aren't you signing up to serve in Iraq?  Do you have kids? Are they old enough to enlist? If so, are they over there fighting to help the formerly-oppressed people enjoy the freedoms you enjoy here in America?

Or do you not appreciate that other people's children died so you can speak out against your government, something Iraqi's weren't able to do until those soldiers came to help them out?  It must be nice to feel so smug thinking Iraq was somehow safer with Sadaam there.
 
See how it works?  Nothing meaningful, only designed to splatter upon contact. 

[DrewKaree]

"If Saddam Hussein fails to comply ..."

Comply with what exactly? Ending his weapon programs? He did it. Allowing UN inspectors in? He did it. Cooperating with UN inspectors? He did it.

So what exactly is your point?

Oh, that's not my point.  You should try to read it with a less jaded eye.  I simply re-quoted the statement.

Did you fail to notice that the inspectors said they found no weapons of mass destruction? Did you fail to notice that Bush invaded anyways? Did you fail to notice that after tens of thousands of needless deaths, and billions of dollars of wasted money, no weapons of mass destruction were found?

What I've failed to notice is the part where you tell us the reasons Bush gave for going to war against Sadaam Hussein.  I HAVE noticed that you and others like you continue to focus on two primary objects.  WMD's and oil. 

Look for Bush's speech to the American people where he gave the reasons (that's PLURAL, as in "more than one") for going to war.  Let us know what it says.  Try to avoid reading between the lines, or if you are, try reading my gas receipts before you tell me some other "third gunman on the grassy knoll" crock of another "war for oil".

You want to put "step 12" at the top of the line and rewrite history.  That's fine in your world, but reality has provided you with transcripts of the actual story.

[JCL]

What exact speech are you refering to, Drew?

The pre-war speeches focused primarilly on WMDs. And they also tried to imply links between Al-Qeda and Iraq that our own intelligence community doesn't believe in. And contained bogus stuff like talk of aluminum tubes that were known to be for rockets. And contained other BS about reconstituted weapons programs etc.

So where's the speach where Bush concentrated on all those other reasons? You know, those reasons that weren't based on falsehoods?

Here's quite a few speeches, press releases and conferences. They almost all focus in great majority, if not exclusively on illegal weapons that didn't exist:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020926-7.html
Right before the invasion. All WMDs all the time.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030316-1.html
Main thrust is weapons, but it has this gem:
"Iraq must never again be a haven for terrorists of any kind." It wasn't before, it is now.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030308-1.html
Weapons are main justification, again.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030304-11.html
Forcus is on weapons, again.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html
Here's a good quote from this one "Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed". Hahaha.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-17.html
Key quote: "Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly -- yet, our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder." Reluctantly must mean something different on planet Bush.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030226-11.html
Main thrust (first and recurring point) is WMDs.
"In Iraq, a dictator is building and hiding weapons that could enable him to dominate the Middle East and intimidate the civilized world -- and we will not allow it. "

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030306-8.html
Main point is that Iraq has WMDs and refuses to disarm. As a funny aside, I have to mention that Bush downplays the threat of North Korea as a "reagional issue". Somehow Iraq without WMDs is global, yet North Korea with nuclear weapons and very long range missles is not. Odd that.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021016-1.html

Focuses on WMDs: "Either the Iraqi regime will give up its weapons of mass destruction, or, for the sake of peace, the United States will lead a global coalition to disarm that regime."
and:
"The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace. On the commands of a dictator, the regime is armed with biological and chemical weapons, possesses ballistic missiles, promotes international terror and seeks nuclear weapons."


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020129-11.html
Tries to tie Iraq and WMDs to terrorism.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020907-2.html
WMDs, WMDs, WMDs. Plus a cameo from PM Blair.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020914.html
At least twice as much about weapons as anything else.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020918-1.html
Weapons, again.

I could go on and on. The main thrust of Bush's pre-invasion rhetoric was that Iraq was a threat due to WMDs and ties to terrorism. Iraq didn't have WMDs and is less tied to terrorism than our great ally (and longtime friends to the Bush Family) Saudi Arabia.

So where is this speech that focused on all the other reasons to invade?

And no cheating by using speeches from after the invasion. That would be historical revisionism.

[DrewKaree]

And they also tried to imply links between Al-Qeda and Iraq that our own intelligence community doesn't believe in.

Doesn't, or didn't?  There's a big difference, seeing as how we have the benefit of hindsight now.  They certainly DID believe links brought up by our own intelligence agencies that led them to believe there were ties between Al-Qaeda and Iraq.  The papers were littered with them, there were TV shows regarding them, and the Iraqi's in position to know better about such things would not be dissuaded by reporters to say otherwise.  You're speaking from hindsight, rather than looking at what was happening at the time.  If you believe they DIDN'T, see if there's some way you can go back in time.  America needs someone like you who can see the future to avoid those pesky World Wars.

Key quote: "Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly -- yet, our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder." Reluctantly must mean something different on planet Bush.
Main thrust is weapons, but it has this gem:
"Iraq must never again be a haven for terrorists of any kind." It wasn't before, it is now.

What is "reluctantly" defined as by you so that sentence in its context means something different?  Are you trying to imply that Bush has a hard-on to get American's killed, or did you want to let us know the end of that statement?  Also, do you have a clue what a "haven" means?  You speak of Bush's otherworldy definition of words, yet don't seem to have a good grasp of the English language yourself.

I could go on and on. The main thrust of Bush's pre-invasion rhetoric was that Iraq was a threat due to WMDs and ties to terrorism. Iraq didn't have WMDs and is less tied to terrorism than our great ally (and longtime friends to the Bush Family) Saudi Arabia.

Without fail, you ignore the fact that the only thing the media was concerned with were WMD's and was ONLY focused on knowing what/how much/where they were, ignore the fact that intelligence agencies worldwide believed him to hold them, had used them on his own people (which even YOU should be able to agree would demonstrate he had them), and were investigating links that even the 9/11 commission couldn't/wouldn't dismiss, as fredster's pointed out to you, and finally, somehow ignore the fact that Sadaam was being given (by your own links) day after day after day after day for "just one more chance to demonstrate that he was disarmed/disarming. 

This wasn't some game of chicken, although Sadaam must have thought so, given the repeated warnings time and again by the previous administration.  The "re-quote" I gave you above is from Bill Clinton.  What'd he feel had to be done?  How'd he feel about FAILING TO ACT?  It's precisely why Sadaam took his country down the path he did.  Funny thing is, it's worked and is working out better for his former country.

"If Saddam Hussein fails to comply and we fail to act or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of sanctions and ignore the commitments he's made? Well, he will conclude that the international community's lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on doing more to build an arsenal of devastating destruction. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow. The stakes could not be higher. Some way, someday, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal."

Failing to act, failing to respond will simply embolden those who would do exactly what he did to continue to do so.  Seeing him use his weapons on his own people, listening to him speak of destroying America, listening to him speak of inflicting harm to our country.....how you can use hindsight to tell us "I told you so" is beyond me, and is a prime example of why Sadaam needed to be taken out.  It must suck to see someone like Bush who believes in what he is doing and has the conviction to carry it out, knowing American's would die in order to free Iraq, and having the misguided notion that he wouldn't do so with "reluctance". 

THREE of your links give you reasons, there's still a BETTER link out there, yet you seem to only be looking for words that start with "WMD".  Try reading carefully.  He's spoken more than once about the reasons.  Perhaps once you see 'em you'll see how the press couldn't seem to get off of their WMD jag either.  Here's an idea for you.  Find the "on my orders" speech and work backwards, that way you'll be able to see it wasn't after we declared war.  Even in that speech, Bush speaks of the hopes of Iraqi's resting on our troops.  Perhaps try looking for something positive.  It may change your outlook.  Evidently you care somewhat in order to look, so either it'll hit you like a ton of bricks, or you'll just keep choosing to ignore it and pass over it searching for "WMD bwaaak".  Ignore it if you want to, and ignore what every question of him was at the time, but the reasons were given, they were given before we went to war, they were given multiple times, and diplomatic solutions were tried YET AGAIN (Clinton said WHAT about failing to act?) and Sadaam brought his little empire down around his feet.

[patrickl]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030306-8.html
Main point is that Iraq has WMDs and refuses to disarm. As a funny aside, I have to mention that Bush downplays the threat of North Korea as a "reagional issue". Somehow Iraq without WMDs is global, yet North Korea with nuclear weapons and very long range missles is not. Odd that.

You know, that's what scares me too about this whole dumb invasion. I looks like Bush et al are scared of North Korea because it does have nuclear weapons. So what do you think countries who dislike the US are gonna build? Yep you got it, nuclear weapons.

So we have now got a new breeding ground for terrorists (they can actually train on the real thing!), a region wide hatred of the US and governments racing to build nukes. Much good must come of that. It's amazing that 90% of the world population cannot see why this is all for the greater good.

[patrickl]

Without fail, you ignore the fact that the only thing the media was concerned with were WMD's and was ONLY focused on knowing what/how much/where they were, ignore the fact that intelligence agencies worldwide believed him to hold them, had used them on his own people (which even YOU should be able to agree would demonstrate he had them), and were investigating links that even the 9/11 commission couldn't/wouldn't dismiss, as fredster's pointed out to you, and finally, somehow ignore the fact that Sadaam was being given (by your own links) day after day after day after day for "just one more chance to demonstrate that he was disarmed/disarming.

[Dexter]

For every person killed on 9/11 as a result of a terrorist attack by Al Quaida, there are at least 35 dead innocents in Iraq, a country that never attacked the US, was no threat to the US and had no connections to Al Quaida prior to its invasion by the US.

The Bush regiemes actions in their name has desecrated the memories of every single person who died on 9/11 and soaked their graves in the blood of dead women and children. For him to still toe the line that there was a connection even dispite his own administration confirming there was none is a further insult to them. Parading Saddam around like they caught the culprit responsible does the same.

Dexter

[fredster]

We wouldn't know about the WMD if we didn't go in would we?

Every country agreed before the war that Saddam had WMD.  The intel pointed to it from multiple countries.

Can one of you explain to me why Blair went along with this and why his country also had intel that said Saddam had WMD?

[Dexter]

Simple, there was intel both confirming and disproving that there was WMDs there. However, instead of doing what is normally done and taking ALL intel into account to give a clearer overall picture, the British and american governments chose to ignore what didn't back the case for an invasion, and 'sexed up' what did. Same as after 9/11 the way the FBI/CIA were told to find a link between the disaster and Iraq, the fact there was none was a minor inconvenience that the bush regieme didn't want to know about.

You can't pick and choose intel to suit your war plans and expect it to stand up to scrutiny.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

We wouldn't know about the WMD if we didn't go in would we?

Yes we would, if Bush would have allowed inspections to continue instead of rushing to war.

Every country agreed before the war that Saddam had WMD.

[JCL]

Drew --

You still didn't show me the speeches where weapons weren't the main thrust of the argument for war.

Many people thought that Iraq had already disarmed before the war, including UN inspectors who were actaully in Iraq.

You can claim that everyone believed in these weapons, but that doesn't make it true no matter how many times you repeat it. You are just trying to frame the debate by assertion of a falsehood.

Why do you believe that everyone thought these weapons existed? Even the CIA had doubts: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17211-2005Mar31.html.

The links between Iraq and Al Queda were controversial (to say the least) long before the invasion. There were several antebellum reports from the CIA that indicated that they couldn't find a clear link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. Here's a news article on this:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,12875384%5E1702,00.html

As far as reluctantly goes, Bush was pushing to overthrow Saddam on the campaign trail. He wanted Saddam gone, he was far from reluctant. He just needed to rationalize it, regardless of the facts.

So who is being revisionist here?

[patrickl]

Dear lord, people still belief that "every country knew Iraq had WMD" before the invasion? Did you miss the UN hearing on the matter?

Rumsfeld said the US KNEW where the WMD's were. The inspectors went there (completely unhindered) and found NOTHING! They even used scanners that could detect if WMD where ever there before. In fact those searches proofed there would be no WMD found ever.

Poor old Colin Powell was sent to the UN to tell a tale of how the WMD where moved and all the ground beneath them was moved also. The world (apart from some people in the US and Blair) did not belief there were WMD so they dismissed this story.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Another thing these revisionists seem to forget is that almost all the evidence used in the "slam dunk!" WMD case against Iraq came from Ahmed Chalabi (an alleged Iranian spy) and an informant named "Curveball", whom the German intelligence agencies warned was famous for fabricating evidence.

So "NO" not everyone believe in the WMD claims, in fact, plenty of people warned this administration that they didn't have a case.

The Bush Admin then laid the blame on the CIA, but we all know about undercover CIA operative Valeria Plame, right? She is the wife of Ambassador Joe Wilson, and she worked the WMD desk in the CIA. Her husband stood up against this administration's lies about WMD (Niger "Yellowcake") and she was subsequently "outed" in retaliation. So don't tell me that this admin didn't KNOW they were fixing the intel, when they in fact punished the agents for telling them what they didn't want to hear.

Anyhow, today we are one step closer to unraveling this revisionism because Time Magazine was agreed to cooperate in the Plame case. It's unfortunate that it's at the expense of a "free" press, but that's the sort of situation this administration has put our country in.

It's all in the links I've provided. "Boo!" - the sky is purple, be sure to bury your head deeply in the sand!!!


mrC

[fredster]

I'm done with this thread boys.  Have a happy life.

[Dartful Dodger]

I'm done with this thread boys.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

There's a good chance Bush's latest speech may have strengthened the tide against the war...are most people (excluding the Spider-hole hold-outs like Dartful) getting tired of Bush's empty rhetoric?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/29/AR2005062902585.html

The author of this article, Richard Cohen, was a fervent war supporter, that is, until today.

mrC

[DrewKaree]

Drew --

You still didn't show me the speeches where weapons weren't the main thrust of the argument for war.

You've posted 3 of them yourself.  I'll give you the one I refer to shortly.  It's interesting to see all the "It's WMD's" talk.

You can claim that everyone believed in these weapons, but that doesn't make it true no matter how many times you repeat it. You are just trying to frame the debate by assertion of a falsehood.

That's the difference between those who believe in what we are doing in Iraq ("my side") and those who continue to speak about WMD's as the sole reason we invaded ("your side").  I'm not framing the debate, I simply listened to what happened, read what was done leading up to war, and realize that even Bill Clinton knew and told us what had to be done, but no one was willing to do what needed to be done until the decision was put to Bush.  I also can see that the groups of people who haven't been able to remember their very own words can't help but fall all over themselves trying to ignore what happened, what was going on at the time, and the decisions they made. 

As far as reluctantly goes, Bush was pushing to overthrow Saddam on the campaign trail. He wanted Saddam gone, he was far from reluctant. He just needed to rationalize it, regardless of the facts.

Wow!  I guess it's hard to argue with such rationa....."facts".  I'll lay it out for you tomorrow, but reading that, I hold no hopes you'll actually pay attention.  You've already passed over several reasons repeatedly given in links you gave us, and your comments above lead me to believe that you think Bush was willing to kill American soldiers to settle some "personal score".  Presuming to know someone's thought process (and ESPECIALLY in the case of sending thousands of Americans to war) is the height of arrogance and can't be reasoned with.  I'll lay it out for you, and you can go on with those ideas, as they aren't worth debating.

So who is being revisionist here?

I'd have to say the guy who thinks he knows what other people are thinking and can't see that WMD's not only weren't the sole reason, but weren't the main reason. 

[DrewKaree]

....and soaked their graves in the blood of dead women and children.

and on and on and on and on and on.

Be sure to pass along your facts to any of the middle-easterners you run into who are contemplating strapping yet another bomb to themselves or leaving a truck loaded with explosives and heading into an area where they are guaranteed to kill more middle-eastern women, children, and elderly.

You forgot the elderly, Dexter.  Make sure you get them in there too.  Your semi-emotional appeal to us all attempting to tug on our heartstrings about "the poor women and children" rings hollow since your silence seems to say it's ok for the middle-eastern folks to kill the Iraqi women and children, just not 'mercans.  A choice to use the women and children's death in Iraq is the choice of a a coward, be it a terrorist suicide bomber, or someone whose points don't carry enough weight to stand on their own.  See what else you can come up with.  You've turned "all the (dead/blood/lives/goriness) women and children over there" into a hackneyed phrase - kudos for doing exactly that which you claim to detest.

[JCL]

You've posted 3 of them yourself.

[Dexter]

An interesting graphic. Couple this with the US now having a proper powerbase in the middle east to keep the neocon agenda happy and you can see why operation eye-raqi freedom(tm) has been such a 'success'

[Grasshopper]

The reason why the WMD line was pushed so hard was not just to sell the war to the British and American people but because without WMDs Saddam and his (alleged) Al-Qaeda friends could not possibly be a credible threat to any western european country let alone the United States. Actually, he probably wasn't a threat even if he had WMDs but that's another story.

If he's not a threat to us then the (preemptive) self-defence argument cannot be used and the invasion is thus blatantly illegal under international law. Clearly Bush and his supporters don't give a damn about international law. But Blair has a big problem because many people in his own party still believe in International Law. Also, the UK has signed up to the International Criminal Court so it's theoretically possible (although highly unlikely) that Blair could one day be tried as a war criminal.

[Dexter]

...it's theoretically possible (although highly unlikely) that Blair could one day be tried as a war criminal.

On that day, I hope George Galloway is in charge of the proceedings

[DrewKaree]

Let

[DrewKaree]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020918-1.html

We also talked about Iraq. We talked about the fact that Saddam Hussein has stiffed the United Nations for 11 long years, and that, once again, he said -- made some kind of statement, trying to take the pressure off of himself. This statement about unconditional inspections was something he's made in the past. He deceives, he delays, he denies. And the United States, and I'm convinced, the world community, aren't going to fall for that kind of rhetoric on -- by him again.

[DrewKaree]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020917-8.html
In case you missed it or want to somehow paint Sadaam as someone who was a bastion of truth that CERTAINLY wouldn

[DrewKaree]

This one

[JCL]

Drew --

Only one of your links work for me. And that document mentions the word Iraq *once* and does so in the context of ... WMDs.

Your other quotes show Bush discussing weapons more than any other reason for war. So without reading between the lines (which you say is bad), the reasonable conclusion is that illegal weapons were Bush's main reason to go to war.

Thanks for proving my point that illegal weapons were the main reason Bush gave for going to war.


Paragraph by paragraph of your quotes:

WMDs
freedom
WMDs

Terrorism
Terrorism
WMDs

WMDs
Threat to Peace (how so without weapons?)
Repression/Terrorism/WMDs

Threat to Peace
Pows/illicit trade/WMDs
WMDs
WMDs
Terrorism/repression/WMDs

Now the biggie, your quotes about the timeline:

WMDs
WMDs
WMDs
WMDs
WMDs
WMDs
WMDs
WMDs
WMDs
WMDs
WMDs
WMDs
WMDs
WMDs
WMDs
and on and on, it's all WMDs, all the time in this quote, and it's a big'en

The last one that you make the most of does start out without as much WMD talk:
Human Dignity/dictatorship/security
terrorism/WMDs
Human Dignity/dictatorship/security/agression
aggression (history of, Iraq invading Kuwait)
broken treaties/terms of cease fire
repression
repression
POWs
Terrorism

but by paragraph 11, it's almost all WMD talk:

WMDs
WMDs
WMDs
WMDs
WMDs
WMDs
sanctions/weapons/repression
WMDs
WMDs
WMDs
WMDs
repression/aggression/freedom/WMDs
democracy
dangers

So even this quote has much more WMD talk than anything else.

So it is very clear, if one is honest, that Bush pushed the WMD line far far more than any other justification for war. That makes it the *main* justification by a large margin, based on Bush's and his peoples own words.

Oh, and nice strawman claiming that people are saying that Bush gave no other reason for war. Nice (dishonest) way to once again try to frame the debate with falsehoods. I claimed that WMDs were the primary justification. Once again, thanks for providing quotes that prove my point for me.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

 
To say that this admin did not use WMD as the primary justification for invading Iraq is one of the most blatantly ignorant things I ever heard. When you mention this fact, the offending Bush supporter will usually follow with, "But everybody thought he had WMD!"...which, to me, proves just how much hype the notion of WMD's was given in the run-up to the war.

Drew knows that WMD was the primary reason, he's just playing games at this point.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

It

[JCL]

Drew knows that WMD was the primary reason, he's just playing games at this point.

And the weird part is that he is so incredibly bad at his game. His quotes went very far in proving my point that WMDs were the main justification given by Bush et al for the war. He didn't even provide quotes that even supported his point (WMDs weren't the main reason) even out of context!

[patrickl]

Drew knows that WMD was the primary reason, he's just playing games at this point.

And the weird part is that he is so incredibly bad at his game. His quotes went very far in proving my point that WMDs were the main justification given by Bush et al for the war. He didn't even provide quotes that even supported his point (WMDs weren't the main reason) even out of context!

Trouble with Drew is that he gets his information from propaganda sites. Propaganda is where the facts get raped by opinons and by taking them out of context.

I'm amazed you guys (JCL and mr.Curmudgeon) take the time to reply to all the "It's not just about the WMD" and "Everyone thought Sadam had WMD" stuff and even the random burps dartful puts out.

[JCL]

Drew knows that WMD was the primary reason, he's just playing games at this point.

And the weird part is that he is so incredibly bad at his game. His quotes went very far in proving my point that WMDs were the main justification given by Bush et al for the war. He didn't even provide quotes that even supported his point (WMDs weren't the main reason) even out of context!

Trouble with Drew is that he gets his information from propaganda sites. Propaganda is where the facts get raped by opinons and by taking them out of context.

I'm amazed you guys (JCL and mr.Curmudgeon) take the time to reply to all the "It's not just about the WMD" and "Everyone thought Sadam had WMD" stuff and even the random burps dartful puts out.

To be fair, it wasn't "just about the WMD". Don't justify Drew's strawman arguments by making this absolute statement.  But WMDs were the main reason given, even according to Drew's selective quotes.

I agree that the "everyone thought" is totally bogus and easily debunked.

[DrewKaree]

Drew --

Only one of your links work for me.

Copy and paste them then.  For whatever reason, they aren't working properly with the board.  Thanks for letting me know.  I'll simply post the URL's then.

Your other quotes show Bush discussing weapons more than any other reason for war. So without reading between the lines (which you say is bad), the reasonable conclusion is that illegal weapons were Bush's main reason to go to war.

It's as I thought.  I'm fine with you not reading what's said.  I'll continue to show it to you, though.  I'll even highlight items that should make things apparent.  You keep on skipping over it if it helps.  I may even draft a resolution you agree to and violate millions of times.  You'll even be able to go MORE than 12 years ignoring them.  There's even a few more months to go when the larger case starts to become apparent - that Sadaam's going to be continuing the same way, and a few other reasons why removing him will become the best thing that ever happened to Iraq. 

Trouble with Drew is that he gets his information from propaganda sites. Propaganda is where the facts get raped by opinons and by taking them out of context.

Are you relying on Dexter's "unbiased media" as well?  I know it's hard to follow what's been going on, but JCL used the exact same site I'm pulling from.  Which one of us is lying when we draw from the site "where facts get raped by opinions and by taking them out of context"?  I know it pains you to read my thoughtful essays, but you'll have to do a LITTLE reading of what's actually going on.  We both pulled from Bush's ACTUAL WORDS QUOTED FROM SPEECH AFTER SPEECH AFTER SPEECH!  Labeling our site we both are debating from is to make BOTH sides invalid, unless somehow *gasp!* you were wrong!

Try to follow what's going on Patrick.  Put the bong down and look at what's being said instead of giving the knee-jerk "his stuff is wrong because he's on the other side and I don't believe him".  You just made yourself look like a maroon claiming JCL's site is "propaganda"....but of course you didn't realize that, I'm guessing.  I'd edit if I were you, your ignorance is showing. 

[JCL]

Wow. You really seem to miss the point. Inspectors were looking for WMDs.

So any justification based on inspections is based on WMDs. And Violating the resolutions is 90% about weapons with some minor other reasons. So every time you bring up resolutions and inspections, you are still showing that Bush was mostly using WMDs as justification for war.

[DrewKaree]

Drew --

Only one of your links work for me. And that document mentions the word Iraq *once* and does so in the context of ... WMDs.

Don't know which one it was that worked for you, but the comprehension part seems to be what's not working.  I'll try to use your simplified "fact chart" for you.

Paragraph by paragraph of your my quotes:

WMDs comply with U.N. resolutions - you're a threat to peace if you don't
freedomNo credibility if you fail to act.  We will.  Follow our lead
WMDsNo negotiations.  12 years of negotiations haven't worked.  Sadaam can't be trusted.  Failure to comply with U.N. resolutions has resulted in inaction against him.


Terrorism small groups of people can cause the U.S. big problems - death even!
TerrorismAmerica will hold accountable nations (like Iraq) that work with terrorist groups
WMDsWe can't defend America hoping for the best (such as "Iraq isn't lying to us")  In order to assure peace and security, we must ACT (such as removing a lying dictator who won't comply with a dozen years of resolutions)

WMDs Look closely.  The words "weapons" or "weapon", "mass", or "destruction" DON'T EVEN APPEAR IN THE PARAGRAPH!  HOW CAN YOU SAY YOU ARE NOT FIXATED ON WMD'S?!?!?!?
 
And it reads about failure to comply with resolutions. Actions identical in the past (deception, delaying, denying) Bush is convinced the U.N. can't be so ignorant as to let this continue to go on 

Threat to Peace (how so without weapons?)defying the U.N. resolutions is how.  Making it seem as if dealing with Sadaam in direct contradiction of the sanctions and resolutions is "just fiiiiiiiiine, man!"  BTW, kudos.  First one you've gotten right, although it comes after something that showed your fervor for WMD's
Repression/Terrorism/WMDsspeculation about other nations and their refusal to finally take a stand on the resolutions they passed.  continued failure to comply with the resolutions.  Unreasonable dude, is Sadaam.  Sadaam's demonstrated he's willing to threaten peace (remember the above question of yours?)  And FINALLY....WMD's - development.  Or let me guess, you believe him that he wasn't?

I don't have the time to go through each of your "assessments" of what's going on.  The fact that you can claim something is purely WMD's when there isn't even a mention of ANY combination of the words or phrases such as you did in above should make you realize you're only looking for WMD's, could care less about anything else BUT WMD's, and aren't reading any of Bush's words with anything CLOSE to concern with what was actually said.

As I said, I'll continue to give the information, and there's a wealth of it, for those who don't have a hard-on for WMD's and can realize there was nothing the news was talking about (framing the issue to sell bad news, what reporting is generally about) BUT WMD's, and can honestly take the time to read what's put down and debate the issues (telling two opposing sides pulling their info from the same places that only ONE side is getting its info from that place because it's raping the facts via opinion comes to mind)

[DrewKaree]

Drew --

You still didn't show me the speeches where weapons weren't the main thrust of the argument for war.

In spades, I am. 

What exact speech are you refering to, Drew?

The pre-war speeches focused primarilly on WMDs.

Indeed, they did not, and I've only gotten through September '02. 

"If Saddam Hussein fails to comply ..."

Comply with what exactly? Ending his weapon programs? He did it. Allowing UN inspectors in? He did it. Cooperating with UN inspectors? He did it.

That was from Bill Clinton.  Failure to comply with the U.N. resolutions.  If you honestly believe he was allowing U.N. inspectors free and unfettered access to do their inspections, both then, and leading up to the war, you're delusional.  Cooperation?  I've just given a small snippet (there's more!) of the tactics Sadaam has used, and you still can't see?  You're STILL going to go with "he's complying with the resolution"?

Wow. You really seem to miss the point. Inspectors were looking for WMDs.

Sadly, no.  The point YOU need to fixate on for whatever reason as the justification for war was WMD's.  If someone's not obtuse, the reason, the justification for war is Sadaam's refusal to comply with the U.N. resolution, and finally having to face the consequences for failing to allow the world free and unfettered access to ascertain exactly what was going on in Iraq.  Based on reports by those inspection teams of things Sadaam was trying to HIDE, we had no reason to believe anything Sadaam had to say, and therefore required compliance with the resolution.  The reason for going to war is that Bush stated what had to be done, Sadaam thought he was dealing with Clinton or Bush's dad again, and figured since he was able to so freely violate the sanctions, abuse the program designed to help the Iraqi people, and had done so with impunity, he was dealing with someone who would fold like the rest, instead of someone who is a man of his convictions, a man whose word (when he says he's going to do something, he damn sure is going to do something) means something.  Thus far, Bush is giving him a chance to avoid war by complying with the resolutions.  We'll get to the other things Bush will lay out shortly.   There's only 5 months to war.  Don't worry, this will "rush" on by

[JCL]

So you really think inspections were a seperate issue from WMDs? What do you think the inspectors were looking for?

And you really thiink that violations of resolutions in 1998 are grounds for invasion in 2003 when Iraq was in compliance in 2003? Wow. Inspectors in 2003 were saying that Iraq was cooperating and they couldn't find WMDs. They were saying that Iraq wasn't hiding things in 2003. And after many thousands of deaths and hundreds of billions of dollars later, Bush agrees.

You can't possibly be stupid enough to belive that inspections weren't related to WMDs and you can't possibly not know that the resolutions Bush discusses are almost all WMD related.

You win. You have demonstrated that you will post clear falsehoods in response to evidence and facts. Good going.

[DrewKaree]

And you really thiink that violations of resolutions in 1998 are grounds for invasion in 2003 when Iraq was in compliance in 2003?

I'm guessing you're not down with facts.  Have you heard of Resolution 1441?  Adopted at Security Council meeting 4644, November 8, 2002?  Resolution 1382 from November 29, 2001?  Resolution 1284 from December 17, 1999?

No, I'm not talking about violating resolutions from 1998.  Only.  I'm talking about repeated violations of resolutions over YEARS, including, and up to, months prior to war.  I'm surprised you think this is about something that's simply 5 years old at that point.  It's almost as if you think Sadaam has been a model boy scout since 1998.  I simply stopped giving you demonstrations of violations of resolution after resolution at 1998. 

Wow. Inspectors in 2003 were saying that Iraq was cooperating and they couldn't find WMDs. They were saying that Iraq wasn't hiding things in 2003.

I've got to inform you you're wrong again.  Cooperation means something different to you than it does me, clearly.  From May of '03, we get to see what "cooperation" looked like, Iraqi-style.

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2003_07-08/inspectors_julaug03.asp

 The Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein continually stated that it had destroyed all of its prohibited weapons. However, Iraq

[patrickl]

Oh, and Patrick, in case you missed that little point right there, "with resolution 1441...Iraq was declared in material breach", certainly would seem to imply that those voting for the resolution would believe Iraq had WMD's.

Come on man that material breach thing was completely bogus. They told Iraq to prove  (in a short time) that they destroyed all WMD related materials and when they couldn't prove that, Bush declared that proved that he had them. Try that in a US court and see how far you get.

Actually that was the point they made in the propaganda speeches. In the political arena they just tried to get Iraq on a technicality (material breach).

The fact still is that Iraq was complying more than ever before. The inspectors where looking around unhindered and they couldn't find the WMD.

But again we are digressing. Not complying to some minor UN resolutions is no reason to go to war. In fact the UN did not agree to this invasion. So maybe try another angle again to divert us away from the real issue?

Seriously Drew, I appreciate that you are trying to actullly find facts now, but since you obviously missed the real story when it happened it seems you are missing the bigger picture (while you are now trying to piece it all together).

[DrewKaree]

Come on man that material breach thing was completely bogus.

Case closed then.  It's a wrap.  Patrick says the group of people we were supposed to get "permission" from before we went to war wrote some thing that's "completely bogus".  Nice argument

They told Iraq to prove  (in a short time) that they destroyed all WMD related materials and when they couldn't prove that, Bush declared that proved that he had them. Try that in a US court and see how far you get.

I'm not sure if 12 years qualifes as a short time, and I don't know if the statute of limitations would apply

Actually that was the point they made in the propaganda speeches. In the political arena they just tried to get Iraq on a technicality (material breach).

The fact still is that Iraq was complying more than ever before. The inspectors where looking around unhindered and they couldn't find the WMD.

If by "more than ever before" you mean "less than what's wanted" I'd say you were correct.  You might want to look at links that might help you before you prattle on.  Inspectors requested interviews with 51 inspectors, got THIRTEEN that Iraq allowed.  You probably ALSO missed the part where their U.N.-required declarations "NEVER provided an adequate accounting of Baghdad

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Just so we are clear, Drew....you are saying that you believe the citizens of the United States of America, agreed with this administrations desire to go to war with Iraq....because they were told that we needed to stop Saddam because he repeatedly violated U.N. resolutions?

That's it. You believe that? That was enough of a threat? And if it *was* enough of a threat, why were we told it was enough of a threat?

[patrickl]

Sorry Drew, I have offered plenty of facts. Just no superfluous links.

Let me just point out one thing. Bush tried to get an OK for his much wanted war (and yes you need that if you intend to undertake a war, beacuse if not you are just as much an agressor) and he did not get it. It's pretty simple.

[JCL]

Drew --

Out of context quoting and quotes from months before the war don't convince me that Iraq wasn't cooperating when the US invaded. Iraq was actively cooperating by the time of the invasion.

Who says so? Hans Blix:

When on January 27, I denounced Iraq in the Security Council of the UN for not cooperating in an immediate, complete and unconditional way to fulfill the terms of resolution 1441, the American Government, including the hawks, applauded me. However, it was a great paradox, because from then on, the Government of Iraq began to cooperate actively. And then the Americans began to criticize me.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2003/0409lostpatience.htm

So your talk of lack of cooperation is clearly called untrue by the guy who lead inspections.

Legally, the only group that can determine that Iraq is in breach of UN resolutions is the UN. And clearly the UN didn't make that determination by the end of March.  And the person who was closest to the situation said Iraq was cooperating actively.

But Bush knew better than inspectors that weapons existed, and knew better than the UN that Iraq was violating international law. Judge, jury and executioner all in one.

And thanks once again for providing more and more evidence that it Bush's (and now your) primary justification for war was WMD. Doesn't all this talk of resolutions (about WMDs) and Inspections (for WMDs) start to show you that Bush push WMDs as justification more than any other reason?

Of course, we all now know these weapons didn't exist when Bush invaded.

Here's some hypothetical questions for you:

We now know (even Bush agrees) that Iraq had disarmed before the invasion. If you had known that before the war, would you have supported going to war anyways?

And without these weapons, and without a UN resolution authorizing force, would the war have been legal?

[Dexter]

Its only when you look at the Iraq invasion from the PNACer perspective and refer to the graphic I posted earlier in this thread that operation iraqi freedom (tm) makes sense, i.e. don't take 'minor' inconveniences like no WMDs and no 45 minute strike capabilities into account.

It was never about any of those things, or 9/11. The invasion of Iraq was planned before the post 9/11 war on terror began.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

To me, these few quotes from Paul Wolfowitz pretty much sum up the dishonesty inherent in this administration.

"The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason..." [link]

...

[BOWDEN]

[DrewKaree]

I'll be back with you guys shortly.  Brother-in-law is in from out of town unexpectedly for the week and I can only fit short inane replies in here and there.  The longer ones will have to wait.

[Dartful Dodger]

If you guys are so against torture, why do you keep replying to this thread?