PDA

View Full Version : Bush lied, Bush lied, Bush lied !!!!!!



Bobbyrx
01-09-2007, 04:55 PM
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from USA but, what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy(stuffed pants) Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions, (including, if appropriate,
air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

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

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

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998.
We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities.
Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated
the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his
chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep.
Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002


"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan.23.2003

moblsv
01-09-2007, 05:12 PM
looks like containment worked

pooltchr
01-09-2007, 08:40 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bobbyrx:</font><hr>


"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from USA but, what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy(stuffed pants) Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions, (including, if appropriate,
air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

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

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

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998.
We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities.
Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated
the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his
chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep.
Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002


"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan.23.2003
<hr /></blockquote>

Yeah, but it's all because Bush lied to them. Oh, wait! Some of these comments are dated prior to GW being elected!
Maybe Gayle can help us understand. Surely, all these Democrats knew what they were talking about when they made these statements. It's odd how their stories change. Seems their newest enemy is GW.
Steve

Gayle in MD
01-10-2007, 08:20 AM
You guys are amazing. If you had taken the time to learn about what the President was being told before he decided to make this HUGE mistakie, and how he twisted the information, you'd understand, that under our Constitution, and the decades old international agreements we have signed, George Bush, with the help of Dick Cheney, and Condoleeza Rice, expanded the worst case scenarios, and diminished those stating that Saddam didn't have those weapons, and wouldn't be inclined to use them against the US, even if he had them. IOW, in spite of all the hoopla about Mushroom Clouds and WMD's, the majority of experts on Iraq, did not view Saddam as a threat, did not think he had any weapons of mass destruction, and stated that he was greatly weakened by Clinton's Desert Fox operations, and the Gulf War, and the sanctions.

It really doesn't matter who said what, what matters is that he intentionally deceived, lied, used poor judgment, and then followed his disengenuous actions with incompetence, and more lies to cover up his failings.

Over three thousand of our people have died because of it, we are in a trick bag in Iraq, the terrorists have increased their numbers, and attacks, due to his policies, bin Laden is still at large, our Army is broken, the war is costing US tax payers a fortune, the war profiteering is robbing us blind, Iraqis won't step up to the plate, and when they do, they turn on our people and kill them, over twenty thousand of our people are seriously injured, with permanent injuries, Tony Blair refuses to send in any more British, and is bringing many back home, over a period of time, Afghanistan is back under Taliban control, and all experts agree, this is the worst policy decision ever made. No matter how you righties try to spin it, the majority of Democrats in the congress voted against this war, and those who were trusting enough to beleive George Bush's lies, wish now that they hadn't trusted him enough to vote for the war, as many have said, both Democratic and Republican. And, worst of all, Bush refuses to change course, doing the same things over and over, expecting a different result, like all crazy people do, in spite of the fact that every General that has been there fighting this war day by day, has advised no additional troops, no escalation, and no chance of winning militarily. The very idea that you try to defend him, knowing he has lied over and over, and that hundreds of thousands have died because of his lies and incompetence, is proof of your blind partisanship, and ignorance of the facts. Perhaps, after this next stupid GWB mistake, escalation of a war which all reaonsble experts agree is a lost cause, and cannot be won militarily, turns up hundreds more dead Americans, you'll be happy then? Iraq will be a war zone for decades, regardless of how many more of our people we sacrifice for the sake of the Bush legacy, and the neocon hawks, who are good at dreaming up reasons for war, and making money in wars, but seldom fight in them, will still be saying that you can't win unwinnable wars because Democrats are cowards. Some are still saying that about Vietnam, even though over 58,000 died, and Robert McNamara ultimately admitted, years after, that we could never have won the war in Vietnam, that we should never have escalated it, because is was a civil war, with thousands more to take the place of every one we killed, and impossible to identify the enemy, which therefore, increased enemy numbers, and lost the hearts and minds of supporters, just as has happened in Iraq. Bottom line, and this you can't twist, Bush lied, there were NO WMD's, Saddam is gone, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, Iraqis have chosen their grudges above democracy, we're losing the war, it is a lost cause, which very soon, you will be twisting into an imaginary success I am sure.

"We've got to figure out a way to use this to include Iraq."

Donald Rumsfeld, hours after 9/11.


"It's important to trust the judgment of the military when they're making military plans," he told The Washington Post in an interview last month. "I'm a strict adherer to the command structure."

George Bush, weeks ago...before he axed the Generals who don't agree with escalating the war.

Todays news.... 2006 hottest year on record, Bush lifts ban on drilling in Alaska, Bush's approval ratings on the war down to 26%.


Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
01-10-2007, 08:23 AM
Exactly!! Encouraging to know there are so many people, such as you, who can think for themselves, and sift through the BS, to arrive at the truth!

Love,
Gayle

eg8r
01-10-2007, 11:48 AM
[ QUOTE ]
You guys are amazing. If you had taken the time to learn about what the President was being told before he decided to make this HUGE mistakie, and how he twisted the information, you'd understand <hr /></blockquote> Gayle is amazing. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif If you had taken the time to actually read some of the dates you would see they happened prior to W being in control. With your hatred of W at such a high level, you must agree that Clinton, Albright, Daschle, Berger, Levin, Kerry, and Pelosi were all lying to us in the late 90's. Never mind, you explain your twisted thinking in the next paragraph... [ QUOTE ]
It really doesn't matter who said what, <hr /></blockquote> So, when the Dems are caught with their pants down (this is all really old news and has been mentioned on this board more than once already) Gayle is here to save the day and hold a towel up. You see when the Dems state lies emphatically Gayle does not care, she only cares when the statement is coming from W.

[ QUOTE ]
It really doesn't matter who said what, what matters is that he intentionally deceived, lied, used poor judgment, and then followed his disengenuous actions with incompetence, and more lies to cover up his failings.
<hr /></blockquote> Wow after reading the quotes of the Dems emphatically lying to us about Saddam and WMDs in the late 90s and then reading this gem from Gayle it looks like W just wanted to be like Gayle's hero's. Nothing but lies and coverups. That was the Dems in the previous administration and I am sure we will begin to see the pendulum swing again.

eg8r

Chopstick
01-10-2007, 12:06 PM
Don't care, don't care, don't care !!!!!!

Gayle in MD
01-10-2007, 01:53 PM
Ed,
You're so uninformed....it's really sad the way you show your ignorance.http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/desert_fox/

Now, you check the dates....then remind yourself what Bush was saying in 2002...and what our intelligence experts told him...No WMD's, No connection to 9/11, or bin Laden. They were all right, he was totally wrong, throughout, and lied throughout. Saddam was no threat, nor could he have been, as long as we continued Clinton's policies, which Bush, through out.

Then read our most recent National Security Estimate, for the results of what a mess he has created, not to mention, the Baker Report. All agree, this war cannot be won militarily, hence, the genius in the White House, who told us over and over, "We're winning the war in Iraq" is now escalating the war. The GW who said he listened to the commanders on the ground, has now axed them, and has plans for doing precisely what they told him would not work.

Hey, I shouldn't bother educating you. Anyone who voted for Bush in o4, is beyond hope.

Gayle in Md.

Sid_Vicious
01-10-2007, 01:58 PM
Gayle,,,How the military is getting their enlistment quotas is beyond me. Yea, ain't it something how people still taunt Bill Clinton. Never a better economy and now look at all that's been screwed up. Such an idiotic and dangerous leader in GW...sid

Gayle in MD
01-10-2007, 02:01 PM
Hey, they're like a cult! Anything but the facts!!! the only two places in the Universe where you can get more BS is from the White House Press Room, and Fox News!!! /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

the way he's (Bush) doing it is by sending the troops who are on R&amp;R, and Training Leave, back to Iraq before their time is up, and extending those troops who were supposed to come back home. It's a disgrace what he's put our troops through. Never before, have so few, suffered so much, for so long.

/ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif

Bobbyrx
01-10-2007, 04:53 PM
"I come to this debate, Mr.Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons was one on my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Suddam Hussein......Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons."
Nancy Pelosi addressing the U.S. senate 10/10/2002.


And speaking of generals:

Wesley Clark, 2004 Democratic presidantial candidate, discusses Saddam's WMD:

WESLEY CLARK: He [Saddam] does have weapons of mass destruction.

MILES O'BRIEN: And you could say that categorically?

WESLEY CLARK: Absolutely.

MILES O'BRIEN: All right, well, where are, where is, they've been there a long time and thus far we've got 12 empty casings. Where are all these weapons?

WESLEY CLARK: There's a lot of stuff hidden in a lot of different places, Miles, and I'm not sure that we know where it all is. People in Iraq do. The scientists know some of it. Some of the military, the low ranking military; some of Saddam Hussein's security organizations. There's a big organization in place to cover and deceive and prevent anyone from knowing about this.

Wesley Clark, Democratic Presidantial Candidate
During an interview on CNN
January 18, 2003

<font color="red">And if you can't believe these two......who's left Ted Kennedy?</font color>

pooltchr
01-10-2007, 07:44 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Anything but the facts!!!
/ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif <hr /></blockquote>

OK&lt; How to you explain the fact that all these Democrats made all the statements in the above posts? Were they lying? Were they mis-informed? Or were they just saying what they thought the voters wanted to hear? Or did they actually believe what they were saying? Oh, no, we have to rule out the last option...that would mean they were on the same page as the President!! /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

Steve

Gayle in MD
01-11-2007, 08:05 AM
Taking statements of context, without supplying context, is nothing new from the right on here.

Here are the facts, from Thomas Ricks's book, "Fiasco" and I might add, his is only one of many books written by both Middle East experts, such as P. Galbraith, probably THE foremost Middle East expert, which concur with Mr. Ricks's documentation.

The Desert Fox Strikes

The Climax of Zinni's time as commander in the Mideast was the four-day long Desert Fox bombing campaign. There had been military movements in 1994 and 1996, but the 1998 raids would be the biggest U.S. military strikes in Iraq since the end of the 1991 war. This turned out to be the most intense enforcement of the containment ploicy that occurred in the entire twelve-year period between the 1991 war and the 2003 invasion.

Launched in reaction to a standoff with Saddam Hussein over weapons inspections, the attacks began on December 16, 1998 with a volley of over 200 cruise missiles from Navy Ships and Air Force B-52 bombers. The next day another 100 cruise missiles were fired. On the third night of air strikes, B-1 swingwing supersonic bombers made their first ever appearance in combat. After a fourth night, the raids ended. A total of 415 cruise missiles had been used, more than the 317 employed during the entire 1991 Gulf War. Theey and 600 bombs hit a total of 97 sites, the major ones being facilities for the production and storage of chemical weapons and those associated with missiles that could deliver such munitions. In part because U.S. intelligence war able to locate only a limited number of sites associated with weaponry, the strikes also hit government command-and-control facilities such as intelligence and secret police headquarters.

Some congressional Rep[ublicans were deeply suspicious of President Clinton and suggested that the strikes were simply a ploy to undercut the impending impeachment proceedings against him. As the bombing began, Sen. Trent Lott, then the Senate majority leader, issued a statement declaring, "I cannot support this military action in the Persian Gulf at this time. Both the timing and the policy are subject to question." Rep. Dana Rohrbacher, a California Republican, called the military action "an insult to the American people."

Yet the raids proved surprisingly effective. "Desert Fox actually exceeded expectations," wrote Kenneth Pollact in The threatenting Storm: The case for Invading Iraq,
his influential 2002 book. "Saddam panicked during the strikes. Fearing that his control was threatened, he ordered large-scale arrests and executions, which backfired and destabilized his regime for months afterward."

Zinni was amazed when Western intelligence assets in Baghdad reported that Desert Fox nearly knocked off Saddam Hussein's regime. His conclusion: Containment is clearly working, and Saddam Hussein was on the ropes. A U.S. military intelligence official, looking back at Desert Fox years later, confirmed that account. "There were a lot of good reports coming out afterward on how he changed his command and control, very quickly. It was especially clear in areas involving internal control." Interceptions of communications among Iraqi generals indicated "palpable fear that he was going to lose control."

Arab allies of the United States were hearing the same reports, and that led them to go to Gen. Zinni with an urgent question: If you do indeed topple Saddam Hussein, what will come next? "This is what I heard from our Arab friends out there - you almost caused an implosion, "Zinni recalled, "And that worried them. An implosion is going to cause chaos. You're going to have to go in after an implosion. The question was, do you guys have a plan?" The Arab leaders especially wanted to know what was going to be done to stem the possibility of a massive exodus of refugees into their countries, along with major economic dislocations. Also, they wanted to know, if Iraq disintegrates, what is going to be the Arab world's bulwork against the age-old threat of Iran? "You tip this guy over, you could create a bigger problem for us than we have now," Arab officials said to Zinni. "So, what are you going to do about it?"

Zinni realized that he didn't have good answers to those questions. So in June 1999 he had Booz Allen, the consulting firm, hold a classified war game on what such an aftermath might look like - what problems it would present, and how the U.S. government might respondl. He askeed that representatives not just of the military but of the State Department and the Agency for International Development also participate. "It brought out all the problems that have surfaced now," he said later. "It shocked the hell out of me." In the wake of the war game, Zinni ordered
Central Command to begin planning in case humanitarian relief operations in Iraq became necessary. But he wasn't able to interest other parts of the government in participating in the preparatory work.

Two conclusions From Desert Fox

Back in the United States, Desert Fox looked different to some. At the time it was fashionable to dismiss the operations as more avoidance by the Clinton administration, as simply throwing cruise missiles at a problem that required more than that. "Desert Fox was a sham," Danielle Pletka, a national security analyst at the American Enterprise Institute,said in a 2004 interview. "They were so casualty averse. They did nothing but bomb empty buildings." The quotable Pletka put it more pungently than many, but this was not an uncommon view.

"The Clinton administration was totally risk averse" on Iraq, richard Perle, a leading Iraq hawk, would argue later. "They allowed Saddam over eight years to grow in strength,. He was far stronger at the end of Clinton;'s tenure than at the beginning." Perle made those assertions in July 2003, just about the time they were becoming laughable to those who understood the situation on the ground in Iraq.

David Kay, a more sober observer, also was skeptical at the time about the effects of Desert Fox. It was only years later, after his Iraqi Survey Group, the U.S. government's postwar effort to find Iraq's supposed stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, had interviewed and interrogated two hundred officials from Iraqi weapons programs, that he realized that the four-day campaign had indeed had a devastating effect, far more than had been appreciated back in Washington. His postinvasion survey found to his surprise that after 1998 the Iraqi weapons programs, with the exception of missile building, "withered away, and never got momentum again." In a series of in-depth postwar interrogations, a score of veterans of Iraqi weapons programs told Kay's group that the Desert Fox raids had left Iraqi weaponeers demoralized and despairing. "They realized that they'd never be able to re-establish the type of industrial facility they were aiming at," he said in an interview. "They'd spent years, lots of money, and lots of energy on it, years and years. And they realized that as long as Saddam was in power, they'd never be able to reestablish production." In short, they had given up. The other point that Desert Fox made to Iraqis was that visible elements of weaponry, such as missile programs, which require a large, easily observed infrastructure such as engine test stands, could be hammered at any time.

Kay added that he was taken aback to hear their accounts. "For me, it was a bit of an eye-opener, because I'd always denigrated Desert Fox. What I failed to understand was that it was cumulative, coming on top of eight years of sanctions." More than the physical damage, it was the devastating psychological effect that had really counted....


Steve, I will ad to this, that during this time, the Republican were accusing Clinton of Wagging the Dog, impeaching him for personal, private actions, and many Democrats were speaking up for the necessity of continuing his Desert Fox program which was later proven to have worked, and worked thoroughly, hence, many in the intelligence field, who warned Bush about hitting the bee hive in Iraq, with his big stick, admonishing him to focuss on bin Laden, the real threat to the United States, removing the Taliban from Afghanistan, and the safe harbor of al Qaeda, instead of getting side tracked in Iraq, and warned against the impending disaster that would come about, if he de-stabalized Iraq, to the entire region, and ultimately to the United States through the emboldening results to allow for more and more terrorist to be enlisted into alQaeda, Hizbollah, and other terrorist type organizations, not to mention, Iran, Syria, Turkey, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the entire group of divided interests in the Sunni/Shiia triangle....and that Saddam was considered in a bos....BUSH AND THE REPUBLICANS AND THE ELITE THINK TANK IVY LEAGUE HAWK NEOCONS WOULD NOT LISTEN!!!!

Instead, everything Clinton was thrown out, including most of the experts who warned Bush not only about the impending attack on 9/11, but about his desire to give the rest fo the world the finger, and launch this illegal pre-emptive strike, and occupy Iraq, on the basis of intelligence which he himself, along with Dick Cheney, and Condoleeza Rice, cherry picked to enhance their false and naive belief that they could force their will on a bunch of hot headed, tribal, blood thirsty people who have hated each other for thousands of years. Bill Clinton did more to weaken terrorism, and Saddam Husein, than anyone, before, or after Bush Sr. got out of office. It was the Republicans, who took the Nations attention off the pressing issues during Clinton's administration, with all their bogus investigations, and it was the Republicans who pooh poohed Desert Storm, and it was the Republicans, who changed the National discourse from terrorism, to homosexuality, and abortion, at a time when we should have been following up on Clitons' progress in the middle east.

NOW LOOK WHERE WE ARE, AND TELL ME WHOSE FAULT IT IS!!!!

Gayle in Md.




Gayle in Md.

eg8r
01-11-2007, 09:47 AM
[ QUOTE ]
And if you can't believe these two......who's left Ted Kennedy? <hr /></blockquote> No kidding. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif It is just that some people here want to give the left a free ticket after they continued to lie to us.

eg8r

eg8r
01-11-2007, 09:50 AM
[ QUOTE ]
You're so uninformed....it's really sad the way you show your ignorance. <hr /></blockquote> Well, the dates clearly show W was not in control at the time of a lot of those quotes. What changed from the late 90s to the 2000s? Nothing changed, and all the info is the same as it always has been, the problem is that you have allowed hate to fill you eyes and your mind and you are willing to ignore the lies of the left since they were from a few short years ago.

eg8r

eg8r
01-11-2007, 09:53 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Taking statements of context, without supplying context, is nothing new from the right on here. <hr /></blockquote> We learned from the best the left could offer. Don't worry, you don't have to admit Pelosi lied to you, its just the kool aid speaking anyways.

eg8r

moblsv
01-11-2007, 10:33 AM
I can't believe how patient you are to keep explaining these things to people who will never give up thier irrational beliefs long enough to face reality.

I'm sold. I promise, Fiasco is the next book on my reading list.

Bobbyrx
01-11-2007, 11:19 AM
and the "lies" just keep on coming.....lets see how this will be spun to be "out of context"

"As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It's about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability -- a capability that could be less than a year away.

I believe that Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime represents a clear threat to the United States, to our allies, to our interests around the world, and to the values of freedom and democracy we hold dear.

What's more, the terrorist threat against America is all too clear. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam's arsenal, and there is every possibility that he could turn his weapons over to these terrorists. No one can doubt that if the terrorists of September 11th had weapons of mass destruction, they would have used them. On September 12, 2002, we can hardly ignore the terrorist threat, and the serious danger that Saddam would allow his arsenal to be used in aid of terror.

The time has come for decisive action. With our allies, we must do whatever is necessary to guard against the threat posed by an Iraq armed with weapons of mass destruction, and under the thumb of Saddam Hussein.

The United States must lead an international effort to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein -- and to assure that Iraq fulfills its obligations to the international community.

This is not an easy decision, and it carries many risks. It will also carry costs, certainly in resources, and almost certainly in lives. After careful consideration, I believe that the risk of inaction is far greater than the risk of action.

We must address the most insidious threat posed by weapons of mass destruction -- the threat that comes from the ability of terrorists to obtain them.

The path of confronting Saddam is full of hazards. But the path of inaction is far more dangerous. This week, a week where we remember the sacrifice of thousands of innocent Americans made on 9-11, the choice could not be starker. Had we known that such attacks were imminent, we surely would have used every means at our disposal to prevent them and take out the plotters. We cannot wait for such a terrible event -- or, if weapons of mass destruction are used, one far worse -- to address the clear and present danger posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq."

Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
Addressing the US Senate
September 12, 2002
http://edwards.senate.gov/statements/20020912_iraq.html

Gayle in MD
01-11-2007, 01:29 PM
It doesn't mean anything at all, jerk, because the only thing they had to base their decisions on was the information that Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz skewed and cherry picked by hard arming government people who later revealed the creation of false info included in the National Security Estimate, after many of them retired in protest, or were ultimately fired....or axed for speaking out.

In fact, the people who lied to us, Bush's little band of liars, were later exposed for their lies, and the ultimate proof, is that there WERE no WMD's, no connection to alQaeda, and no involvment to 9/11, by or in Iraq, which George Bush, himself, finally had to admit.

It's the blind supporters, and those who deny facts, even after the rest of the world knows and agrees on the accuracy of the facts, who are the greatest danger to our own democracy, and to peace in the world. They are the breeding ground of all fascists regimes, theocracies, and autocracies, dictatorships, and, and ultimately, all human suffering.

/ccboard/images/graemlins/mad.gif

Gayle in MD
01-11-2007, 01:32 PM
Well friend, the truth is that after what I see every week at Walter Reed, I must, as Dick XXX says, stand and write.

Love,
Gayle

Qtec
01-12-2007, 07:32 AM
Which Democrats advocated INVADING Iraq?
Q

Qtec
01-12-2007, 08:18 AM
[ QUOTE ]
The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. <font color="blue"> Oh really! </font color>
We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities.
Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
<hr /></blockquote>

The press and the Dems let the country down. Thats a fact.
The truth was........
[ QUOTE ]
wiki Hans Blix.
During the Iraq disarmament crisis before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Blix was called back from retirement by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to lead United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission in charge of monitoring Iraq. Kofi Annan originally recommended Rolf Ekéus, who worked with UNSCOM in the past, but both Russia and France vetoed his appointment. Hans Blix personally admonished Saddam for "cat and mouse" games [3] and warned Iraq of "serious consequences" if it attempted to hinder or delay his mission [4].

In his report to the UN Security Council on February 14, 2003, Blix claimed that "If Iraq had provided the necessary cooperation in 1991, the phase of disarmament -- under resolution 687 -- could have been short and a decade of sanctions could have been avoided." [5]

Blix's statements about the Iraq WMD program came to contradict the claims of the Bush administration, [6] and attracted a great deal of criticism from supporters of the invasion of Iraq. In an interview on BBC TV on 8 February 2004, Dr. Blix accused the U.S. and British governments of dramatising the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, in order to strengthen the case for the 2003 war against the regime of Saddam Hussein. <font color="blue"> Ever heard that before? Blix made this accusation before the 'Downing Street Memo' came to light. </font color>

Newt Gingrich stated that approving Hans Blix as chief U.N. weapons inspector was a mistake made "even though he was clearly opposed to war and determined to buy time and find excuses for Saddam Hussein." [7]

In an interview with London's Guardian newspaper, Hans Blix said, "I have my detractors in Washington. There are bastards who spread things around, of course, who planted nasty things in the media" [8].

In 2004, Blix published a book, Disarming Iraq, where he gives his account of the events and inspections before the coalition began its invasion.

Ultimately, no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction were found. <font color="blue"> I would believe Blix over GW etc any day. He had no secret agenda.</font color>

<hr /></blockquote>

[ QUOTE ]
Blix - "How can the the US be SO SURE that Saddam has these weapons but be SO WRONG about where they are?" <hr /></blockquote>


When Blix, relying on US intelligence info was sent to site after site and found NOTHING, alarm bells should have been ringing in DC. If their best info on Iraq was wrong, all intel on Iraq should have been considered suspect.
Did they care? No.

If you shoot your neighbour because he was trying to kill you ,thats self defence.
If it turns out that the threat was all in your imagination, then its murder.
For the Govt to say that the intel was all wrong is not an excuse. They already knew the intel was wrong because of the Blix report.

Q..........

eg8r
01-12-2007, 11:02 AM
Which part of my post are you referring to?

eg8r

eg8r
01-12-2007, 11:04 AM
[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't mean anything at all, jerk, <hr /></blockquote> LOL, you crack me up. Watch out Bobby, her panties are getting twisted and you are about to read a book of B.S.

eg8r

Qtec
01-12-2007, 11:22 AM
Show me one single Democat that said the US should invade Iraq?

Q.....simple question for anyone who is not mentally challenged!

hondo
01-12-2007, 11:35 AM
Okay. They were wrong and once they were informed,
they flip-flopped. Which is the proper action.
So I assume you're one of the 30% who think this war
is right and honorable? Welcome. Poor ole EG &amp; Steve
could use some support.

eg8r
01-12-2007, 02:14 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Welcome. Poor ole EG &amp; Steve
could use some support. <hr /></blockquote> Well, you can rest easily knowing that unlike yourself (on the AZB board) I am not cutting my losses and running to hide because those with opposing viewpoints outnumber me. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

eg8r

eg8r
01-12-2007, 02:16 PM
I have no reason to answer the question it has nothing to do with what we are talking about. I really don't care if the number is zero it has nothing to do with the fact that plenty of Dems said what W said long before W was in the drivers seat. Not only did they say it, but they were emphatic about it. They lied to us and they are no different than W.

eg8r

eg8r
01-12-2007, 02:22 PM
[ QUOTE ]
simple question for anyone who is not mentally challenged! <hr /></blockquote> Why would someone argue with you over whether or not they are mentally challenged? You would only drag them down to your level and beat them down with experience. Mentally challenged, you have got to be kidding me. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

Gayle in MD
01-12-2007, 06:23 PM
They need more than support, LOL..they need therapy. They still don't get it, eventho Republicans spent most of yesterday, calling Rice what she's bween all along, a LIAR, the gig is up...they just can't handle it. They can"t add and subtract, either. They don't get that the statement, otu of context, before Clinton decimated Saddam's weapons, were in support of Desert Fox, clinton's program, the ones after George the terrible, were based on Lies psread by cheney, Rice, Bush, and the rest of the evil doers.

Bottom line, Republicans are speaking out against Rice, her lies, and Bush's lies. Of course, they probably don't know a damn thing about it, I'm sure they wouldn't have said much about it on Fox news, LMAO....

Gayle /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Bobbyrx
01-13-2007, 08:50 AM
A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq. October 11, 2002, 12:50 AM

Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Breaux (D-LA), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Carnahan (D-MO), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Cleland (D-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Daschle (D-SD), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Edwards (D-NC), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hollings (D-SC), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea,Nay,Yea,Nay,Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Miller (D-GA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Torricelli (D-NJ), Yea

Bobbyrx
01-13-2007, 09:20 AM
"During the Iraq disarmament crisis before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Blix was called back from retirement by UN Secretary General <font color="blue"> Kofi Annan </font color> to lead United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission in charge of monitoring Iraq. Kofi Annan originally recommended Rolf Ekéus, who worked with UNSCOM in the past, but both <font color="blue"> Russia and France </font color> vetoed his appointment. Hans Blix personally admonished Saddam for "cat and mouse" games [3] and warned Iraq of <font color="red"> serious consequences </font color> if it attempted to hinder or delay his mission [4]."

<font color="blue">Blix, Annan, Russia, France - common denominator = Oil for food scandal </font color> and what
"serious consequences" has the U.N. ever actually placed on ANYONE????????
No one has ever seen Hans Blix and Mr. McGoo at the same place

Gayle in MD
01-13-2007, 09:25 AM
I notice, as usual, you have left out the important part, the majority of Democrats in the Congress, voted against the war. Typical of your posting methods. As for those who voted yeah, how do you think they would have voted if they hadn't been lied to by Bush, Cheney, and Rice...even Powell was quoted as having said to his aid, after his speech at the UN..."This is Bull$**t"!!! He informed this administration, shortly after, that he would not stay the course with them, and would be leaving, after he realized they had used him to spread lies, and woke up to their overall dishonesty. He later said it will forever be a black mark on his record, the most regretful action he has even taken part in.

People like you, who fail to address the factual information, and twist things around to your liking, leaving out the facts, are using the same methods as they used to promote this mess, which all experts agree, even Republicans, now, has been the worst and most damaging foreign policy ever. You are helping them to destroy us. You're not just a jerk, you much worse than that. Every single one like you, who continues to twist the truth, leave out the facts, and support Bush's failing destructive policies, hurt our troops, and hurt our children's and grand children's future.

Soon, the whole Republican Party will turn completely against George Bush. It has already started. What will you say then? Three Republicans just this week, flat out told Rice that what she was saying in the hearings, was NOT TRUE. I don't suppose any of you brilliant righties would be interested in addressing that??? Would you consider the twelve high ranking Republicans, all respected by your party, who are refusing to support Bush's decision to escalate this war? I have already posted the FULL vote...unlike you...and BTW, neither you, Steve, or ED, has the ability to address any point I make. It's much easier to just respond with some petty sarcastic little shot at Gayle. If you had any knowledge, you'd respond to the information I post, instead, but that's impossible for you, since all you know about is the Faux News talking points...from the White House.



/ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Gayle in MD
01-13-2007, 09:37 AM
"They saw the same intelligence I saw." George Bush...

Another one of Bush's famous lies!

Bush set this failing policy, but it's the Democrats, who were lied to by Bush, who are responsible~!!! Unbelievable!
NAY
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)

/ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

I wonder, whom do they hold responsible for the failed prosecution of this war?

hondo
01-14-2007, 09:03 AM
Attaboy, Eg. I've never had any doubt that you're more
hard-headed than me.


<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Welcome. Poor ole EG &amp; Steve
could use some support. <hr /></blockquote> Well, you can rest easily knowing that unlike yourself (on the AZB board) I am not cutting my losses and running to hide because those with opposing viewpoints outnumber me. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

eg8r
01-15-2007, 10:22 AM
This is becoming childish. Gayle when you read these books, have you actually bantered back and forth with someone to see if what you read was really there. Lets give you a quick example of what happens when Gayle reads something and then responds...
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Q:</font><hr> Show me one single Democat that said the US <font color="blue"> should invade Iraq? </font color>
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bobbyrx:</font><hr> Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Breaux (D-LA), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Carnahan (D-MO), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Cleland (D-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
etc. <blockquote><font class="small">Quote dumbfounded Gayle:</font><hr> I notice, as usual, <font color="red">you have left out the important part, the majority of Democrats in the Congress, voted against the war. </font color> Typical of your posting methods. <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> I have also noticed something, your sarcastic post is a perfect example of poor comprehension or desire to allow hate to speak instead of rational thought, either way it is indicative of a normal Gayle response to anyone with an opposing belief.

Now granted a case can be made that Bobby did not correctly answer Q as he went above and beyond the call of dute and gave a list of said Dems. Q only wanted one name and Bobby gave many more than one. However, along comes Gayle with her deer-in-headlights response proving either she did not read anything and just posted throwing caution to the wind, or she has some sort of comprehension issue.

Bobby was answering a question, his response should not have included anything whatsoever about people who voted against the war. Why is this so hard to understand?

eg8r

Gayle in MD
01-15-2007, 01:22 PM
Ed, aren't you a bit out of line? Look up advocate...I don't recall any Democrats pleading to go to Iraq. And, your glossing over the fact that the majority of Dems, voted against the war, is typical of you, and your alter ego, Bs, oh, I mean BX....not to mention, you never provide any documentation to disprove anything I write here. I suppose, sarcasm and insults are something we have all been guilty of, on occasion, but with you, it is the ONLY response.

I'm sure you haven't heard, but the Republicans are the ones most often referring to Bush's lies, and failed policies, these days, but I know that C-Span's live coverage, and the reading of books by respected journalists, is against the rules for those of you on the right.

Bottom line, Bush concocted the war in Iraq, not the Democrats. Bush lied us into all this mess, before the war, after, and for four straight years. I must be frustrating for you to know, that nothing you write, no insults, no denials, and no silly accusations against the Democrats, can ever alter that fact.

IOW, stuff it.

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
01-17-2007, 07:25 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Ed, aren't you a bit out of line? Look up advocate...I don't recall any Democrats pleading to go to Iraq. <hr /></blockquote> A bit out of line? For showing the trail of posts to which you decided to chime in with some childish sarcastic post. NO. I don't think I was out of line. It is high time you finally read a few of your posts (in context) and see how you are acting. Some people use a different view on the forum and might have trouble seeing the branches of the thread so after reading your ridiculous post I took the liberty of aligning those posts for you to see what your replies look like.

[ QUOTE ]
not to mention, you never provide any documentation to disprove anything I write here. <hr /></blockquote> Well lets see, I could have just called your comprehension into question and left it there, but no, I went the extra mile and provided all the posts that led up to your brilliant post. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif Basically I just don't care to put forth the effort on you because I don't see you as being worthy of the effort. highsea used to just pummel you and all your sources. Day in and day out he disproved everything you would ever say. What good did that do, he got worn out and tired of it all and left. How is that good for anything. So, I pick and choose when I will post and I state exactly whatever it is I want to state. If I have linked something to back it up, so be it, otherwise let it go. In the end you will never want to see the other side so what is the point of going through the effort.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
01-17-2007, 07:50 AM
[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote> [ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>

Bobbyrx
01-17-2007, 11:13 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>

<hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> <font color="red"> Thank goodness. Someone FINALLY posted the Democrataic plan for Iraq</font color>

eg8r
01-17-2007, 11:14 AM
/ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif


eg8r

Gayle in MD
01-17-2007, 03:06 PM
Silly boy, it was a quote of Ed's statements, which I found worthy of quoting.
/ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

pooltchr
01-17-2007, 04:22 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bobbyrx:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>

<hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> <font color="red"> Thank goodness. Someone FINALLY posted the Democrataic plan for Iraq</font color> <hr /></blockquote>

I think this is the best post I have read so far this year!!! LMAO!!!
Steve

Gayle in MD
01-18-2007, 05:34 AM
If you read my post, you'd know what changed. Clinton decimated what was left of Saddam's WMD's. that is a proven fact. The statements of Democrats, which Bobby so disengenuously posted, show quite clearly, were made in defense of Clinton's Desert Storm innitiative, which REPUBLICANS were completely against, as they focussed the American public's attention of Clinton's private Sex life.


The statements he pasted which were made after the year 2,000, were all stated after the Bush Administration concocted false intelligence of their own making.

Now plainly, your statement to me is wrong, but there's no doubt in my mind that your response to me will be void of any accurate opposing documented information, void of the apology you owe, and full of more insults...have at it, you're still wrong, and Bobby obviously twisted the truth, either out of ignorance of the facts, or by twisting them, which seems to be tghe only thing most of today's Republicans know how to do.

Gayle in Md.

Qtec
01-18-2007, 10:53 AM
I asked you to give one single quote of a Dem advocating the invasion of Iraq. Do you have 'one single quote'?

Q

Qtec
01-18-2007, 11:00 AM
I don't see your point.

Q

Bobbyrx
01-18-2007, 05:25 PM
The point was that over and over and over ad nauseum it was said by people on this forum how Bush lied us into a pointless war, first it was to steal Iraq's oil, then Haliburton, then to make his rich friends richer etc. Anyone with half a brain new better than Bush. Saddam was no threat and there were no WMD's and that al Qaeda (even though they are in just about every country in the world) was never in Iraq. These quotes just show that there were quite a few people on the left who either felt the same way as Bush or were lying also (or fooled by someone with as people here say has the IQ of a monkey. Of course many of these quotes were before he was elected). Now it can be argued like you say that they never argued to INVADE Iraq but they sure sounded tough. Maybe they wanted to just add another one of those killer U.N sanctions. That would have showed them. Believe it or not I think Bush has done a piss poor job in many many ways and obviously the way he has conducted the war is #1 and many liberals think he is stupid, deluded, religious fantic, take your pick...but to think he is a criminal mastermind who fooled all those Dems into voting for the use of force, then killed thousands of Iraqs and his own countrymen just to make some of his rich buddies richer is just crazy. What reason would he have had to invade if he didn't think the threat was real and that it would help stabilize the Middle East

pooltchr
01-18-2007, 09:22 PM
YYou have brought it all down to a very simple point. If GW is as ignorant as many seem to believe, how could he be so brilliant as to fool all those Dems into agreeing with him? Oh, maybe he had them all drinking his Kool-aid! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
The simple fact is that until we were actually on the ground in Iraq, the great majority was convinced that Saddam was a very real threat with the potential to use WMDs just as he had done in the past on his own people. In fact, his actions prior to our intervention would lead one to believe he actually wanted everyone to think he had the WMDs. I wonder what the left would be saying if we had done nothing, and found out too late that he did have them.

DickLeonard
01-19-2007, 06:25 AM
Pooltchr this Democrats plan for Iraq was to turn Iraq over to Saddam with our Blessings and one Question how the F---k did you run this country and only kill 148 people.####

DickLeonard
01-19-2007, 06:53 AM
Bobbbyrx you have to trace Bush and Rove family tree back to Nazi Germany. Bush's Grandfather was Hitler's Banker and Rove's grand father built the Ovens.

Then read Herman Goering's testimony at the Neurenburg War Trials on how you bring a country to War. All you have to tell the country we're going to be invaded/attacked by a country and the country will go along. [this part should interest you] People who don't go along you label them Unpatriotic.

The Bush White House used Herman's plan to a T. That from this Unpatriotic American.

That is why I support Iran building Nuclear Weapons. We have shown that we do not Honour a Country's Sovereignty and smaller country's must do what they need to do to protect themselves from us.####

hondo
01-19-2007, 07:43 AM
Well, you've seen the disaster that's taking place
in Iraq. Is Bush brilliant or ignorant in your opinion.
IMHO, he's ignorant and the people pushing his buttons
are ruthless.
I never thought I would be saying this since Bush has
been so arrogant, but I'm actually starting to feel
a little sorry for him. ( Don't shoot me, Gayle).
All that blood on his hands, all but a tiny minority
of Americans hating him, and he was probably duped
in the 1st place by Cheney &amp; Rummy. I think it's
possible he thought he was doing the right thing.
He simply had no understanding of the Middle East.
Painted into a horrifying corner by his arrogance
and ignorance.


<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> YYou have brought it all down to a very simple point. If GW is as ignorant as many seem to believe, how could he be so brilliant as to fool all those Dems into agreeing with him? Oh, maybe he had them all drinking his Kool-aid! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
The simple fact is that until we were actually on the ground in Iraq, the great majority was convinced that Saddam was a very real threat with the potential to use WMDs just as he had done in the past on his own people. In fact, his actions prior to our intervention would lead one to believe he actually wanted everyone to think he had the WMDs. I wonder what the left would be saying if we had done nothing, and found out too late that he did have them. <hr /></blockquote>

FatsRedux
01-19-2007, 10:08 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> YYou have brought it all down to a very simple point. If GW is as ignorant as many seem to believe, how could he be so brilliant as to fool all those Dems into agreeing with him? Oh, maybe he had them all drinking his Kool-aid! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

<font color="red">I agree with you on this. </font color>

The simple fact is that until we were actually on the ground in Iraq, the great majority was convinced that Saddam was a very real threat with the potential to use WMDs just as he had done in the past on his own people. In fact, his actions prior to our intervention would lead one to believe he actually wanted everyone to think he had the WMDs. I wonder what the left would be saying if we had done nothing, and found out too late that he did have them. <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="red">OK, that's a very valid point. Contrary to some I agree with the stated reasons for going to war. I just don't think the whole thing was well thought out.

First off, they discarded the lessons of Viet-Nam and tossed aside the Powell Doctrine. They obviously did not have a plan for dealing with the ancient animosities harbored within each ethno-religious group, and they had no freaking clue tbat inside every Iraqui there was not an American waiting to be free.

We should have gone in, killed Saddam &amp; company, then declared victory and pulled out with a clear warning to the leaders of the various sects that any future threats would be met with massive punitive airstrikes. That would have been a far better alternative to putting our guys in the middle of sectarian strife with roots going back a thousand years.

</font color>

Fats

Gayle in MD
01-19-2007, 08:49 PM
Steve,
If you think that George Bush, and Dick Cheney, were sure that Saddam actually was a threat, and had WMD's, please tell me, did you think that Saddam should have become our most major, pressing target, after 9/11?

I'm sure you won't believe this, but I feel sure that they did not really think S.H. had them. There was far too much intelligence available that pointed to the theory that he did not have them. Their actions during that time, were not the actions of people who were searching for the truth, but were creating their own version of the truth, in order to get people to buy into their theory. why else would they axe everyone who tried to tell them that he didn't have WMD's? why else would they search through Governmemt to find the right kind of loyal followers, and the insert them in the CIA to get the type of analysis they wanted, and get rid of all those people who were experts in the field? Why would they target people who wrote contrary opinions, just as they do even with scientists? The great majority, you speak of, were surely not from the intelligence field, believe me. You can't count among the convinced, people who were convinced, by the administration's own created false intelligence, which is exactly what Bobby tried to do in his post. As I said, H quoted Democrats in the late 90's, who were defending Clinton's Desert Storm attacks, and also those who spoke out after the administration's creation of their own preferred intelligence had been fed to all of us, including the Congress and the Senate, and many of our allies.

Why, also, would rumsfeld have said, within the hour of the 9/11 attack, "We've got to find a way to tie Iraq to al Qaeda."

Steve, there is so much out there that proves that they lied, and do so intentionally. Why??? I sure wish I knew. I think there were a number of reasons, and some of the reasons were clearly not in the best interest of the country, but satisfied unworthy agendas which Cheney, Bush, and a whole flock of Hawkish Neocons in The New World Order, and The American Enterprise Institute, had planned for years.

Bush, had won at the UN, and managed to get the inspectors back into Iraq. He was not given a mandate to launch a pre-emptive war in Iraq. He was given approval to use force against terrorists, as a last resort, and after all diplomatic efforts had been exhausted. The Administration had to link Saddam with bin Laden, in order to do as they wished. Saddam wanted Iran to think he had WMD's. I can understand why, can't you?

You should read sometime the story behind the phoney papers, and the break in at the Niger Embassy, in Italy, where nothing was stolen except the official stationary, and the official mailing stamp. There are so many people who don't realize what a truly draconian espionage style preparation existed in the lead up to the 2000 election.

You're wondering what the left would be saying if the WMD's had actually existed, and we found out too late, but the CIA and the Pentagon didn't think Saddam would use anything like that on us, anyway. His government, infrastructure, and weapons manufacturing capabilities had been decimated. The gulf war, and Clinton's Desert Storm, had rendered him, and his capabilities. weak and declining. The administration refused to accept anything that suggested that, regardless of their experience, and rank.

What the left is saying now, is why the hell did we go over there in the first place, but, now, much of the right is saying the same thing. It is no longer just the left, who is against Buh, and the War, and no long support him, his policies, nor believe the things he says. It is a bi-partisan opinion. When it comes to going to war, doing nothing is a whole lot better than doing something drastic, and then being proven wrong later after much blood is spilled, IMO.

Gayle in Md.

moblsv
01-20-2007, 08:34 AM
Gayle, sometimes I think you give the Bush Admin too much credit. I don't think they are logical enough to have any real agenda. To say they lied implies that they even cared about the truth. It seems to me they are like a bunch of creationists. They KNOW they are right and NOTHING will change thier minds. You can give them all the facts in the world and they will simply pick through and find whatever "facts" seem to support whatever they like to believe.

So, what is it they 'like to believe'? This is a christian nation, they are morally superior, Reagan is a God, Clinton is the Devil, the rich deserve to be the ruling class, the poor deserve to be poor, money will flow from the rich to the poor, revenue trumps environment, education undermines religion, the constitution needs amending to remove rights adn discriminate, the judicial branch should have less power, the executive branch needs more.

In short, Bush doesn't serve America, the people or the Constitution, he serves the Christian Church and Corporations.

Gayle in MD
01-20-2007, 09:26 AM
My dear friend, I don't know when I've read a post that sums up my own opinions regarding this administration, the neocon movement, and the many unamerican ideals which they promote.

It will be probably some years before our country comes to realize the complete, and far reaching damage that this administration has caused both here on our shores, and abroad. Being "tough" isn't worth much when it isn't accompanied by humanitarian principles, and integrity. For all the criticism the right thrusts upon the Carter administration, for example, without a grasp of how President Carter changed the course of foreign realtions, to benefit human rights around the globe, and particularly in Latin America, and the Middle East, and that President Reagan's continuation of Carter's poilicies, led to the end of the cold war. I dare say, Bush's imagined fantasy of being praised by future historians for being "tough" on terror, will be a far cry from what will be written about him in years to come.

The neocons who were beating their breasts shortly pre-Bush, with self-proclaimations of Hawkish policy, need to revisit the strides and accomplishments in foreign relations which were the result of President Carter's ground breaking changes in our international approach to global difficulties between nations. Iraqis see us as colonial intruders in their country, and that represents a great loss of pride to their national ego. Not a good situation winning hearts and minds.

Gayle in Md.
"Walk softly and carry a big stick" /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Bobbyrx
01-20-2007, 09:44 PM
Now I get it. How could I have been so wrong? It's not Islamic extremism that's the threat to our society....it's the EEEEEEvil Bush administration and the demonic Christian church (all those millions of dollars to charity is just a cover for their master plan) and and and those wacky corporations that provide all those jobs that are taken by by by those evil workers who pay taxes and buy SUVs and cause global warming

Bobbyrx
01-20-2007, 10:04 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DickLeonard:</font><hr>
That is why I support Iran building Nuclear Weapons. We have shown that we do not Honour a Country's Sovereignty and smaller country's must do what they need to do to protect themselves from us.#### <hr /></blockquote> /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

FatsRedux
01-21-2007, 12:53 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bobbyrx:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote DickLeonard:</font><hr>
That is why I support Iran building Nuclear Weapons. We have shown that we do not Honour a Country's Sovereignty and smaller country's must do what they need to do to protect themselves from us.#### <hr /></blockquote> /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="red"> Yeah really, wtf is that all about? Oh yeah right..that would make us safer! /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

Really, I'd love to hear your defense Mr. Leonard. Not that you have to... but I'd love to sample your logic. </font color>
/ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Fats

<font color="red">Ron Paul for President! </font color>

Qtec
01-21-2007, 08:16 AM
[ QUOTE ]
What reason would he have had to invade if he didn't think the threat was real and that it would help stabilize the Middle East
<hr /></blockquote>

Bobby, you sound like an objective person who can evaluate info without bias. There were many reaons for the US to invade Iraq and many interested parties involved. Here is just one very good reason. GW said himself that the US is addicted to oil!

[ QUOTE ]



web page (http://edition.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/10/30/iraq.un.euro.reut/ )
October 30, 2000
Web posted at: 8:45 PM EST (0145 GMT)

U.N. to let Iraq sell oil for euros, not dollars

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) -- A U.N. panel on Monday approved Iraq's plan to receive oil-export payments in Europe's single currency after Baghdad decided to move the start date back a week.

Members of the Security Council's Iraqi sanctions committee said the panel's chairman, Dutch Ambassador Peter van Walsum, would inform U.N. officials on Tuesday of the decision to allow Iraq to receive payments in euros, rather than dollars.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan's office is to report in three months on the impact of the switch to euros, which a U.N. study said would cost Iraq at least $270 million.

Iraq's U.N. Ambassador Saeed Hasan reported earlier that Baghdad would delay the changeover until after Nov. 6, rather than put it into effect on November 1, as originally announced. Iraq has called the dollar the currency of an "enemy state."


Iraq had also threatened to stop oil exports, the bulk of which flow through the U.N. humanitarian programme, if its request for payment in euros was denied.





web page (http://www.thedossier.ukonline.co.uk/Web%20Pages/FINANCIAL%20TIMES_Iraq%20returns%20to%20internatio nal%20oil%20market.htm)

Iraq returns to international oil market
By Carola Hoyos and Kevin Morrison in London
Published: June 5 2003 20:02 | Last Updated: June 5 2003 20:02


Iraq on Thursday stepped back into the international oil market for the first time since the war, offering 10m barrels of oil from its storage tanks for sale to the highest bidder.

The tender, for which bids are due by June 10, switches the transaction back to dollars - the international currency of oil sales - despite the greenback's recent fall in value. Saddam Hussein in 2000 insisted Iraq's oil be sold for euros, a political move, but one that improved Iraq's recent earnings thanks to the rise in the value of the euro against the dollar.





<hr /></blockquote>

Coincidence?

Look, the plot thickens. /ccboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif

[ QUOTE ]
web page (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2132574.ece)
How the West will profit from Iraq's most precious commodity

The 'IoS' today reveals a draft for a new law that would give Western oil companies a massive share in the third largest reserves in the world. To the victors, the oil? That is how some experts view this unprecedented arrangement with a major Middle East oil producer that guarantees investors huge profits for the next 30 years
Published: 07 January 2007 .<hr /></blockquote>






WHAT THEY SAID

"Oil revenues, which people falsely claim that we want to seize, should be put in a trust fund for the Iraqi people"

Tony Blair; Moving motion for war with Iraq, 18 March 2003

"Oil belongs to the Iraqi people; the government has... to be good stewards of that valuable asset "

George Bush; Press conference, 14 June 2006

"The oil of the Iraqi people... is their wealth. We did not [invade Iraq] for oil "

Colin Powell; Press briefing, 10 July 2003

"Oil revenues of Iraq could bring between $50bn and $100bn in two or three years... [Iraq] can finance its reconstruction"

Paul Wolfowitz; Deputy Defense Secretary, March 2003

"By 2010 we will need [a further] 50 million barrels a day. The Middle East, with two-thirds of the oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize lies"

Dick Cheney; US Vice-President, 1999






Q...if it walks like a duck.........







..Dick will shoot it in the face. LOL /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

pooltchr
01-21-2007, 12:23 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DickLeonard:</font><hr> That is why I support Iran building Nuclear Weapons. We have shown that we do not Honour a Country's Sovereignty and smaller country's must do what they need to do to protect themselves from us.#### <hr /></blockquote>

This comment tells all too well why you would be better off sticking to an area where your knowledge and expertise are well founded, like pool. I sincerely hope the above comment was meant as some kind of wierd joke. If you are serious, it has to be one of the most ignorant comments I have ever read.
Steve

pooltchr
01-21-2007, 12:39 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Steve,
If you think that George Bush, and Dick Cheney, were sure that Saddam actually was a threat, and had WMD's, please tell me, did you think that Saddam should have become our most major, pressing target, after 9/11?



Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

Actually, I believe that our country is quite capable of multi-tasking. There is no reason we couldn't have handled both OBL and Saddam at the same time, had we been a little more efficient in the deployment of our resources. We didn't need to deploy the number of military troops to accomplish the job. A small, well trained force, could have handled the job. The problem with that is that some of the super liberal Kennedy types would pitch a fit if we had done it that way. After all, we are the US and we don't do covert operations like that...it's not politically correct! Efficient? Yes! Effective? Absolutely! But not politically acceptable. Too Bad! We could have done the job without all the loss of life, without prisons that became political fodder for the left. And we could have been in and out in a couple of months.

The war in Iraq was a necessary operation that was very much mis-managed. Saddam had to go, and the entire region is better off for him being gone. Where we went wrong was to try and take control of the entire country. It could have been a simple plan to remove Saddam without getting caught up in the internal issues of the country.
One reason I felt good about supporting the invasion was that it was stated that the oil revenue in the country would be available to get Iraq back on track once Saddam was gone. This has not proven to be the case, and I am still trying to figure out just where that revenue is going.

Bottom line, I think we did the right thing, but the wrong way.

Steve

Gayle in MD
01-21-2007, 10:11 PM
OMG, Steve, this post of yours has got to take the prize for partisan denial. So, it's Kennedy and the liberals who screwed up the war, huh?

[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>
Actually, I believe that our country is quite capable of multi-tasking. There is no reason we couldn't have handled both OBL and Saddam at the same time, had we been a little more efficient in the deployment of our resources. Gary Brensens's book, " Jawbreaker" Explains quite clearly why we didn't get bin Laden, not enough forces, he was there, part of the special forces assigned to get bin Laden. The Commanders put the mess in Iraq, in front of the bin Laden mission, and didn't send the extra forces requested. We didn't need to deploy the number of military troops to accomplish the job. A small, well trained force, could have handled the job. Every single General, except the administration's little parrot, Tommy Franks, and including Colin Powell, warned there should have been overwhelming force, and many many more troops to keep the peace. Rumsfeld, and Bush wouldn't listen. That's the reason why things have become so violent in Iraq, and Afghanistan has been slipping back under Taliban control. The problem with that is that some of the super liberal Kennedy types would pitch a fit if we had done it that way. This statement is pure BS, STeve, and you know it. Kennedy wasn't calling the shots on war operations, none of the liberals were. It was strictly a Republican operation, so let's not try to lay it at the feet of Kennedy, or any other Liberal. The great Decider, King George, calls the shots. just as now, when he's being told to reduce troop levels, by the expert Generals, whom Abasaid said, to a man, all agreed, we should reduce troop levels, Bush does just the opposite!!! The Great Decider, alone, bears the responsibility for everything that went wrong in this war. He made all the final decisions, and he appointed all the other officials. It's ALL george Bush's fault, not Ted Kennedy. After all, we are the US and we don't do covert operations like that...it's not politically correct! Efficient? Yes! Effective? Absolutely! But not politically acceptable. Too Bad! We could have done the job without all the loss of life, Why didn't you? Who was calling the shots? without prisons that became political fodder for the left. And we could have been in and out in a couple of months.
Please tell me, whose idea the prisons were? I understand, both Republcians and Democrats, are against the torturous prisons. Why must you frame it as a liberal issue? As I understand the operations, we did not have enough troops to maintain peace and order, hence, things spiraled completely out of control. Afterwards, Rumsfeld refused to send enough troops to do the job.

The war in Iraq was a necessary operation that was very much mis-managed. Both Republicans and Democrats, say they would not have voted for this war had they had the info they have now. Pre-emptive wars, against a country which was of absolutely no threat, nor could be a threat in years and years, and had not attacked us here, is against many international agreements that we have held for decades. It was NOT a necessary operation, it was an illegal one. Saddam had to go, and the entire region is better off for him being gone. Yeah, right, haven't watched the news lately, Steve? Where we went wrong was to try and take control of the entire country. It could have been a simple plan to remove Saddam without getting caught up in the internal issues of the country.
But, there wasn't a simple plan. Bush is building the biggest Embassy in the world, in Iraq. Obviously, he had no intention in fact, of an in and out operation, regardless of what they said at the time. Also, the impossibility of going into Iraq, and bringing Saddam down, without getting embroiled in the sectarian, and ages old differences, and grudges, is pricisely why Bush was advised not to go into Iraq, that Saddam did not have any WMD's and that he could not pose a threat for ten to fifteen years.
One reason I felt good about supporting the invasion was that it was stated that the oil revenue in the country would be available to get Iraq back on track once Saddam was gone. This has not proven to be the case, and I am still trying to figure out just where that revenue is going. Well, I can tell you where some of it is going. it's being stolen, by terrorists, who have tapped into the lines, and siphoned it off and sold it to use for ammo to kill our people. Both al Qaeda, and Hizbollah.

Bottom line, I think we did the right thing, but the wrong way.

Steve
[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>

The decision to invade Iraq has been said to be the worst National Policy blunder we have ever made, by Republicans and Democrats. The number of Middle East Experts and Military Commanders, who have said this was a mistake, is unprecedented. The country was actually in shambles, militarily, and economically, with no ariforce, no realy Army, and no WMD's, if there is anything that has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, it is that Saddam was absolutely no threat to the United States.

Gayle in Md.

pooltchr
01-22-2007, 05:08 AM
Once again, Gayle, you completely mis-read my post. I never said Kennedy was responsible for the war. What I said was, IF we had gone in with a small covert strike force with the sole purpose of eliminating Saddam, the backlash from the left would have been huge. It shouldn't have been necessary to launch a full scale invasion to eliminate one person. It could have been a very small, efficient operation with one purpose...get Saddam and get out. Politically, it wasn't an option, but the effectiveness of such an operation would have been far greater, and wouldn't have required taking over the entire country.

Yes, since we did choose a full invasion, we should have put all available troops there....after we had things completely under control with air strikes. But then we would have been the bad guys for destroying the entire country. The thing with you seems to be that no matter how it was handled, since GW was in charge, it had to be wrong.

Why didn't I send in a covert special forces team to do the job? Last time I checked, I was a car salesman and pool instructor, not the commander-in-chief. It wasn't my call.

You say it wasn't necessary to get rid of Saddam. I say it was. We will have to agree to disagree on that point. There were an awful lot of people on both sides who believed that Saddam was a threat that had to be eliminated.

I stated that the war effort has been mis-managed. Why do you feel it necessary to argue that point? If you had read what I wrote, you would probably have come to the conclusion that we agree on that point.

Do me a simple favor and try to read and understand my posts before you go off on me. Thanks

Steve

DickLeonard
01-22-2007, 07:07 AM
Pooltchr what defense does a small country have against an evil Empire. Our country has decide to be the Worlds Policeman and will do anything to further that thinking. We Invaded Iraq on lies, with no regard for the United Nation protocol. Our President called Iran an Axis of Evil even refusing to have discussions with Iran,North Korea forcing them to pursue their weapons programs.

Your plan would be to just wait till the United States did what it did in Iraq and sit idlely by with no defenses. Our defense budget is as large as the Worlds, for what reason. We are starting to resemble Nazi Germany..####

Gayle in MD
01-22-2007, 07:31 AM
Steve, I'm sorry if you experience my writing a differing opinion as going off on you, however, I submit to you that you write things, which I think I understand perfectly, and respond to, and then you deny what you've already written.

[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote> The problem with that is that some of the super liberal Kennedy types would pitch a fit if we had done it that way. After all, we are the US and we don't do covert operations like that...it's not politically correct! [ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>

Please tell me when you've ever heard Kennedy, or any other Democrat suggest opposition to covert special forces?

Also, please explain how we could have justified breaking international agreements which hold us to not engagining in assassinations for the purpose of regime change?

Also, please explain what you think would have happened in Iraq, after Saddam had been captured or assassinated? Do you think just taking out Saddam, would have led immediately to a satisfactory result, a new government full of patriotic, reasonable democracy leaning Government? We certainly knew in advance that he had an entire family of despots ready and willing to take his place.

Once again, I suggest to you that anyone who believed Saddam was a threat, was not anyone who had been involved in current intelligence gathering here in the U.S. The administration largely based their lies upon "Curveball" a known fabricator. They scratched out, and added preambles, to intelligence reports, and then stood before the world with their fixed version to sell us this war. Anyone who supported the occupation at the outset, was basing their opinions upon false information fed to them by this administration, including both you and I. The fact is that Iraq was already in economic shambles, no WMD's, a greatly damaged infrastructure, no real Army, or airforce, and their scientists depressed over all their laboratories, and efforts in biological and nuclear work, gone, wiped out by the Gulf war, and Clinton's Desert Storm, and the scientists depressed and devastated that it would take ten to fifteen years before they could ever re-constitute back to where they left off. Now, these are the facts. Please explain why Saddam, and Iraq, should have been on our agenda, after we had been attacked right here by bin Laden, who is still free.

If you would read Fiasco and Cobra II you will get a thorough documentation of why just taking out Saddam, wouldn't have worked, and why this war has failed, due to incompetence on the part of George Bush, who was the one and only man calling the shots on the war in Iraq, either directly, or indirectly through his own appointees.

And also, before you respond, I'll remind you that just this sunday, John McCain referenced both of these books on Meet The Press, "It's been well documented in books such as Fiasco and Cobra II [that we went in without enough troops, that the war has been mismanaged.]" Not having enough troops, was a part of how the war was mismanaged. Are you trying to say that isn't George Bush's fault, even though he appointed Rumsfeld and refused to get rid of him after it was proven that he was not listening to the comanders on the ground, Kept him on for over twoe years, and failed to put the requests of the Generals on the ground, first? We now have proof, that although he has maintained all along the he listened to the commanders on the ground, he was lying about that, too. He didn't listen to them about this surge, either, he just axed all who know that this war has failed, is militarily unwinnable, unfair to our troops, and that his judgement, as President, is lousy. Maliki, the Iraq Study Group, every commander on the ground, 81% of Iraqis, and 65 to 70% of Americans, including in that 65 to 70, 33% Republican, all think we should redeploy our troops to the borders, let the Iraqis fight this thing out, and make moves to draw down troop levels. So, what does Bush do? Send in more troops. Unbelievable!!!!

[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote> But then we would have been the bad guys for destroying the entire country. The thing with you seems to be that no matter how it was handled, since GW was in charge, it had to be wrong.
[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>
Was it handled wrong, or not? Answer, it was handled wrong. I am saying that the President, ultimately is responsible. Whom do you think is responsible, liberals? Kennedy,(?) who was smart enough to vote against this war, which has been dubbed the worst Policy decision our country has ever made?


No....The thing with me, Steve, is that I acknowledge the fact that George Bush was and is in charge, and the war WAS mismanaged. Therefore, I come to a reasonable conclusion that George Bush is responsible. The thing with YOU is that you won't agree that the buck stops right in the Oval Office. There is plenty of documentation that he refused to listen to experts, and to this day, he is doing the same damn thing. The statements made to the Senate by Abasaid, "I talked to every single General on the ground, and they all agree, to a man, that sending in more troops will only cause more violence and casualties, and fail to encourage Iraqis to step up to the forefront."

Steve, please do me a simple favor, and don't accuse me of going off on you for responding to things that you write which I understand perfectly, and continue to accuse me of failing to read and understand them correctly. I read them, and I understood your effort to blame our failures on Liberals, like Kennedy, hence, I maintain, your post was hugely partisan, and devoid of the factual proven information for which there is a virtual library of documentation.

thanks, /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Gayle, who doesn't bash Steve for writing six paragraphs to answer a complex subject. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Chopstick
01-22-2007, 11:53 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DickLeonard:</font><hr> Pooltchr what defense does a small country have against an evil Empire. Our country has decide to be the Worlds Policeman and will do anything to further that thinking. We Invaded Iraq on lies, with no regard for the United Nation protocol. Our President called Iran an Axis of Evil even refusing to have discussions with Iran,North Korea forcing them to pursue their weapons programs.

Your plan would be to just wait till the United States did what it did in Iraq and sit idlely by with no defenses. Our defense budget is as large as the Worlds, for what reason. We are starting to resemble Nazi Germany..#### <hr /></blockquote>


As far as the World Police thing goes it was the liberals that started that. They are the ones hell bent on saving the world from itself.

I always try to look at the bright side of things though. In about three or four years when Iran gets it's first ICBMs online, they ain't gonna be aimin em at Jawja. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

hondo
01-22-2007, 12:07 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bobbyrx:</font><hr> Now I get it. <hr /></blockquote>


No. Trust me , Bobby. You don't get it.

pooltchr
01-22-2007, 06:20 PM
Let me try to put this as simply as possible.
Yes, I think the war has been mis-managed.
Yes, the White House is ultimately responsible.
Therefore, the White House has mis-managed the war.

Now, it's my turn.
Did we send in enough troops, not enough troops, or too many troops based on the information from all of your expert military leaders.
If we didn't send enough, then how can it be wrong to send in more? Have you not stated that GW didn't give the Generals all the troops and equipment they needed to do the job? If that is true, why is it wrong to get more troops over there to get the job done? Please try to forget whether you believe the war was right or wrong in the first place. It's a done deal, so do we try to fix things, or just bail out? If we fix things, do we need more troops? If we cut and run, does that not leave Iraq in the exact same situation you suggested would have been the result if we had originally just gone in, taken out Saddam and his band of merry men, and left?
You are quick to criticize how things are being handled. Please share with us your detailed plan to bring the war to a reasonable conclusion? Convince me you (or any of the Dems in Washington) have a solution that will work.
Steve

Gayle in MD
01-23-2007, 07:56 AM
Steve Writes...Now, it's my turn.
Did we send in enough troops, not enough troops, or too many troops based on the information from all of your expert military leaders.

Not enough
If we didn't send enough, then how can it be wrong to send in more? Because more troops, means more violence, as the commanders on the gournd, to a man, have stated, and this is a militarily unwinnable war.
Have you not stated that GW didn't give the Generals all the troops and equipment they needed to do the job? If that is true, why is it wrong to get more troops over there to get the job done?

Becuase the conditions prevailing have changed since the occupation.

Please try to forget whether you believe the war was right or wrong in the first place. It's a done deal, so do we try to fix things, or just bail out?

Bailing out is not an option, but more troops won't fix things, but only make things worse, if our troops are fighting in a civil war, which they are.

If we fix things, do we need more troops?

No, the situation requires a political solution. Iraqis must fight this out between themselves, and our troops should be re-deployed to the borders, kill the terorists before they get in, and provide monetary support to the Iraqi Government, (Which I think they should pay us back for at a later date)

If we cut and run, does that not leave Iraq in the exact same situation you suggested would have been the result if we had originally just gone in, taken out Saddam and his band of merry men, and left?

Cut and run, doesn't exist. Cut and run is nothing more than a smoke screen the administration used to avoid accountability, and to degrade Democrats. Taking out Saddam, regardless of how we did it, would have only led to his relatives taking his place. There is no way that we could have gone into Iraq, and gotten right out. That's why all experts warned against it..."You breqak it, you own it." Remember?
You are quick to criticize how things are being handled.

That's right, when our troops are being slaughtered in a civil war, that is militarily unwinnable, and the President refuses to tell the truth, or to listen to the commanders on the ground, it is my duty to criticize him, and to stand in support of our troops.


Please share with us your detailed plan to bring the war to a reasonable conclusion? Convince me you (or any of the Dems in Washington) have a solution that will work.

Steve, You continue to experience this war in terms of partisan politics. I do so too, when republicans refused to do their jobs, and provide oversight. Now their is a Democratic majority, 81% of Iraqis want us out. 61-65% of Iraqis want to kill us. 70% of americans think this president isn't handling the war competently, which cannot all be Democrats, btw, and terrorists are flocking over the borders everyday, and siphoning oil out of the oil lines, and selling it to buy more weapons, and more sophisticated bombs. Iran and Syria, are already playing a huge part in the war. Bush has shown that he is incompetent to prosecute the war. Most experts are hard pressed to come up with ANY solution at all, that is satisfactory. All solutions seem to fall shor of any reasonable outcome, which we would color as winning, or successful. bush has destablized the entire Middle East Region. He thumed his nose at the world, and occupied a country which was already devastated, no WMD's, no real Army, or Air Force, Economically in shambles, and with a greatly damaged infrastructure. You wondered in an earlier post, about the oil...The oil lines were degraded, from Desert Storm, the Gulf War, and the sanctions. Estimates were that it would take ten to fifteen years for Iraq to re-build it's weapons program, and that they couldn't accomplish that in secret. IMO, our only hope is to put our troops on the borders, and help to finance this shakey, and somewhat questionable, government in Iraq. Our troops, have already given enough. I am completely against leaving our troops, in the Middle of a Civil War, fighting along side people who want to kill them.

Also, partisan comments are no longer pertinent. When 70% of the people are speaking out against Bush, and his incompetence, it can't be ONLY Democrats. If you see it as cut and run, then the Republicans are cutting and running also.

Gayle in Md.
Steve

pooltchr
01-23-2007, 11:45 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>
Please share with us your detailed plan to bring the war to a reasonable conclusion? Convince me you (or any of the Dems in Washington) have a solution that will work.

Steve, You continue to experience this war in terms of partisan politics. I do so too, when republicans refused to do their jobs, and provide oversight. Now their is a Democratic majority, 81% of Iraqis want us out. 61-65% of Iraqis want to kill us. 70% of americans think this president isn't handling the war competently, which cannot all be Democrats, btw, and terrorists are flocking over the borders everyday, and siphoning oil out of the oil lines, and selling it to buy more weapons, and more sophisticated bombs. Iran and Syria, are already playing a huge part in the war. Bush has shown that he is incompetent to prosecute the war. Most experts are hard pressed to come up with ANY solution at all, that is satisfactory. All solutions seem to fall shor of any reasonable outcome, which we would color as winning, or successful. bush has destablized the entire Middle East Region. He thumed his nose at the world, and occupied a country which was already devastated, no WMD's, no real Army, or Air Force, Economically in shambles, and with a greatly damaged infrastructure. You wondered in an earlier post, about the oil...The oil lines were degraded, from Desert Storm, the Gulf War, and the sanctions. Estimates were that it would take ten to fifteen years for Iraq to re-build it's weapons program, and that they couldn't accomplish that in secret. IMO, our only hope is to put our troops on the borders, and help to finance this shakey, and somewhat questionable, government in Iraq. Our troops, have already given enough. I am completely against leaving our troops, in the Middle of a Civil War, fighting along side people who want to kill them.

Also, partisan comments are no longer pertinent. When 70% of the people are speaking out against Bush, and his incompetence, it can't be ONLY Democrats. If you see it as cut and run, then the Republicans are cutting and running also.

Gayle in Md.
Steve <hr /></blockquote>

In other words, you don't have a plan either???
Steve

Bobbyrx
01-23-2007, 05:06 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote hondo:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bobbyrx:</font><hr> Now I get it. <hr /></blockquote>


No. Trust me , Bobby. You don't get it. <hr /></blockquote>
<font color="red">Ouch, you really got me that time </font color>

Bobbyrx
01-23-2007, 05:11 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DickLeonard:</font><hr>

We are starting to resemble Nazi Germany..#### <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue"> Don't say that too loud. France might surrender </font color>

Gayle in MD
01-24-2007, 05:10 AM
You didn't read this post either? I said redeploy to the perripheral, let the Iraqis fight this thing out. Gaurd the borders, to prevent more trouble makers from joining the fight. Engage the surrounding countries in a political solution.

Bush and company, had no plan to keep the peace, after the occupation. They insulted neighboring countries in advance. Stated a goal which irritated neighboring countries, and continued to insult those countries as he went. This administration's (And Yours) entire "Oh, so what's your plan then, smarty?" attitude, is inappropriate, IMO, given the fact that Bush, Rice, Cheney and Rumsfeld have made this mess, and now, because of their massive mistakes, and incompetence, we are left in a quagmire that even experts can't begin to come up with satisfactory ways to reverse the damage.

History shows us that if you are to successfully enter a region for the purpose of liberating a country from an oppressive dictator, or from sectarian violence between warring factions within the civilian population, rule number one is diplomacy with neighboring countries. Engaging them and enlisting them by highlighting the reasons why they would be better off being part of the solution, rather than joining or supporting the violence.

When we went into Afghanistan, we did that with Pakistan and Iran, for example, and it worked. We did so in the Balkins, Kosovo.

Bush refuses to engage in diplomacy with our enemies. Both Iran, and Syria, are fueling the sectarian violence in Iraq, Iran supporting the Shiia, and Syria, the Sunni. Saudi Arabia is Sunni, and I believe they are not the friends of Amreica that they are portrayed to be. JMO.

War plans in the case of civil/sectarian war, call for four to five hundred thousand troops in order to bring some peace to the area. We don't have them, period.

A woman called into C-Span last week. She told a story about how her husband was covering a check point, with Iraqi forces aside our troops. Our guys left to perform some other duty, temporarily, but her husband stayed and hid himself, up the road. Before the vehicle with our people got back, her husband witnessed the Iraqis planting a road side bomb to get our guys on their way back. This is the kind of people that Bush is going to imbed our guys with.

Much could have been done to succeed in Iraq, if the Military people had been calling the shots. Instead, Bush put Rumsfeld in charge of Iraq, and he refused to heed the advice of Military people who had experience in prosecuting war. It is now too late. The violence, has mushroomed, ages old grudges have been renewed. There are now only three options. Withdraw to the borders, leaving the Iraqis to fight this out, and go back in when the dust settles to take a new shot at a peaceful result. Send in overwhelming forces, hundreds of thousands, to bring the peace. Leave and let the neighboring countries go in and bring the peace. AT 21,500, roughly 1700 of those sent to Anbar Province, you have to divide the remainder of those in Iraq by four, to get the actual number of troops that will be on the ground at any given time. People have to sleep. Bush has screwed around now for months, supposedly listening to ideas, most of which he threw out. Do you think the despots haven't been gearing up for this "New Way Forward" and gathering more for their fight?

BTW, you never said how we could have won by using a small number of special forces.

Gayle in Md.

Vapros
01-24-2007, 06:59 PM
Gayle, are you aware that hatred can eat you up from the inside? And are you sharing your great wisdom with the national media, or just the pool players?

Chopstick
01-25-2007, 07:51 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bobbyrx:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote DickLeonard:</font><hr>

We are starting to resemble Nazi Germany..#### <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue"> Don't say that too loud. France might surrender </font color> <hr /></blockquote>

Now that's funny. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Qtec
01-25-2007, 09:50 AM
I don't particularly like the French but, ............

[ QUOTE ]
Battle of Verdun
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Battle of Verdun
Part of Western Front (World War I)



The Battle of Verdun resulted in more than a quarter of a million deaths and approximately half a million wounded. Verdun was arguably the longest battle and one of the bloodiest in World War I. In both France and Germany it has come to represent the horrors of war, similar to the significance of the Battle of the Somme in the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth.

The Battle of Verdun popularised the phrase "Ils ne passeront pas" ("They shall not pass") in France, uttered by Robert Nivelle, but often incorrectly attributed to Philippe Pétain
<hr /></blockquote>

This is just one battle!

Q..........

Gayle in MD
01-25-2007, 01:01 PM
Vapros,
Stating factual information does not require hatred. I share my thoughts with whomever I please, as do you, apparently.

Gayle in Md.

hondo
01-25-2007, 01:31 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Vapros:</font><hr> Gayle, are you aware that hatred can eat you up from the inside? And are you sharing your great wisdom with the national media, or just the pool players? <hr /></blockquote>

Yeah, Vapros, why doesn't Gayle quit hating America
and start loving George Bush?
This is a tired old argument from Bushies who are
unable to defend their guy. It's really too old to
revive. As is, " well, Clinton got a bj."
Why not just try to convince us that these 1000's
of lives being lost and billions of dollars being
pissed away by occupying a country that hates us
and never had anything to do with 9/11 in the 1st
place is making us all safer here in America?
I suppose inside every one of those nutty bastards
is a Democracy- craving future Walmart customer?

Vapros
01-25-2007, 07:07 PM
Hondo, I would never try to defend George Bush, although I do feel that everybody should have a friend or two. It's a fact that he has hold of something that he can't figure how to let go of. I've been there a time or two myself.

I generally abstain from these little debates, mostly because I don't feel well-enough informed to expect people to listen to me. I would like to see this attitude adopted by many others, who are similarly unqualified and don't seem to know it.

But nearly everyone can recognize a broken record.

Gayle in MD
01-26-2007, 05:52 AM
Vapros Writes...

[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote> But nearly everyone can recognize a broken record. [ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>

I know I can, like when people accuse others of hatred because they respond to posts which are meant to twist the truth and cloud important issues.

What's your real problem, Vapros? Since you say...

[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote> I generally abstain from these little debates, mostly because I don't feel well-enough informed to expect people to listen to me. [ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>

Maybe these "little debates" should be of some interest to you, since there are American Troops being slaughtered daily on the other side of the world, against American interests.

Here's an update for you. We have a president who has launched his own domino disaster in the most volital part of the world, shows signs of being out of touch with reality, has a track record of habitually adopting policies which render increasingly disasterous results, refuses to heed expert advice, and then lies about the internationally dire consequences. Sound important?

[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote> I would like to see this attitude adopted by many others, who are similarly unqualified and don't seem to know it.
[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>


Since you're so uninformed, and apparently apathetic, I'm surprised you think yourself qualified to make such a judgement. Perhaps you might consider scrolling past the political posts, seldom initiated by me, BTW, so that you can avoid having to think about our present dire circumstances at all, rather than attacking others who exercise their freedom of speech by discussing issues which they find worthy of their attention.

Just a friendly little suggestion.

Gayle in Md.

moblsv
01-26-2007, 07:11 AM
The information is out there, should you decide to get informed.

There are libraries full of history books and insider accounts of modern history. If you want some suggestions I'm sure you can get lots of reviews from the informed people on this site. Or, you could join those who prefer to get their egos stroked from sources such as Fox, NewsMax and Boortz and be incredibly mis-informed.

IMO, we are fortunate to live in such a unique society. Being informed is a responsibility that every American should take upon themselves in order to preserve our way of life. The forces that are tearing our country apart from the inside are dependant on uninformed/misinformed/apathetic voters in order to survive. Don't let yourself be one of them.

Gayle in MD
01-26-2007, 07:21 AM
Great post Moblvs,

I would dearly love to meet you someday.

Have a great day, friend.

Love,
Gayle

Vapros
01-26-2007, 08:08 AM
I suppose it's like halitosis. The person who has it is the last to know. And moblsv, don't be too hard on the uninformed voters. The Democrats have been living off them, in a manner of speaking, for a very long time.

hondo
01-26-2007, 08:27 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Vapros:</font><hr> I suppose it's like halitosis. The person who has it is the last to know. And moblsv, don't be too hard on the uninformed voters. The Democrats have been living off them, in a manner of speaking, for a very long time. <hr /></blockquote>

Actually, for a self-proclaimed no-nothing, you seem pretty
opinionated.
You believe the posters on here are no-nothings too who
would be better served by shutting up.
You believe that only dummies vote Democrat.
Perhaps you should take your own advice.

moblsv
01-26-2007, 08:34 AM
The statement

"The forces that are tearing our country apart from the inside are dependant on uninformed/misinformed/apathetic voters in order to survive."

is not only a non-partisan statement but not even necessarily a political statement. IMO education is the root solution to virtually every problem.

moblsv
01-26-2007, 08:35 AM
Gayle, if you are ever anywhere near Utah, I hope you will let me know.

Gayle in MD
01-26-2007, 08:38 AM
Yes that's very true...

[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote> "What's the definition of Apathy? I don't know, and I don't care."

[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote> And moblsv, don't be too hard on the uninformed voters. The Democrats have been living off them, in a manner of speaking, for a very long time. [ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>

As have the Republicans, to a far greater extent, in terms of treasure, and the lives of their children.

Gayle in Md.
Let us all pray that Republicans will learn to love their country, more than they hate Democrats.

Gayle in MD
01-26-2007, 08:55 AM
Will do, and I hope you will do the same, friend, if you are ever in the Washington D.C., Virginia/Maryland area.

We're in a sad time, when Americans are bashed for exercising freedom of speech, and educating themselves on critical issues, the same tactic used by the Bush Administration, demonizing those who speak the truth when it doesn't support their lies. I must say, John Dean's book was a great help to me in understanding the kind of people who practice and support such unamerican activities, and also in alerting me to the inherent dangerous consequences of such a mentality, to our country, the future of our planet, and to mankind.

Love,
Gayle

Vapros
01-26-2007, 09:03 AM
Wow! - This must be the mother lode. I think I'll take the rest of the day off.

Gayle in MD
01-26-2007, 10:58 AM
Good idea, just sit back, put your feet up, tune in Fox, as you relax and enjoy another big cold glass of your favorite beverage, Republican flavored KOOL AID. Oh, and don't give a thought to our troops facing al Sadr's estimated 60,000 to 80,000 strong army, in Baghdad, or the President's decision to rely on Iraqi troops to show up in the forefront for a battle, under the arrangments and garentees of al Sadr's best friend, Maliki. All is well, Cheney says so, "Amazing Progress" so he says. Forget the Baker/Hamilton description, "Kaotic, Dire and degrading" and our own 16 Agencies National Security Estimate..."The invasion of Iraq has caused the United States great loss in international credibility, loss of important Allies, Sectarian Civil War in Iraq - unwinnable Militarily - emboldened Militant Muslims, al Qaeda, and others, and increased their ability to enlist thousands more to their cause.


Have a great day!

jGayle in Md.

pooltchr
01-26-2007, 07:45 PM
Gayle,
As a self-proclaimed student of current affairs, perhaps you could find a way to express yourself in new ways. Your "Kool-Aid" references have been over used to the point that they really don't have much meaning any longer. Maybe you thought it was cute the first 100 times you used it, but please give us a break. If you must keep repeating yourself, at least try to be creative and find new ways of saying the same old thing over and over. A well educated person such as yourself can surely be a little more diverse in your terminology.
Thanks
Steve

Gayle in MD
01-27-2007, 09:35 AM
Interesting that "Kool-Aid" reference is the only thing in that post that you chose to focuss on. Hey, how bout this. I won't say anything about Kool Aid, and you won't begin amlost every post to me with "Once again, Gayle, you fail to ...." or suggest that factual information is a result of hatred.

Deal????
/ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Gayle in MD
01-29-2007, 08:09 AM
Hi Chop,

Do you really believe this?

[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>
As far as the World Police thing goes it was the liberals that started that. They are the ones hell bent on saving the world from itself.
[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>

I think this statement calls for a review of Eisenhower's Administration, among other Republican Daministrations. I don't think you can failrly blame liberals for years of foreign policy, much of it under Republican control.

Just my 2 cents.

Gayle in Md.

DickLeonard
02-01-2007, 08:25 AM
Gayle no Republican complained that Iran held the Hostages until Ronnie took Office influencing the Election of the President of the United States of America. Now they are influencing Iraq as any third grade history student would have surmised seeing that the majority of Iraqis are Sunnis.

How could a country thousands of miles away expect to have any control over a country that they are occupying?

Once we leave it will be a free for all, whether now or twenty years from now. There are 190+ countries in the United Nations. How many of them are Democracies? I am having trouble naming two. ####