DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: hnumpah on January 29, 2008, 10:20:43 AM
-
(http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/uc/20080129/spo080128.gif)
-
If Bush resigned today, this is what his speech would be.....
Normally, I start these things out by saying "My Fellow Americans." Not doing it this time. If the polls are any indication, I don't know who more than half of you are anymore. I do know something terrible has happened, and that you're really not fellow Americans any longer.
I'll cut right to the chase here: I quit. Now before anyone gets all in a lather about me quitting to avoid impeachment, or to avoid prosecution or something, let me assure you: There's been no breaking of laws or impeachable offenses in this office.
The reason I'm quitting is simple. I'm fed up with you people. I'm fed up because you have no understanding of what's really going on in the world. Or of what's going on in this once-great nation of ours. And the majority of you are too damned lazy to do your homework and figure it out.
Let's start local. You've been sold a bill of goods by politicians and the news media. Polls show that the majority of you think the economy is in the tank. And that's despite record numbers of homeowners, including record numbers of MINORITY homeowners. And while we're mentioning minorities, I'll point out that minority business ownership is at an all-time high. Our unemployment rate is as low as it ever was during the Clinton administration. I've mentioned all those things before, but it doesn't seem to have sunk in.
Despite the shock to our economy of 9/11, the stock market has rebounded to record levels and more Americans than ever are participating in these markets. Meanwhile, all you can do is whine about gas prices, and most of you are too damn stupid to realize that gas prices are high because there's increased demand in other parts of the world, and because a small handful of noisy idiots are more worried about polar bears and beach front property than your economic security.
We face real threats in the world. Don't give me this "blood for oil" thing. If I were trading blood for oil I would've already seized Iraq 's oil fields and let the rest of the country go to hell. And don't give me this 'Bush Lied; People Died' crap either. If I were the liar you morons take me for, I could've easily had chemical weapons planted in Iraq so they could be 'discovered.' Instead, I owned up to the fact that the intelligence was faulty.
Let me remind you that the rest of the world thought Saddam had the goods, same as me. Let me also remind you that regime change in Iraq was official US policy before I came into office. Some guy named ' Clinton ' established that policy. Bet you didn't know that, did you?
You idiots need to understand that we face a unique enemy. Back during the cold war, there were two major competing political and economic models squaring off. We won that war, but we did so because fundamentally, the Communists wanted to survive, just as we do. We were simply able to out spend and out-tech them.
That's not the case this time. The soldiers of our new enemy don't care if they survive. In fact, they want to die. That'd be fine, as long as they weren't also committed to taking as many of you with them as they can. But they are. They want to kill you, and the bastards are all over the globe.
You should be grateful that they haven't gotten any more of us here in the United States since September 11. But you're not. That's because you've got no idea how hard a small number of intelligence, military, law enforcement, and homeland security people have worked to make sure of that. When this whole mess started, I warned you that this would be a long and difficult fight. I'm disappointed how many of you people think a long and difficult fight amounts to a single season of 'Survivor.'
Instead, you've grown impatient. You're incapable of seeing things through the long lens of history, the way our enemies do. You think that wars should last a few months, a few years, tops.
Making matters worse, you actively support those who help the enemy. Every time you buy the New York Times, every time you send a donation to a cut-and-run Democrat's political campaign, well, dang it, you might just as well FedEx a grenade launcher to a Jihadist. It amounts to the same thing.
In this day and age, it's easy enough to find the truth. It's all over the Internet. It just isn't on the pages of the New York Times or on NBC News. But even if it were, I doubt you'd be any smarter. Most of you would rather watch American Idol.
I could say more about your expectations that the government will always be there to bail you out, even if you're too stupid to leave a city that's below sea level and has a hurricane approaching.
I could say more about your insane belief that government, not your own wallet, is where the money comes from. But I've come to the conclusion that were I to do so, it would sail right over your heads.
So I quit. I'm going back to Crawford. I've got an energy-efficient house down there (Al Gore could only dream) and the capability to be fully self-sufficient. No one ever heard of Crawford before I got elected, and as soon as I'm done here pretty much no one will ever hear of it again. Maybe I'll be lucky enough to die of old age before the last pillars of America fall.
Oh, and by the way, Cheney's quitting too. That means Pelosi is your new President. You asked for it. Watch what she does carefully, because I still have a glimmer of hope that there are just enough of you remaining who are smart enough to turn this thing around in 2008.
So that's it. God bless what's left of America .
Some of you know what I mean.
The rest of you, kiss off.
SOTU (http://www.larryelder.com/bush.html)
-
Damn, I'd love to hear that speech right now, today. Let's get that piece of crap out of the White House as soon as possible.
-
Yea, my post was a joke, too
-
Yea, my post was a joke, too
Sirs,
Don't you think that the war was a mistake? I know you don't but in all honesty, don't you have any doubts at all, hon? I support your stance, and I am more or less playing devil's advocate when I complain about the war in Iraq, but I do wonder if it was a mistake to go in to a major country, when Afghanistan based Taliban/Al Queda terroritsts were the true culprit back in Sept. 2001. Why would a president take on so darn much? The one thing that creates doubt in my mind, as of late, are those success statements that he made back then...declaring victory.
I have to say that he probably had no idea what he was getting into back then...and THAT bothers me, Sirs.
-
Good speech. I think it translates something like this:
1. If you don't support me, you're traitors.
2. Take my word for it, I'm clean as a whistle. So's Cheney. Honest. Trust me.
3. Personal bankruptcy filings jumped up 40% last year and foreclosures are going through the roof, but the economy's just fine. Trust me. Honest. Would I lie to you?
4. I didn't lie about Iraq because . . . I wasn't stupid enough to enlist the aid of hundreds of Americans to plant fake evidence after the fact and expose myself to their blackmail and whistle-blowing. The first lie got the job done and you can't prove a God-damn thing, nyaaah, nyaaah, nyaaaah, treasonous liberal ass-holes.
5. America is in grave danger from a few ragged bands of fanatical terrorists who were on the verge of destroying our whole country by hijacking airplanes before I stepped in to save you all, by invading Iraq and Afghanistan (and, oh yeah, also by tightening airport security like I should have done in the first 8 months of my admnistration.)
6. High oil prices are the fault of morons who refuse to despoil the great natural parks of this country so that other morons can fill their SUV's and keep the profits flowing to our great American petroleum companies.
7. None of you idiots understand that as McCain says, it's WORTH IT even if Amerikkkan troops have to stay in Iraq for 100 years.
8. Next time a natural disaster strikes one of our major cities, don't expect the government to help - - we long ago stopped maintaining the infrastructure, and we sure as hell ain't gonna waste our precious fuel resources hauling YOUR sorry asses out of danger - - just surrender to Mother Nature, grab what you can and head for the hills. Morons.
9. The New York Times and the Democrats are traitors. Did I tell you that already?
10. I'm going back to my ranch in Crawford. I've got an energy-efficient house there. My daddy's money built it. You're a moron.
11. The traitor Pelosi is taking over. The country is doomed. God bless my supporters. Fuck the other 99.5 % of you.
-
Yea, my post was a joke, too
Sure was. Bush wouldn't willingly resign, so right at the start it's a laffer. And the rest is bullshit anyway.
-
Let's just see how much of this is garbage.
If Bush resigned today, this is what his speech would be.....
Normally, I start these things out by saying "My Fellow Americans." Not doing it this time. If the polls are any indication, I don't know who more than half of you are anymore. I do know something terrible has happened, and that you're really not fellow Americans any longer. OK, this is just pure crying.
I'll cut right to the chase here: I quit. Now before anyone gets all in a lather about me quitting to avoid impeachment, or to avoid prosecution or something, let me assure you: There's been no breaking of laws or impeachable offenses in this office. Again, crying.
The reason I'm quitting is simple. I'm fed up with you people. I'm fed up because you have no understanding of what's really going on in the world. And George W Bush does!!!!!...LOLOLOLOL Or of what's going on in this once-great nation of ours. And the majority of you are too damned lazy to do your homework and figure it out.
Let's start local. You've been sold a bill of goods by politicians and the news media. Polls show that the majority of you think the economy is in the tank. And that's despite record numbers of homeowners, including record numbers of MINORITY homeowners. Let's not forget record numbers of foreclosures AND bankruptcies...oops, better not throw that statistic in there. And while we're mentioning minorities, I'll point out that minority business ownership is at an all-time high. Yet, African-American unemployment and poverty is still abysmal. Our unemployment rate is as low as it ever was during the Clinton administration. I've mentioned all those things before, but it doesn't seem to have sunk in. Better get out the violins for this one...
Despite the shock to our economy of 9/11, the stock market has rebounded to record levels and more Americans than ever are participating in these markets. Has anyone seen the market lately? It hasn't come close to keeping up with inflation. Meanwhile, all you can do is whine about gas prices, and most of you are too damn stupid to realize that gas prices are high because there's increased demand in other parts of the world, and because a small handful of noisy idiots are more worried about polar bears and beach front property than your economic security. Ah, blame it on the environmentalists...LOL. Actually gas prices are higher here because of the very weak dollar, which has been policy of crybaby's administration.
We face real threats in the world. Don't give me this "blood for oil" thing. If I were trading blood for oil I would've already seized Iraq 's oil fields and let the rest of the country go to hell. And don't give me this 'Bush Lied; People Died' crap either. If I were the liar you morons take me for, I could've easily had chemical weapons planted in Iraq so they could be 'discovered.' Instead, I owned up to the fact that the intelligence was faulty. What threats? Come on, start naming them and give some statistics to back it up! Let's have some real data instead of bogeyman anectdotes. International terrorism statistics don't show it as much of a "real threat."
Let me remind you that the rest of the world thought Saddam had the goods, same as me. Let me also remind you that regime change in Iraq was official US policy before I came into office. Some guy named ' Clinton ' established that policy. Bet you didn't know that, did you? Ah...I fucked up, but I blame everyone else but me. Nice. A fine example of personal responsibility.
You idiots need to understand that we face a unique enemy. Back during the cold war, there were two major competing political and economic models squaring off. We won that war, but we did so because fundamentally, the Communists wanted to survive, just as we do. We were simply able to out spend and out-tech them. Don't forget the countries we fucked over and the hundreds of thousands, even millions who were slaughtered.
That's not the case this time. The soldiers of our new enemy don't care if they survive. In fact, they want to die. That'd be fine, as long as they weren't also committed to taking as many of you with them as they can. But they are. They want to kill you, and the bastards are all over the globe. Everone must live in constant terrified FEAR!!!
You should be grateful that they haven't gotten any more of us here in the United States since September 11. But you're not. That's because you've got no idea how hard a small number of intelligence, military, law enforcement, and homeland security people have worked to make sure of that. When this whole mess started, I warned you that this would be a long and difficult fight. I'm disappointed how many of you people think a long and difficult fight amounts to a single season of 'Survivor.' Oh dear, someone get some tissue for the dubster and his disciples.
Instead, you've grown impatient. You're incapable of seeing things through the long lens of history, the way our enemies do. You think that wars should last a few months, a few years, tops. Or never have been fought!
Making matters worse, you actively support those who help the enemy. Every time you buy the New York Times, every time you send a donation to a cut-and-run Democrat's political campaign, well, dang it, you might just as well FedEx a grenade launcher to a Jihadist. It amounts to the same thing. Wow. So now free journalism and the opposition party are TRAITORS and active enemy combatants! AWESOME!
In this day and age, it's easy enough to find the truth. It's all over the Internet. It just isn't on the pages of the New York Times or on NBC News. But even if it were, I doubt you'd be any smarter. Most of you would rather watch American Idol. LOLOL George is making fun of other people's intelligence...I like this.
I could say more about your expectations that the government will always be there to bail you out, even if you're too stupid to leave a city that's below sea level and has a hurricane approaching. Yet, Bush has been all about the government being there to save the poor scared American from the evil outside world.
I could say more about your insane belief that government, not your own wallet, is where the money comes from. But I've come to the conclusion that were I to do so, it would sail right over your heads. Technically money is printed at the US mint, I'm just saying...
So I quit. I'm going back to Crawford. I've got an energy-efficient house down there (Al Gore could only dream) and the capability to be fully self-sufficient. No one ever heard of Crawford before I got elected, and as soon as I'm done here pretty much no one will ever hear of it again. Maybe I'll be lucky enough to die of old age before the last pillars of America fall. Maybe we'd be lucky enough to have a time machine invented so we could undo your sorry ass ever inflicting its pain on this nation. And the dying thing...the best idea you've had in , well...ever!
Oh, and by the way, Cheney's quitting too. That means Pelosi is your new President. You asked for it. Watch what she does carefully, because I still have a glimmer of hope that there are just enough of you remaining who are smart enough to turn this thing around in 2008. You had me at Cheney's quitting... :-*
So that's it. God bless what's left of America after I've destroyed it.
-
I do wonder if it was a mistake to go in to a major country, when Afghanistan based Taliban/Al Queda terroritsts were the true culprit back in Sept. 2001.
The lightbulbs have slowly been coming on all across America...
I have to say that he probably had no idea what he was getting into back then...and THAT bothers me, Sirs.
He didn't...it should.
-
I do wonder if it was a mistake to go in to a major country, when Afghanistan based Taliban/Al Queda terroritsts were the true culprit back in Sept. 2001.
The lightbulbs have slowly been coming on all across America...
I have to say that he probably had no idea what he was getting into back then...and THAT bothers me, Sirs.
He didn't...it should.
It bothers me at this time--4 year later, but what can we do about it all.....it's too late.
Now, we must slow the tank down? Get out of town?
what?
YOu know they hold educators to a standard......we are to provide children strategies to grasp concepts, idea and knowledge. Where were the "best practices" strategies for entering into this war? They failed miserably on that front, imo. Bush's cohorts did not have the first idea of how to fight a war in the middle east. They fail.
If Bush were help accountable for such lack of provisions....he would be left behind and booted without pay.
I supported the effort to fight back a few years ago. I supported the effort to rid the middle east of tyrants who kill women and children. I supported the change in the way we take care of our own nation in terms of security......but the war in Iraq seems to only have deeped wounds. Osama is still on the loose. Yes, we have had the luck to counter the terrorism in this country, unllike Spain, England and other places around the world since 9-11....but I fear that soldiers have died for a dream that Bush/Cheney held dear to their hearts---the fight.
I support the ideas that bring peace in the world. I support war in the case of fighting back, but where are we headed now?
Deep dept. That's what scares me the most. The cost of all of this has to be outrageous.
We need to reorganize in this nation of ours on many levels.
BT, you say have patience, but in all honesty, patience doesn't pay the bills, unless you have a great idea how we can get out of such a war dept.
-
Yea, my post was a joke, too
Sirs, Don't you think that the war was a mistake? I know you don't but in all honesty, don't you have any doubts at all, hon?
I'll be bluntly honest here, Cynthia.....and have made this answer many other a time. 1st off, I don't support that Bush is evil, Hitler reborn. that immediately takes off most of the unsubstantiated garbage the left tries to lay claim to, as to why Bush has done what he's done, in regards to iraq, and everything else for that matter.
Secondly, given the intel Bush had, and following the events of 911, it would have been grossly irresponsible for Bush NOT to have gone into both Afghanistan & Iraq, given their connections to Islamic terrorists. He is charged to protect this nation....NOT to placate illegal immigrants or push Universal Health Care
Thirdly, it would have been morally irresponsible not to have remained in Iraq, following the MISSION ACCOMPLISHED scenario of taking out Saddam, leaving a virtually completely undefended Iraqi populace without a functional government or defendability at the salivating Islamic Militants who would have swarmed over the area like locusts
Have mistakes been made in this war??, of course. Show me a war that ran as perfectly as planners predicted. I'm not even gonna detail the amount of lives lost in 1 day during actions in WWII that didn't go as planned.
Point being is this.....do you believe Bush is acting sincerely, doing what he thinks is best for the nation, with the occasional mistakes in either judgement and/or basing decisions on flawed intel....or do you think Bush is an evil Fascist wannabe dictator, brilliant enough to fool everyone into going along with the WMD facade but too dumb not to be able to put his own guy in charge of Iraq or secure the oil wells for AmeriKKKa?
I'm going with the former, since there's not a shred of evidence, or logic, to support the latter. In fact, 1 has to be wholly inconsistent to support the asanine notion of how Bush could fool so many, yet too dumb to secure Iraqi's oil, or plant some WMD and say "look, see, here they all are?"
I have to say that he probably had no idea what he was getting into back then...and THAT bothers me, Sirs.
I disagree to a point, since he made it clear from the outset, that this post-Saddam war could take quite a while. But yes, he probably wasn't prepared for the veracity of the insurgency, and how hard militant Islam would fight to keep the area as unstable as possible. But the decisions of going in, don't bother me at all. It made perfect sense, given the intel and events of 911
-
patience doesn't pay the bills
what bills aren't being paid?
-
patience doesn't pay the bills
what bills aren't being paid?
The amount that we are in dept for this war, BT. Perhaps we paid that dept....but how?
-
like everything else, we financed it.
-
We financed it? So, no dept now or in the future?
God, we must be so rich.
-
if it is financed there is debt. But i don't see where we are not servicing that debt.
-
We have dept, then. We have bills to pay.
Do you know how much money this war has cost so far?
-
You indicated that we were not paying those bills. Are you backing off from that claim?
-
1st off, I don't support that Bush is evil, Hitler reborn.
I don't either, just that he is so stupid to have screwed up on such a grand scale.
Secondly, given the intel Bush had, and following the events of 911, it would have been grossly irresponsible for Bush NOT to have gone into both Afghanistan & Iraq, given their connections to Islamic terrorists. He is charged to protect this nation....NOT to placate illegal immigrants or push Universal Health Care
A. Afghanistan, yes. Iraq, no. 'Given the intel' is a sorry excuse. I heard Bushco's lame excuses for war, and also paid attention to the other reports that were going around at the time, mainly from radio news sources, with some television, an occasional newspaper and a newsmagazine every once in a while, because I was driving over the road at the time. I came to the conclusion then that Bushco was full of crap and the 'intel' they had was faulty, and I didn't have the benefit of the NSA, CIA, FBI, or some pissant Iraqi with an axe to grind and hopes of the US deposing Saddam for him and making him the head honcho. I looked at it with a clear head and ignored all the rhetoric, and sumbitch, I was right. Yet over and over and over since then, I've been accused of not thinking clearly. Go figure.
B. Yep, the president's job is to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States and defend it's citizens - not wage pre-emptive war against a country that posed no threat to us.
Thirdly, it would have been morally irresponsible not to have remained in Iraq, following the MISSION ACCOMPLISHED scenario of taking out Saddam, leaving a virtually completely undefended Iraqi populace without a functional government or defendability at the salivating Islamic Militants who would have swarmed over the area like locusts
Here's the catch, ol' buddy. I agreed with Powell that once we invaded, we owed the Iraqis a start at rebuilding. They have it. They have a government, and they have a military. Now it's up to them to decide whether they have what it takes to pull their country together and make something of it. It is not up to us to spoonfeed them for the next five, ten, twenty or hundred years.
Point being is this.....do you believe Bush is acting sincerely, doing what he thinks is best for the nation, with the occasional mistakes in either judgement and/or basing decisions on flawed intel...
I believe he is sincere. I also sincerely believe he is an idiot. I also have reservations about his honesty.
-
I'll be bluntly honest here, Cynthia.....and have made this answer many other a time.
Sirs, of course I know you are being honest. I don't question your integrity or you stance. I think we all need to visit and revisit points during a war....questioning self...is it working etc.
I realize that I haven't been here in a while, so I am sorry if you have had to reply again to this issue. Bear with me, please.
Point being is this.....do you believe Bush is acting sincerely, doing what he thinks is best for the nation, with the occasional mistakes in either judgement and/or basing decisions on flawed intel....or do you think Bush is an evil Fascist wannabe dictator, brilliant enough to fool everyone into going along with the WMD facade but too dumb not to be able to put his own guy in charge of Iraq or secure the oil wells for AmeriKKKa?
I also realize that some people here have ignited a negative spin with their anti-Bush bandwagon rant....such as Hitler references , AmeriKKKa evil Fascist etc...AND, I think it is a cop out!
I am not "going there" with my inquiry. Basically, I just want to know how you and others feel about the status of the whole situation as it is now.... as logical, and intelligent men/women. BEing sarcastic as the folks here have done doesn't cut it for me. Your posts are usually very spot on with regard to information, quotes, details etc...as is XO's on the other side of the fence....
I believe strongly NOW, however, that Bush entered into Iraq in the beginning without giving the idea time. Was he trying to do the best for the country? That's a difficult question to ask of any politician. Did he want to show the American people that HE COULD DO IT...or was he afraid of being seen as a whimp? Texans are not supposed to be whimps, even blue blood NE"ers Texans.....
Sure there is victory in any war, especially at the beginning....so Mission Accomplished was clearly an honest reactionary statement (Saddam went missing into hiding). But, when the instability in the country started to come forth as an afterthought......I say who was in charge, and why didn't they think things through before taking on such a big thing (WAR)?
Have mistakes been made in this war??, of course. Show me a war that ran as perfectly as planners predicted. I'm not even gonna detail the amount of lives lost in 1 day during actions in WWII that didn't go as planned.
Democracy is a fine thing. WOuld love to see it develop in the mid east. So, I will hold out for hope that this 'war' to find that endgame, I will....but I think one has to admit that it aint yer WW2 gig. The WW2 had the support of many nations going into the conflict. We were called into the war later, but we fought the enemy directly. America was the princess and darling of the day.....She had a full dance card! We were on top of th world in terms of support from the world. People wanted to come to America to live that dream. Now, they want to come to America to escape their own nightmares.
The generals, the military, the government, the machinests, the average housewife, heck even American children had a better strategy to fight (and win) that WW2 war. DO we have that now? Saving rubber, recycling for the war, women working, playing baseball....:) ....support, support and more support.....one heck of a strategy, I'd say.
MY point, Sirs, is that we didn't have that going into this war. We should have known that it takes a lot more to win a war. We have History books to help us with that little thing. Where was the support from European nations in this war from the getgo? Dragging their feet, I'd say.
I think the "mistakes" in this war were based on the preplanning stage.
One would think that mistakes come after the fact...but the major mistakes of THIS WAR were based on pre planning. #'s of troops engaged, equipment failures, judging the cultural layout of the land, the strife for centuries in teh nation of Iraq....the fact that Afghanistan was the key target after 9-11...not Iraq.
Pre planning stage....
I still think that Bush deserves an F for not being very wise on this one. One country at a time, maybe at worst.....but to invade the middle easter nations with fewer resources...unforgiveable.
We are still paying a dept when we could have used the money to hlep our own people with health care, etc.
My thoughts.....just thoughts...i have the right to ask questions and discuss thoughts.....devil's advocate? Maybe..but we must not sit in complacency and respond in pride.
Not saying you do, Sirs. I respect you greatly.
I just want answers that hold water instead of the rhetoric of calling our leader a dictator. I have to admit, I am tired of hearing those responses here too.
Cynthia
-
You indicated that we were not paying those bills. Are you backing off from that claim?
Patience doesn't pay the bills. ....Money pays the bills. The patience/ability to pay the bills might not be enough to get us out of dept. Do you really know if we will be able to pay for this war, for certain? We are paying the bills with money....and we will have to continue to pay the bills with a hell of a lot of patience...will the $$ wear thin?
I didn't mean to imply that we arent' paying bills.....Bill, but I do think that we will be paying said 'bills' off for a very long time.....
-
Cost of the Iraq war to date - over 489 billion dollars.
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home
-
Cost of the Iraq war to date - over 489 billion dollars.
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home
That's a lot of money.
Coulda' had a V-8!
-
I have to say that he probably had no idea what he was getting into back then...and THAT bothers me, Sirs.
I disagree to a point, since he made it clear from the outset, that this post-Saddam war could take quite a while. But yes, he probably wasn't prepared for the veracity of the insurgency, and how hard militant Islam would fight to keep the area as unstable as possible. But the decisions of going in, don't bother me at all. It made perfect sense, given the intel and events of 911
I have to ask Sirs, and I'm not asking tongue-in-cheek, but in perfect sincerity - why were we unprepared for the veracity of the insurgency? Many people knew it would be very difficult, including people in the Pentagon who had asked for a larger force to be sent in initially. I'm a little unclear as to why it came as a surprise.
-
Wouldn't it be grand if he did this?
Thanks sirs.
-
1st off, I don't support that Bush is evil, Hitler reborn.
I don't either, just that he is so stupid to have screwed up on such a grand scale.
I do concede, which needs me to augment my prior post, that there is a 3rd contingent of folks who don't believe the asanine theory of how evil Bush is supposed to be, and simply that he used poor judgement in deciding to go to war in the 1st place. That said, anyone that believes Bush "lied us into war" by supposedly cooking the intel, and was going to go into Iraq regardless of the events of 911, would fall into the former asanine category.
Afghanistan, yes. Iraq, no. 'Given the intel' is a sorry excuse.
in your opinion, perhaps.
Yep, the president's job is to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States and defend it's citizens - not wage pre-emptive war against a country that posed no threat to us.
Good thing that's not why we went to war then, isn't it
I agreed with Powell that once we invaded, we owed the Iraqis a start at rebuilding. They have it. They have a government, and they have a military. Now it's up to them to decide whether they have what it takes to pull their country together and make something of it.
Hey, I'm right with you, 'ol buddy. And as soon as their democratically elected Government believes their ready to take the reigns, then we're outa there
I believe he is sincere. I also sincerely believe he is an idiot. I also have reservations about his honesty.
Kind of an oxymoron there, H. But whatever floats your boat. If he's such an "idiot", sure would have been impossible for him to get so many other country's Governments and their intel agencies to go along with his WMD facade, doncha think?
-
>>God, we must be so rich.<<
We are actually.
The way the left has reacted to President Bush says more about them than it ever could about him.
First, they don't like a religious man. They don?t mind someone giving lip service to God, that is to say. They don?t like someone who actually believes in what he says. That was the President?s original sin.
As for Iraq, we know the Clinton?s, the Gore?s, the Kerry?s, and just about every democrat supported the war for the reason?s President Bush and his advisors gave for waging it. The world believed it.
Were mistakes made? Were mistakes made in the Revolutionary War? The Civil War? Were mistakes made in World War I? World War II? We?ve reached a point in history were the left will forgive any mistake made by Hollywood actors, democrat politicians, and poor folks, but a war must be prosecuted without a single error in judgment. NOT ONE. Any set back is reason to turn and run. Any set back is reason to condemn the president and the military as inept traitors.
What is the motivation being all this ridiculous hate? Bill Clinton. If you press them, you find that revenge for the reprobate Clinton is the real motivator being BDS. It?s not about civil rights. It?s not about how other countries think of us. It?s about revenge for what they went through because they supported a serial adulterer, perjurer, and possibly a rapist. And after Clinton they lost two more elections. That really pissed them off. So much so that they abandoned all reason and honor and lied about the outcome. They claimed Black people were kept from voting by force. Which was proven false many times. It didn?t stop them from continuing to make the claim. Every time the votes were counted the outcome was the same. That didn?t stop them from making the most outrageous claims and suggesting the most insane conspiracy theories.
I loved this imaginary response from Bush. I can see him flipping the double bird at the camera, turning his back to the asshole reporters, putting him arm around Laura and laughing all the way back to Crawford.
-
Cost of Iraq war = 4 % of gdp
Total defense spending in 2006 will probably be around 4 percent of gross national product, notes Mr. Cordesman. The average since 1992 for this measure has been 3.6 percent.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0519/p01s03-usmi.html
Cost of wwii = 38 % of gdp
http://www.antiwar.com/henderson/?articleid=8727
-
Perspective is quite the eye opener. Thanks, Bt
-
The generals, the military, the government, the machinests, the average housewife, heck even American children had a better strategy to fight (and win) that WW2 war. DO we have that now? Saving rubber, recycling for the war, women working, playing baseball....:) ....support, support and more support.....one heck of a strategy, I'd say. MY point, Sirs, is that we didn't have that going into this war. We should have known that it takes a lot more to win a war. We have History books to help us with that little thing.
PRECISELY Cynthia......HISTORY. We let Hitler go unchecked, and look what it brought about. I'd argue that history is PRECISELY one of the rationales Bush used in going into Iraq. We had clear justification following 911, with the connections terrorists had with Iraq, and the WMD that nearly every intel conclusion said Saddam had. We just watched thousands of our citizens die nearly instantaneously when the planes hit, and when the towers came down. You actually help make my point. Sure we "didn't have to" do anything. France didn't have to deal with Hitler when he broke their treaty.....and they didn't. Bush wasn't going to let history repeat itself
-
Cost of Iraq war = 4 % of gdp
Total defense spending in 2006 will probably be around 4 percent of gross national product, notes Mr. Cordesman. The average since 1992 for this measure has been 3.6 percent.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0519/p01s03-usmi.html
Cost of wwii = 38 % of gdp
http://www.antiwar.com/henderson/?articleid=8727
How much is Amtrak and PBS? Yet we always hear bitching to cut funding for those. :P
-
The generals, the military, the government, the machinests, the average housewife, heck even American children had a better strategy to fight (and win) that WW2 war. DO we have that now? Saving rubber, recycling for the war, women working, playing baseball....:) ....support, support and more support.....one heck of a strategy, I'd say. MY point, Sirs, is that we didn't have that going into this war. We should have known that it takes a lot more to win a war. We have History books to help us with that little thing.
PRECISELY Cynthia......HISTORY. We let Hitler go unchecked, and look what it brought about. I'd argue that history is PRECISELY one of the rationales Bush used in going into Iraq. We had clear justification following 911, with the connections terrorists had with Iraq, and the WMD that nearly every intel conclusion said Saddam had. We just watched thousands of our citizens die nearly instantaneously when the planes hit, and when the towers came down. You actually help make my point. Sure we "didn't have to" do anything. France didn't have to deal with Hitler when he broke their treaty.....and they didn't. Bush wasn't going to let history repeat itself
Well, I was thinking about the History of war planning. I think that we were justified to go to some kind of 'fight back'....but really, I thought that Iraq did not have anything to do with 9-11. Maybe I'm wrong.
In the past, we fought a war against the direct enemy. We didn't fight Japan and then jump over to China just because they were communists.
-
We just watched thousands of our citizens die nearly instantaneously when the planes hit, and when the towers came down.
I wanted to reply to this, as well.
I realize that we watched so many people die at the hand of an evil set of terrorizing bastards.....but my point wasn't that we shouldn't have gone to war...my question was about Iraq specifically.
Did Saddam claim responsibility for 9-11?
I realize this horse has been beaten to death, but it's ghost jsut raised it's head again.....and my inquiry is more about the money that has been spent on this war...was it worth it?
....oh and there are the lives spent and used as well...........
It seems like just yesterday when I first posted on this issue..supporting the war....back when--- 2003. That was 5 years ago!. Gosh how time flies. But, time can't fly forever.....How successful have we really been in this Iraqi/Afghanistan war on Osama's military who blasted our people on that fateful day?
-
We let Hitler go unchecked, and look what it brought about. I'd argue that history is PRECISELY one of the rationales Bush used in going into Iraq. We had clear justification following 911, with the connections terrorists had with Iraq, and the WMD that nearly every intel conclusion said Saddam had. We just watched thousands of our citizens die nearly instantaneously when the planes hit, and when the towers came down. You actually help make my point. Sure we "didn't have to" do anything. France didn't have to deal with Hitler when he broke their treaty.....and they didn't. Bush wasn't going to let history repeat itself
Well, I was thinking about the History of war planning. I think that we were justified to go to some kind of 'fight back'....but really, I thought that Iraq did not have anything to do with 9-11. Maybe I'm wrong.
No, you're absolutely right, and for the umpteenth hundred time, We didn't go into Iraq because they caused 911, or even had anything to do with it. You can really thank Usama for that. He screwed Saddam by the fact that Iraq had both direct and indirect ties to muslim terrorists, that have been factually chronicled, and it was AlQeada that brought down the Towers and hit the Pentagon. By virtue of his terrorist connections, and WMD that nearly every credible source believed he had ----> we went into Iraq, when it was made patently clear Saddam was not going to abide by 1441.....analogus to Hitler not abiding by his treaty
Did Saddam claim responsibility for 9-11?
No, as answered above.
-
We had clear justification following 911, with the connections terrorists had with Iraq, and the WMD that nearly every intel conclusion said Saddam had.
No, you're absolutely right, and for the umpteenth hundred time, We didn't go into Iraq because they caused 911, or even had anything to do with it.
Sorry....I was responding to your own words, here Sirs.
So, they didn't have ANYTHING to do with 9-11? What connections did the terrorists have with Iraq, then?
It seems that your former statement indicates that Iraq had some sort of connection with terrorists---according to intel?
not to mention "clear justification' following 9-11. Then the latter statement says...otherwise.... had nothing to do with 9-11.?
-
We just watched thousands of our citizens die nearly instantaneously when the planes hit, and when the towers came down.
I wanted to reply to this, as well.
I realize that we watched so many people die at the hand of an evil set of terrorizing bastards.....but my point wasn't that we shouldn't have gone to war...my question was about Iraq specifically.
Did Saddam claim responsibility for 9-11?
I realize this horse has been beaten to death . . . . .
To folks like Sirs, that particular equine metaphor has no meaning whatsoever.
Perhaps you saw the excellent movie "The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada?"
A closer metaphor, I can tell you. `
-
We had clear justification following 911, with the connections terrorists had with Iraq, and the WMD that nearly every intel conclusion said Saddam had.
No, you're absolutely right, and for the umpteenth hundred time, We didn't go into Iraq because they caused 911, or even had anything to do with it.
So, they didn't have ANYTHING to do with 9-11? What connections did the terrorists have with Iraq, then?
When I get home, if no one else has yet, I'll endeavor to pull up some of the commentaries I came across, made by high level ranking officials that referenced specifics.......so that our fellow luny leftists can then claim how much of a Bush puppet they are. But at least you'll have a better appreciation
It seems that your former statement indicates that Iraq had some sort of connection with terrorists---according to intel?
Yes
not to mention "clear justification' following 9-11. Then the latter statement says...otherwise.... had nothing to do with 9-11.?
That Iraq had nothing to do with 911. That Terrorists who had connections with Iraq did, however. And Saddam's continued defiance of UN resolutions, which mandated complete and full compliance, made the justification for serious consequences, complete. As I said, Saddam can thank Usama and his own arrogance, for his being dethrowned as dictator
-
We had clear justification following 911, with the connections terrorists had with Iraq, and the WMD that nearly every intel conclusion said Saddam had.
No, you're absolutely right, and for the umpteenth hundred time, We didn't go into Iraq because they caused 911, or even had anything to do with it.
So, they didn't have ANYTHING to do with 9-11? What connections did the terrorists have with Iraq, then?
When I get home, if no one else has yet, I'll endeavor to pull up some of the commentaries I came across, made by high level ranking officials that referenced specifics.......so that our fellow luny leftists can then claim how much of a Bush puppet they are. But at least you'll have a better appreciation
It seems that your former statement indicates that Iraq had some sort of connection with terrorists---according to intel?
Yes
not to mention "clear justification' following 9-11. Then the latter statement says...otherwise.... had nothing to do with 9-11.?
That Iraq had nothing to do with 911. That Terrorists who had connections with Iraq did, however. And Saddam's continued defiance of UN resolutions, which mandated complete and full compliance, made the justification for serious consequences, complete. As I said, Saddam can thank Usama and his own arrogance, for his being dethrowned as dictator
ok sirs, thanks..i look forward to it....I want the truth....yes, I CAN handle the truth!! ....Jack Nicholsen...to Tom Cruise;)
Ciao for now....
I had the best "snow day" today..and the ice melted by 10:30! Gosh, we are whimps when it comes to snow in NM>
-
Good thing that's not why we went to war then, isn't it
Ooh, right...to depose Saddam and bring democracy to the Iraqi people, right? Sorry, if that were the reson, why didn't Bushco just say so, instead of drumming up the WMD/ties to Al Qaeda/mushroom cloud excuses to give it a greater sense of urgency to the American people? Had to sell them on something, eh?
I believe he is sincere. I also sincerely believe he is an idiot. I also have reservations about his honesty.
Not an oxymoron at all. He is, or was, I believe, sincere in believing that we had to go to war, for whatever reason his demented mind conjured up. In order to sell that, I believe he was also dishonest and did the best he could to sell the American people on war. Sincerity does not always equal honesty.
-
I thought that Iraq did not have anything to do with 9-11. Maybe I'm wrong.
Nah, you're right. But in order to keep from having to admit they were led astray by their glorious leader, some folks have to keep insisting there were valid reasons.
-
That Terrorists who had connections with Iraq did, however.
You're still trying to sell that hokum? The claim that Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda was debunked years ago.
-
You're still trying to sell that hokum? The claim that Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda was debunked years ago.
BY ELI LAKE - Staff Reporter of the Sun
March 24, 2006
URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/29746 (http://www.nysun.com/article/29746)
CAIRO, Egypt - A former Democratic senator and 9/11 commissioner says a recently declassified Iraqi account of a 1995 meeting between Osama bin Laden and a senior Iraqi envoy presents a "significant set of facts," and shows a more detailed collaboration between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
In an interview yesterday, the current president of the New School University, Bob Kerrey, was careful to say that new documents translated last night by ABC News did not prove Saddam Hussein played a role in any way in plotting the attacks of September 11, 2001.
Nonetheless, the former senator from Nebraska said that the new document shows that "Saddam was a significant enemy of the United States." Mr. Kerrey said he believed America's understanding of the deposed tyrant's relationship with Al Qaeda would become much deeper as more captured Iraqi documents and audiotapes are disclosed.
Last night ABC News reported on five recently declassified documents captured in Iraq. One of these was a handwritten account of a February 19, 1995, meeting between an official representative of Iraq and Mr. bin Laden himself, where Mr. bin Laden broached the idea of "carrying out joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia. The document, which has no official stamps or markers, reports that when Saddam was informed of the meeting on March 4, 1995 he agreed to broadcast sermons of a radical imam, Suleiman al Ouda, requested by Mr. bin Laden.
The question of future cooperation is left an open question. According to the ABC News translation, the captured document says, "development of the relationship and cooperation between the two parties to be left according to what's open [in the future] based on dialogue and agreement on other ways of cooperation." ABC notes in their report that terrorists, believed to be Al Qaeda, attacked the Saudi National Guard headquarters on November 13, 1995.
The new documents suggest that the 9/11 commission's final conclusion in 2004, that there were no "operational" ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda, may need to be reexamined in light of the recently captured documents.
While the commission detailed some contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda in the 1990s, in Sudan and Afghanistan, the newly declassified Iraqi documents provide more detail than the commission disclosed in its final conclusions. For example, the fact that Saddam broadcast the ser mons of al-Ouda at bin Laden's request was previously unknown, as was a conversation about possible collaboration on attacks against Saudi Arabia.
"This is a very significant set of facts," former 9/11 commissioner, Mr. Kerry said yesterday. "I personally and strongly believe you don't have to prove that Iraq was collaborating against Osama bin Laden on the September 11 attacks to prove he was an enemy and that he would collaborate with people who would do our country harm. This presents facts should not be used to tie Saddam to attacks on September 11. It does tie him into a circle that meant to damage the United States."
Mr. Kerry also answered affirmatively when asked whether or not the release of more of the documents captured in Iraq could possibly shed further light on Iraq's relationship with al Qaeda. The former senator was one of the staunchest supporters of the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, which made the policy of regime change U.S. law.
However, Mr. Kerry has also been a critic of how the administration has waged the campaign in Baghdad, which he calls the "third Iraq war," meaning that the period between the invasions of 1991 and 2003 was a prolonged military engagement.
The directorate of national intelligence with the U.S. Army foreign military studies office has begun to make over 50,000 boxes of documents and some 3,000 hours of audio tape captured in Iraq available on the Web at http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/products-docex.htm. The release of these files comes after the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Rep. Peter Hoekstra, a Republican from Michigan, threatened to introduce legislation that would force the federal government to make the new information available.
A reporter for the Weekly Standard, Steven Hayes, yesterday said he thought the memorandum of the 1995 meeting demolishes the view of some terrorism experts that bin Laden and Saddam were incapable of cooperating for ideological and doctrinal reasons.
"Clearly from this document bin Laden was willing to work with Saddam to achieve his ends, and clearly from this document Saddam did not immediately reject the idea of working with bin Laden," Mr. Hayes said. "It is possible that documents will emerge later that suggest skepticism on the part of Iraqis to working with bin Laden, but this makes clear that there was a relationship."
Mr. Hayes's story this week makes the case that the Iraqi embassy in Manila was funding and keeping close tabs on the Al Qaeda affiliate in the Philippines, Abu Sayyaf.
-
This is a world where everybody talks to everybody but some conversations can't be admitted. The U.S. for example, was talking to Iran when Iran was the personification of evil. Under the table, they kept talking. Not President to President of course, but some guy who could claim he spoke for the U.S. President with some guy who could claim he spoke for the Iranian President.
Saddam's government was no different. His intelligence officers would have to keep tabs on lots of stuff. Although al Qaeda demonized Saddam as an enemy of Islam, and Saddam persecuted Muslim extremists, at some level some of the extremists were speaking to guys from Saddam's intelligence services. That's just the way the world works.
So the U.S.A. at any time can point to contacts it discovers and say, "See? They were meeting, they were talking." Not in itself a lie, but a misleading and deceptive truth put to the service of a Big Lie (that Saddam was in on 911) by the lying Bush and his inner circle. Bush's intelligence would know of the meeting, who participated, where and when it was held - - what was said at the meeting, they'll never know. They can use the innuendo to convince the dumbass Amerikkkan public that they HAD to be plotting the 911 attacks.
-
Invading Iraq was a bad idea.
If...
If there was a better choice ,but there was not.
Leaving the status quo would have allowed Saddam to grow his underground economy ad bribehis warders more and more , Saddam and his hold on power did fine during sanction , it was the poor and marginal of Iraq that suffered , the sanctions were sinfully ineffective that had to stop.
Letting Saddam go would have allowed him to claim a genuine victory and rebuild his WMD program , no matter how little was left Saddam could have started over an made more and more modern WMD in short order, when the US and the rest of the world left Saddam alone he made war and participated in terror by financing , letting Saddam go would not have worked.
So it is too easy to call invading Iraq a bad decision , the alternatives were more painfull , more dangerous and more expensive , but those potentials are invisible.
-
Invading Iraq was a bad idea.
If...
If there was a better choice ,but there was not.
Leaving the status quo would have allowed Saddam to grow his underground economy ad bribehis warders more and more , Saddam and his hold on power did fine during sanction , it was the poor and marginal of Iraq that suffered , the sanctions were sinfully ineffective that had to stop.
Letting Saddam go would have allowed him to claim a genuine victory and rebuild his WMD program , no matter how little was left Saddam could have started over an made more and more modern WMD in short order, when the US and the rest of the world left Saddam alone he made war and participated in terror by financing , letting Saddam go would not have worked.
So it is too easy to call invading Iraq a bad decision , the alternatives were more painfull , more dangerous and more expensive , but those potentials are invisible.
Plane,
I don't mind that Saddam is gone and dead. Period. He was evil.
What I am concerned about is the fact that Osama has yet to be found.....
I wonder if that little detail is not going to be the sign of the times, in that if we can't catch the bad guy who was responsible for
so much pain in our world, then how skilled are we in the end to take care that it won't happen again?
Saddam Hussein was a bad man. No doubt he had influence in the arena of terrorism, but our leaders made decisions to go to war.....
and that war is still raging with a new agenda every time we turn around.
Oneyear it's WMD...the next year it's the mix and match of terrorist in the region.....could have would have should have....
Would he have made life worse for us?
He's dead.
LIfe isn't any better for the region. Terror is still lurking in the wings.
Fear that liberals will allow another 9-11 to happen looms over us all..
WE don't even trust our own leaders. We expect our leaders to be the end all to end all.....they will never be such.
They will never be able to control evil. . . or terror.
We bash Clinton ( I do) for not taking care to stop Terrorism...but in the end, the terror is out there. It will always be out there.
Picking battles one at a time with skill is the issue here.
Nothing wrong with bringing Saddam down.....but where are we five years later......6 years later?
I see that we are
unscathed......in terms of towers falling.
safer.....for now, at least.
nervous....about who will win this election.
but overall............we have yet to bring down the leader who constructed the beginning of our demise in '01.
I think as a strong nation, we could have done better.
It's not only about Bush's decision to go to Iraq as well as Afghanistan.
It's more about precision, and accuracy to bring peace to our people.
Ironically, I feel that we could have taken down Saddam in the end, if Bush had focused more on Osama from the getgo...with that precision and accuracy.
He wanted it all.
He wanted to succeed as a Republican.
Time will tell....unfortunately, time will also cost us mucho.
-
The contacts between Al Qaeda and Saddam's government existed; they have been known about for years. However, there is no evidence that they worked together on anything, much less 911 - neither trusted the other.
Leaving the status quo would have allowed Saddam to...
This is as tiresome as the WMD's and ties to Al Qaeda and mushroom clouds over an American city.
There is no reason, if the sanctions were starting to slip as badly as you claim, that they could not have been tightened right back up. That could have been done without invading Iraq, driving to Baghdad, deposing Saddam, and getting almost 4000 American troops killed (and a lesser number of allies) at the cost of damn near five hundred billion dollars. Most of that money, and most of the 160,000 troops in Iraq, would have been better used to finish the job in Afghanistan and, if necessary, Pakistan. Showing that we actually did have the resolve to finish what we started there might have sent a clear signal to Saddam to cease and desist, or to his countrymen that it might be in their best interest to get rid of him on their own.
I don't know if it was because Saddam put a hit out on DaddyBush, or because Georgie wanted to be known as a war president, or if he was actually demented enough to believe his own bullshit, but whatever the reason, Plane at least got one thing right - invading Iraq was a bad idea.
-
if
-
The contacts between Al Qaeda and Saddam's government existed; they have been known about for years. However, there is no evidence that they worked together on anything, much less 911 - neither trusted the other.
Leaving the status quo would have allowed Saddam to...
This is as tiresome as the WMD's and ties to Al Qaeda and mushroom clouds over an American city.
There is no reason, if the sanctions were starting to slip as badly as you claim, that they could not have been tightened right back up. That could have been done without invading Iraq, driving to Baghdad, deposing Saddam, and getting almost 4000 American troops killed (and a lesser number of allies) at the cost of damn near five hundred billion dollars. Most of that money, and most of the 160,000 troops in Iraq, would have been better used to finish the job in Afghanistan and, if necessary, Pakistan. Showing that we actually did have the resolve to finish what we started there might have sent a clear signal to Saddam to cease and desist, or to his countrymen that it might be in their best interest to get rid of him on their own.
I don't know if it was because Saddam put a hit out on DaddyBush, or because Georgie wanted to be known as a war president, or if he was actually demented enough to believe his own bullshit, but whatever the reason, Plane at least got one thing right - invading Iraq was a bad idea.
Thank you for your insight.
This is waht I want to read.
The pros and the cons......
I have a feeling you are dead on, Hnumpah
-
The contacts between Al Qaeda and Saddam's government existed; they have been known about for years. However, there is no evidence that they worked together on anything, much less 911 - neither trusted the other.
Leaving the status quo would have allowed Saddam to...
This is as tiresome as the WMD's and ties to Al Qaeda and mushroom clouds over an American city.
There is no reason, if the sanctions were starting to slip as badly as you claim, that they could not have been tightened right back up. That could have been done without invading Iraq, driving to Baghdad, deposing Saddam, and getting almost 4000 American troops killed (and a lesser number of allies) at the cost of damn near five hundred billion dollars. Most of that money, and most of the 160,000 troops in Iraq, would have been better used to finish the job in Afghanistan and, if necessary, Pakistan. Showing that we actually did have the resolve to finish what we started there might have sent a clear signal to Saddam to cease and desist, or to his countrymen that it might be in their best interest to get rid of him on their own.
I don't know if it was because Saddam put a hit out on DaddyBush, or because Georgie wanted to be known as a war president, or if he was actually demented enough to believe his own bullshit, but whatever the reason, Plane at least got one thing right - invading Iraq was a bad idea.
It is only as bad as the alternaives would have been any better.
The sanctions were killing a lot of poor and young Iraqis , Saddam had the UN oversight staff bribed blind " tightening up " the sanctions would have only killed more infants.
The sanctions were loopholey where Saddam wanted loopholes ,he could spare a few thousand infants.Saddams grip on power and desire to do mischef were undiminished. Keeping the sanctions , even in a tightened up form would have never worked.
Back when Saddam was free to use Iraq as he wanted , he built giant cannons aimed at Israel , stockpiled germs , yellowcake and poision. Used the poision when the Iranians or Kurds were not dieing fast enough from bullets.
Hand a guy like that a victory and he would feel vindicated and bold , he would almost certainly have returned to his habits which had killed perhaps eight million Iraqis and Iranians and Kuwaitis .
How much better is that? However much that would be better, is the measure of how bad a decision it was to invade.
There was ,in 2003 ,no cheap and clean alternative available at all.
-
Most of that money, and most of the 160,000 troops in Iraq, would have been better used to finish the job in Afghanistan and, if necessary, Pakistan. Showing that we actually did have the resolve to finish what we started there might have sent a clear signal to Saddam to cease and desist, or to his countrymen that it might be in their best interest to get rid of him on their own.
I really do think you have hit the nail on the head, Hpah.
I agree totally at this point in time.
Not to say ....to sirs or anyone else...Plane ....that we should not have taken Saddam down and out for his evil ways......
But, it was the WAY we approached the whole thing....that bothers me.
if" Bt..you can say "if"..all night...but what about "if" WE had waited to play our cards right and move in with clarity and intelligence?
Bush wasn't the most brilliant President we will ever have....in fact, many people thought he was one of the least intelligent leaders to enter the office. Sad, because I am a daughter of a right wing Rep. I do believe in many things Rep. But this war was ill managed.
TOo much Too quickly.
For what?
Victory?
I refrain from calling Bush names. I take care not to bash his administration. I do believe in the ideals of Republicans, but this war was not well thougth out....too bad, because the women in the middle east are suffering and probably will continue to suffer for years to come. Where are the resources to help all the people with only an army of soldiers to fight. Draft?
GOd, I hope not.
-
.........we have yet to bring down the leader who constructed the beginning of our demise in '01.
I think as a strong nation, we could have done better.
I also regret this fact , but what exactly is Osama relying on to escape us?
I wish I knew , I would certainly exploit the knolege mysef.
Not knowing tho I can only suppose whether more troops in Afganistan would have hleped or not.
Wasn't there a guy number one on the most wanted ,that stayed on the run in North Carolina for six years?
Eric Roudolph was hideing 200 miles from Qantico but he had one freind who supported him , he was not caught till this one friend died.
I speculate that Osama has a freind and a hole in the ground better prepared than Eric Roudolph.
I have had ideas for pegging his location, most of m ideas involve less Army more NASA.
-
How many pakistani deaths is osama's capture worth?
clarity and intelligence
-
How many pakistani deaths is osama's capture worth?
clarity and intelligence
Fourty eight and three fifths.
-
my guess is the death toll would be in the hundreds of thousands, unless the lancet calculated them and then it would be in the millions.
-
my guess is the death toll would be in the hundreds of thousands, unless the lancet calculated them and then it would be in the millions.
I would bet it is someones job to estimate scientificly how many bystanders it is acceptable to wound or kill. I am pretty sure that the Air Force would flatten a neighbohood to get at Saddam ,but there is a limit somewhere near this.
-
my guess is the death toll would be in the hundreds of thousands, unless the lancet calculated them and then it would be in the millions.
I would bet it is someones job to estimate scientificly how many bystanders it is acceptable to wound or kill. I am pretty sure that the Air Force would flatten a neighbohood to get at Osama ,but there is a limit somewhere near this.
-
There are too many being killed in Iraq to date......I fear we've made a mistake.
Goodnight, men.
-
How many pakistani deaths is osama's capture worth?
How many would it take to convince them, and Musharaff, that we were dead serious about eradicating Osama and Al Qaeda, and that rather than hiding them out as the Taliban in Afghanistan did, they would be better served helping hunt them down? We would only need to go into Pakistan if they allowed them to hide there; Musharaff claims he can't control the border regions, then gets all puffed up and threatens us if we send troops in, get this now, into a region he and his army can't control to start with (according to him, anyway). If he can't dig Osama and some pissant ragtag army out of there, what threat would he be to us?
That would also have sent a strong message to Saddam and the rest of the world that we were serious and committed to stopping terrorism, and that once we had finished the job in Afghanistan, anyone else who supported terrorism might be next.
Instead, we showed everyone that we were willing to give terrorists a pass, to invade a country and depose a dictator that posed no threat to us, on a whim. And people wonder why America is losing the world's respect.
-
<<Fear that liberals will allow another 9-11 to happen looms over us all..>>
Funny, I thought it was BUSH who allowed 9-11 to happen. Eight months on the job, plenty of time to tighten up airport security, Clinton long gone, but, no . . . blame 9-11 on the liberals too.
If you look at 9-11 as the product of Muslim rage, ask yourself who - - liberals or conservatives - - have added more fuel to Muslim rage since Bush took over the White House. Then if another 9-11 does happen, you'll at least know who to thank.
Whatever the levels of Muslim rage were against the U.S.A. when Clinton left office, I would bet that since Afghanistan, Iraq, Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, they have increased by at least a thousandfold under Bush.
-
<<Fear that liberals will allow another 9-11 to happen looms over us all..>>
Funny, I thought it was BUSH who allowed 9-11 to happen. Eight months on the job, plenty of time to tighten up airport security, Clinton long gone, but, no . . . blame 9-11 on the liberals too.
If you look at 9-11 as the product of Muslim rage, ask yourself who - - liberals or conservatives - - have added more fuel to Muslim rage since Bush took over the White House. Then if another 9-11 does happen, you'll at least know who to thank.
Whatever the levels of Muslim rage were against the U.S.A. when Clinton left office, I would bet that since Afghanistan, Iraq, Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, they have increased by at least a thousandfold under Bush.
Looking forward to the thousand fold 9-11 an the thousandfold wrath of the US responding after that.
President Hillary will be compelled to do at least as well as her predicessor.
-
<<Looking forward to the thousand fold 9-11 an the thousandfold wrath of the US responding after that.>>
Well, there's a constructive approach to the problem. The never-ending cycle of violence and revenge. Actually, the thousandfold wrath of the mighty U.S. doesn't seem able to subdue either Afghanistan or Iraq but it does promise to bring the U.S. to its knees economically. The one good thing is that the dollar is now trading around the loony's level, which helps a lot when we visit the U.S.
<<President Hillary will be compelled to do at least as well as her predicessor. >>
OTOH, she might pleasantly surprise me and actually avert some of the wrath by pulling out the fascist aggressors before those thugs can do any more damage.
-
I do wonder if it was a mistake to go in to a major country, when Afghanistan based Taliban/Al Queda terroritsts were the true culprit back in Sept. 2001.
The lightbulbs have slowly been coming on all across America...
I have to say that he probably had no idea what he was getting into back then...and THAT bothers me, Sirs.
He didn't...it should.
It bothers me at this time--4 year later, but what can we do about it all.....it's too late.
Now, we must slow the tank down? Get out of town?
what?
YOu know they hold educators to a standard......we are to provide children strategies to grasp concepts, idea and knowledge. Where were the "best practices" strategies for entering into this war? They failed miserably on that front, imo. Bush's cohorts did not have the first idea of how to fight a war in the middle east. They fail.
If Bush were help accountable for such lack of provisions....he would be left behind and booted without pay.
I supported the effort to fight back a few years ago. I supported the effort to rid the middle east of tyrants who kill women and children. I supported the change in the way we take care of our own nation in terms of security......but the war in Iraq seems to only have deeped wounds. Osama is still on the loose. Yes, we have had the luck to counter the terrorism in this country, unllike Spain, England and other places around the world since 9-11....but I fear that soldiers have died for a dream that Bush/Cheney held dear to their hearts---the fight.
I support the ideas that bring peace in the world. I support war in the case of fighting back, but where are we headed now?
Deep dept. That's what scares me the most. The cost of all of this has to be outrageous.
We need to reorganize in this nation of ours on many levels.
BT, you say have patience, but in all honesty, patience doesn't pay the bills, unless you have a great idea how we can get out of such a war dept.
"Bush's cohorts did not have the first idea of how to fight a war in the middle east. They fail. "
Actually, this is incorrect. We won the military take-over, namkely we kicked their butt on the field, militarily, in the opening ays of tjhe conflict It has been everything after that, namely trying to govern the country, that has apparently failed miserably...sigh.
-
Cost of Iraq war = 4 % of gdp
Total defense spending in 2006 will probably be around 4 percent of gross national product, notes Mr. Cordesman. The average since 1992 for this measure has been 3.6 percent.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0519/p01s03-usmi.html
Cost of wwii = 38 % of gdp
http://www.antiwar.com/henderson/?articleid=8727
How much is Amtrak and PBS? Yet we always hear bitching to cut funding for those. :P
Yep, too bad we still are funding those insurgency entities. Amtrak still loses money. Needs to be shut down like any, Heave forbid, BUSINESS, if it can't atleast break enoguh. The time for passenger trains has passed...please, let it die....
And if PBS cannot survive as a BUSINESS either, fuggedaboutit.
-
We just watched thousands of our citizens die nearly instantaneously when the planes hit, and when the towers came down.
I wanted to reply to this, as well.
I realize that we watched so many people die at the hand of an evil set of terrorizing bastards.....but my point wasn't that we shouldn't have gone to war...my question was about Iraq specifically.
Did Saddam claim responsibility for 9-11?
I realize this horse has been beaten to death . . . . .
To folks like Sirs, that particular equine metaphor has no meaning whatsoever.
Perhaps you saw the excellent movie "The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada?"
A closer metaphor, I can tell you. `
yep, we all watch movies whose titles we cannot even pronounce...geeeesh!
-
Mel. Key. Ah. Dess
Ess-trah-duh.
-
Actually Prof, I'd recommend that movie. It has Tommy Lee Jones and has a very Cormac McCarthyesque feel to it.
-
Aw, I was just harassing him for fun!
Hey, if someone can watch a movie while at the same time driving an 18-wheeler down an interstate, I admire him/her! I KNEW there was some reason they came out with those portable DVD players!
;D ;D ;D
-
Actually Prof, I'd recommend that movie. It has Tommy Lee Jones and has a very Cormac McCarthyesque feel to it.
I agree. Tommy Lee Jones directed it, i believe.
-
<<Looking forward to the thousand fold 9-11 an the thousandfold wrath of the US responding after that.>>
Well, there's a constructive approach to the problem. The never-ending cycle of violence and revenge. Actually, the thousandfold wrath of the mighty U.S. doesn't seem able to subdue either Afghanistan or Iraq but it does promise to bring the U.S. to its knees economically. The one good thing is that the dollar is now trading around the loony's level, which helps a lot when we visit the U.S.
<<President Hillary will be compelled to do at least as well as her predicessor. >>
OTOH, she might pleasantly surprise me and actually avert some of the wrath by pulling out the fascist aggressors before those thugs can do any more damage.
Keep track of where we are.
The promised attacks on us haven't happened yet because why ? Does the Al Queda lack for motivation?
Hillary could withdraw , This seems likely enough , Then we would get the renewed attack and Hillary would be compelled to out do her predecessor in vengeance.
-
Withdrawing from Iraq would not have any effect on Al Qaeda attacks in the US. The 9-11 attacks could have been easily avoided if only the CIA and FBI had had more imaginative people with even a small number of people who understood the Arab world.
-
Withdrawing from Iraq would not have any effect on Al Qaeda attacks in the US. The 9-11 attacks could have been easily avoided if only the CIA and FBI had had more imaginative people with even a small number of people who understood the Arab world.
Too bad the prior administration did so much to strip the communication between the 2, and rendering much of their tactics inappropriate and not to be used. Otherwise, it's very plausible it could have been prevented. Thanks, Bill >:(
-
The CIA and FBI were not separated by Clinton, but by the Church Committee way back in the 1970's, due to abuse by the Nixon administration. so it's not thanks Bill, it's thanks Trickydicky >:(
-
Bush's cohorts did not have the first idea of how to fight a war in the middle east. They fail. "
In the long term, I still believe they had not the best plan.
-
Too bad the prior administration did so much to strip the communication between the 2, and rendering much of their tactics inappropriate and not to be used. Otherwise, it's very plausible it could have been prevented. Thanks, Bill
The FBI and the CIA have always had different charters. The FBI is charged with investigating federal crimes in the US and it's territories, and the CIA is charged with performing their operations outside the US and is was not allowed to operate in the US at all, according to their charter. One of the reasons for keeping them from sharing information was to prevent the CIA from getting FBI information on domestic investigations that were not in their charter. This rule was pretty much followed until J. Edgar died, because he hated the CIA and thought the FBI should be the only agency to handle domestic and foreign spying. After his death, this rule was ignored more and more often, until, as XO pointed out, the Church committee got involved.
-
Guys, quit confusing Sirs with facts. He wants to blame Clinton for everything and then charge all of you with Blame Bush Syndrome, or some such nonsense when you say anything negative about the past seven years.
Didn't you know that the economy is rosy and the massive hordes of evil terrorists trying to destroy our freedoms are being held at bay!
-
Guys, quit confusing Sirs with facts. He wants to blame Clinton for everything and then charge all of you with Blame Bush Syndrome, or some such nonsense when you say anything negative about the past seven years.
Or, I could actually acknowledge the facts, concede that my original position on when the CIA/FBI firewall was established, then go back to highlighting the facts of how the economy is doing well (never said "rosy", simply not the 2nd coming of the depression as the left & MSM would have us think), empolyemnt continues to remain at record lows, the Iraqi surge is working, and how UHC would be a bureacratic nightmare, when you see what simply Katrina demonstrated on a regional level. And we won't even reference the FACT to the plethora of criticisms I've leveled right here in the saloon, at Bush over the last several years, and how very rarely I bring up Clinton's name
But, nice try Js. In nearly every case I've noted, facts to a hard core liberal is like kryptonite to Superman
-
Withdrawing from Iraq would not have any effect on Al Qaeda attacks in the US. .....
Why not ?
Arn't Al Queda resorces being used in Iraq and Afganistan?
Is their tolerance for attrition absolutely endless?
If they can stand ten times the attrition we can , we must attain at least eleven .
Al Queda can't quit untill their strategy seems foolish world wide , till then they can't stop attacking us no matter what we do.
-
I've been scanning over this thread and all I can say is that sirs is living in absolute BatShitCrazyLand.
Sirs, you're talking about leaving Hussein "unchecked" in a time when we KNOW, absolutely, positively that he was a toothless tiger and a smoke and mirrors liar. Hussein told his interrogator flatly that he was bluffing and that he never believed Bush would invade.
They've either combed Iraq over and found nothing or the military has secreted the WMD away and given them over to folks who will use them when it most behooves the DLC/neo-con New World Order plans. Either way, you got screwed and lied to.
All this "given the intelligence he had at the time" bullshit is just that. They cherry-picked that intelligence the way my 3 year old picks the pickles out of his tuna salad. They put out the lie that Saddam was somehow behind 9/11 to get the people who watch ONLY American Idol and all things Britney to get them behind and create buzz. The whole time people like you and me who actually read what they are saying were either saying THAT'S A LIE or HE NEVER SAID THAT.
So here we are YEARS after the initial lies and bullshit and coverups and cherrypicking and bravado and insanity and murder of the illegal invasion of IRaq and you are STILL implying that it was all worth it and honorable and, most insane of all, NECESSARY????!!?!?
WTF!?!?!?
-
"...... or the military has secreted the WMD away and given them over to folks who will use them when it most behooves the DLC/neo-con New World Order plans. Either way, you got screwed and lied to...."
You beleive this possible?
Why then do you beleive it impossible that Saddam and compay hid materiels, or even more onimous, hid experts and a liabrary of know how?
I seems like it would be easyer for Saddam to hide something well , given that he had nearly twelve years to get it hid.
-
I've been scanning over this thread and all I can say is that sirs is living in absolute BatShitCrazyLand. Sirs, you're talking about leaving Hussein "unchecked" in a time when we KNOW, absolutely, positively that he was a toothless tiger and a smoke and mirrors liar.
No, FACTUALLY, we didn't. FACTUALLY our intel told us, it was a slam dunk, that he still had a whole host of WMD. FACTUALLY, there were direct and indirect connections Iraq had with Islamic terrorists, which included AlQeada. Following 911, and referenced by David Kay, when he was charged into looking into the disposition of Saddam's WMD program, while that program uncovered that those stockpiles were largely not, given what Bush knew (as the rest of the intel community believed they knew), of course Bush acted appropriately
No, my friend. BSCLand is completely the domain of those that think 911 was an inside job, that no plane hit the Pentagon, that Bush "lied us into war"
-
<<No, FACTUALLY, we didn't. FACTUALLY our intel told us, it was a slam dunk . . . >>
Yeah, well FACTUALLY, it's not the job of the President to swallow uncritically everything that "intel" (i.e., the people who supposedly are working for him) tell him, especially when issues of war and peace are riding on it. A chief executive has the responsibility to examine the intel, check it over skeptically (particularly due to known forgeries that had already crept into it) see what the sources are, what the interests of the sources are, etc. The fact is that the "intel" that "everybody" believed in was not sufficient to convince the leaders of China, Russia, France, Germany, Canada and dozens of other countries of any need for urgency, and the U.S. withdrew a motion to the UN Security Council on the eve of the vote, knowing that the Security Council would REJECT their bullshit claim of urgency and imminent danger.
And FACTUALLY there is plenty of evidence that the Bush administration cooked the books to obtain the "intel" that it needed in order to invade Iraq.
And FACTUALLY there is an undeniable case made out that most of the people around Bush had already made the case for invading Iraq and presented it to Clinton BEFORE anyone had invented the phony WMD issue as the excuse for invading Iraq.
So, FACTUALLY, my friend, you are fulla shit.
Oh, and BTW, not only did Bush actually lie the country into war, but it seems that most of the Amerikkkan sheeple know that by now. So if you really believe that Bat-Shit Crazy Land is inhabited by people who believe that Bush lied the country into war, you've just produced a rather damning indictment of your own country. Isn't that treasonous of you?
-
"A chief executive has the responsibility to examine the intel, check it over skeptically......."
If you can't trust your spys , who can you trust ?
Seriously , who?
I think he was a sceptic , only tward the ones that thought Iraq innocent, considering the record Saddam ran up , I consider this scepticism justified.
-
<<If you can't trust your spys , who can you trust ? Seriously , who?>>
Nobody. The decision rests with the President of the U.S.A. I don't recall any part of the Constitution that says that the nation's spies are immune from being grilled by their boss and that when the spies think another country is a menace, that the President has no option but to declare war and invade. I this case there were already forgeries present in the case that had been built for war. That alone was enough to cast suspicion on the case. Who is Curveball, who did he represent? How come most of the other information came from the same people that Curveball represented? Essentially, you're going to war and ALL of the information leading you to war comes from the Iraqi National Congress, the one group that aims to benefit by being returned to power if Saddam is overthrown? That's not "intel," that's a fig leaf cooked up to provide an excuse.
Despite sirs' pathetic insistence that all the other intelligence agencies in the world believed the same "intel" as Bush, that is obvious crap. Nobody can know for sure what anybody else "believes" - - not even the all-knowing sirs - - but their actions give a good indication of it - - Germany, France, Russia, China, Canada and others as revealed by their words and their actions DID NOT BELIEVE that the "intel" made a case for invasion. The U.S. withdrew a Security Council motion on the eve of the vote because they KNEW they could not get the votes. Period. End of story.
-
<<If you can't trust your spys , who can you trust ? Seriously , who?>>
Nobody. The decision rests with the President of the U.S.A. I don't recall any part of the Constitution that says that the nation's spies are immune from being grilled by their boss and that when the spies think another country is a menace, that the President has no option but to declare war and invade. I this case there were already forgeries present in the case that had been built for war. That alone was enough to cast suspicion on the case. Who is Curveball, who did he represent? How come most of the other information came from the same people that Curveball represented? Essentially, you're going to war and ALL of the information leading you to war comes from the Iraqi National Congress, the one group that aims to benefit by being returned to power if Saddam is overthrown? That's not "intel," that's a fig leaf cooked up to provide an excuse.
Despite sirs' pathetic insistence that all the other intelligence agencies in the world believed the same "intel" as Bush, that is obvious crap. Nobody can know for sure what anybody else "believes" - - not even the all-knowing sirs - - but their actions give a good indication of it - - Germany, France, Russia, China, Canada and others as revealed by their words and their actions DID NOT BELIEVE that the "intel" made a case for invasion. The U.S. withdrew a Security Council motion on the eve of the vote because they KNEW they could not get the votes. Period. End of story.
This shows the advantage of an open society .
Saddam had such tight controll that spying in Iraq was unsuccessfull and all of his critics and whistleblowers were dead.
With such effort at hideing , the safe assumption is that there is nothing to hide?
Asumeing the worst might turn out to be wrong , I am still not sure.
But in the face of extreme secrecy and extremely tight controll assumeing the best was a real and serious risk.
Shame on Saddam for makeing it nessacery to make an assumption.
-
FACTUALLY, over 70 years on, some people still try to justify Hitler's actions.
-
FACTUALLY, over 70 years on, some people still try to justify Hitler's actions.
Wow, I coulda swore not more than a few days ago, H made it clear he wasn't of the Bush = Hitler crowd. I have to say, I am unfortunately surprised
-
Think about what I said. Go ahead, give your brain a workout.
I said nothing about Bush = Hitler.
Not surprised you tried to twist the meaning of what I said, though. It's a habit with you.
-
Hmmm, let's see folks defending what Bush has done. H prompts a statement of those still defender Hitler. Yea, no connection what-so-ever ::)
-
There is a connection. You just have the wrong one, as usual.
I did clearly compare those who would still defend Bush's actions with those who would defend Hitler, 70 years after the fact.
That in no way infers that Bush = Hitler. Not to most normal people, anyway. Their followers might be alike in their senseless defense of their chosen one, but that does not mean there is any resemblence between the chosen ones.
-
I did clearly compare those who would still defend Bush's actions with those who would defend Hitler, 70 years after the fact. That in no way infers that Bush = Hitler.
RIIIIIGHT. Whatever you say, H ::)
-
Would you be happier if I picked another warmonger?
-
Naaa, I think your position was already presented. Backtracking at this point is unlikely to accomplish anything. Perhaps had you picked ANYONE else but Hitler, you might not be in this little picklebox of yours
-
What picklebox?
I'm not the paranoid one here.
-
LOL....."paranoid"? Ummmmm, yea, that's it. I'm really paranoid of............ummmmmmm........something apparently. ooooookaaaaaay
-
Would you be happier if I picked another warmonger?
Me! Pick me! I recommended nuking Afghanistan into glass!
Pick me!
-
But you'd have to have followers who faithfully defended your actions as the right ones, even after most sensible people had seen the light and realized they were wrong.
Mussolini didn't seem to fit - does he even have defenders anymore?
Lenin? Stalin? Lenin didn't seem bloodthirsty enough, and Stalin, again, didn't seem to have very many defenders anymore.
I suppose I could have just picked someone who didn't have a propensity for violence but was just plain wrong about something important but nonlethal, who still had people jumping to his defense every time someone pointed out how wrong his view was. Or I could have gone to the other extreme and pointed out how religion has probably killed more people over the years than any other cause, and yet people still follow blindly along, but I didn't want to set off a firestorm.
Besides, I like to see Sirs get his panties in a wad. Just mention Hitler in any thread where Bush is mentioned and he gets all defensive. You don't even have to compare the two directly, just compare the blind devotion of their followers to their cause.
-
Mussolini didn't seem to fit - does he even have defenders anymore?
In Italy.
-
I like to see Sirs get his panties in a wad. Just mention Hitler in any thread where Bush is mentioned and he gets all defensive. You don't even have to compare the two directly, just compare the blind devotion of their followers to their cause.
LOL....While I love watching H's deflection efforts, when I've just applied the same thing H is always trying to apply to myself
-
Clearly delusional.
You know, S, there's no use trying to honestly communicate with you. None at all. You're determined to contradict every damned thing I tell you.
Deflection efforts my ass.
-
Clearly delusional....You're determined to contradict every damned thing I tell you. Deflection efforts my ass.
Naaaaa, only hilight the duplicity in many of your comments. That's all. No biggie, just a littlie. Paranoid? ROFL
-
Well, there you go folks.
I'm a fake. A phony. A fraud. A lying, conniving son-of-a-bitch.
According to Sirs, anyway, whose fall-back position whenever he disagrees with me or doesn't like being told he's wrong is to accuse me of being somehow dishonest.
Have it any way you want it, Sirs. I have better things to do than try to convince you that I mean what I say, and say exactly what I mean.
-
Well, there you go folks. I'm a fake. A phony. A fraud. A lying, conniving son-of-a-bitch.
Strange how I never said, or even implied such a hyperbolic conclusion. But hey, misrepresenting what another person says appears to be one of your strong suits. Go with your strengths, I guess is the moral of this thread