Author Topic: Bush's War???  (Read 16803 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline edbikerii

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,128
    • Gallery
Re: Bush's War???
« Reply #100 on: May 17, 2008, 05:59:16 PM »
Just watch the video.  The facts are there.  Bush has been painted as a liar, but the video proves that the "intelligence" was gathered and the Iraq war-mongering started prior to the Bush administration -- as early as 1997.

www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv

I am entirely prepared to change my point of view.  Give me the facts and let me decide.  The facts I've seen so far in my life say that GW and his buddies lied to get us into a war...various reasons for that war but I won't rant. 

Look up where the intelligence came from that we used to prove that WMD's were in Iraq.  It was almost completely based on ONE GUY.  An expatriated (i think that is the word) Iraqi.  I think his codename was fastball or curve ball or something ironic like that.  Lots of our own intelligence organizations said that he was not trustworthy.  GW and his buddies knew no one trusted this guy but they still used his info.  I read about this a while back so my details may be fuzzy.  If anyone has a more recent or accurate description I'd appreciate you sharing it. 

I'd just like to say that I would much rather debate this kind of thing on a MC forum than on a forum dedicated to it.  You get a lot more coolheaded thinkers and a lot fewer screaming meanies.  Thanks for keeping this civil guys.


Suggested reading
1. Body of secrets (James Bamford)  In fact anything by James Bamford (he writes about NSA alot)
2. Crimes against nature (Robert F. Kennedy Jr.) Go to the bookstore open this book to any page and read it. 
SOHC4 #289
1977 CB550K - SOLD
1997 YAMAHA XJ600S - SOLD
1986 GL1200I - SOLD
2004 BMW R1150R

Jetting: http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php?topic=20869.msg258435#msg258435
Needles:  http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php?topic=20869.msg253711#msg253711

eldar

  • Guest
Re: Bush's War???
« Reply #101 on: May 17, 2008, 10:12:18 PM »
It MAY have started in 97 but who actually implemented the plan? Who used the "crisis" to enact all kinds of self made laws to erode our freedoms? Who has ordered that torture be used to extract questionable information? Seems that all this points to gw.

76 cb550

  • Guest
Re: Bush's War???
« Reply #102 on: May 18, 2008, 05:10:11 AM »
I'm not trying to say that the dem's didn't want the war.  I'm saying that there isn't much difference between the dems and repubs.  If there were then this president would have been impeached long ago.  They both wanted this war.

Offline ofreen

  • Old Timer
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,082
Re: Bush's War???
« Reply #103 on: May 18, 2008, 09:08:33 AM »
Bush has been painted as a liar,


Bush is a liar.  Just because the dems are liars, too, doesn't let Bush off the hook.  He is the Commander-in-chief. Over 4000 of our people are now dead, more from other countries, not to mention civilians in Iraq who got in the way.  All based on lies, doesn't matter whether Republican or Democrat lies, and all so rich men can get richer.  If there is anything more despicable, I can't think of it right now.  How does the fact that the Democrats were complicit in the war this change Bush's responsibility in this tragic debacle?
Greg
'75 CB750F

"I would rather have questions I cannot answer than answers I cannot question." - Dr. Wei-Hock Soon

Offline Klark Kent

  • You are in serious trouble if you think I'm an
  • Expert
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,463
  • Our Lady of Blessed Acceleration don't fail me now
Re: Bush's War???
« Reply #104 on: May 18, 2008, 10:21:08 AM »

ok, so i finally watched the video.  ;D


If you listen to what the heads are talking about the video is no revelation.  Edwards talks about the intelligence committee being briefed about all the WMDs sadam had and gives this as his reason for supporting the president's plan.  Edwards and the rest of us have since learned that our intelligence agencies were pressured by the administration to come up with intelligence that supported the plan.  The original lie.  Biden actually says it is still debatable, but out of context and sandwiched between the other affirming clips seems to be saying the same thing.  Clinton (Hillary) comes off as the public opinion motivated soon to be presidential candidate she wasnt yet admitting she was.  Spineless, yes, but not to blame for starting anything- war or peace.

Clinton (Bill,) Berger, and Albright may seem to be talking about gulf war II when taken out of context, but could just as easily be defending their own policy in Iraq, which consisted of crippling embargos and regular bombing during both of his terms.  The difference here being that Clinton's murderous policy in Iraq did not involve creating and dropping our troops into a political vacuum and resulting civil war.  He had the support of the international community as a prerequisite and ensured that whatever he did in Iraq, we would not be alone in it.  And however stripped down the military budget was our forces were never stretched so thin to achieve so little as they are now under Bush. 

Bush doesnt say he didn't lie, he says that a senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure.  what political pressure?  he just gave them the facts about the WMDs Sadam definately had, waved some anthrax at them and asked them if they supported his plan or if they wanted to be responsible for these weapons being unleashed on their constituents.  No pressure.  Besides the fact political pressure is not something that leaves behind a residue that can be detected later, this statement from Bush sounds more like, "yeah i did it, but you can prove a thing!"  I am sure that sensate investigation was totally thorough too.  just like the 9-11 commission investigation. 


The video is an attempt to muddy the waters- a slickly produced well edited paid for by the RNC rather successful attempt to muddy the waters.  The logical conclusion is that they're all to blame, and if they're all to blame then they're all the same, right?  In these muddy waters a McCain victory becomes possible.  But if you have a brain it just makes you start thinking you should be voting for Obama- the least establishment of the weevils and the one that has always voted against the war.   

 
-KK

75 CB550k
76 Moto Guzzi 850T-3FB LAPD- sold
95 KLR650
www.blindpilotmovie.com

download the shop manual:
http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php?topic=17788.0
you'll feel better.

listen to your spark plugs:
http://www.4secondsflat.com/Spark_plug_reading.html

Offline edbikerii

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,128
    • Gallery
Re: Bush's War???
« Reply #105 on: May 18, 2008, 11:30:50 AM »
Let's put aside emotions for a second.  However you feel about GWB and the war in Iraq, we have definitive proof that the rest of them are liars, and that they are trying to make Bush out to be the bad guy, when the "intelligence" against Iraq was gathered during the Clinton administration.  Mr. Bill Said so himself (again, watch Bill speak on the video).

Conveniently, you and several others here forget that on September 11, 2001, the United States of America was attacked and over 3000 American civilians were killed.  The PENTAGON was attacked.  Beginning on September 11, 2001, there was OVERWHELMING PUBLIC OUTCRY FOR WAR.  When we attacked Iraq, there was overhwelming public support for war in Iraq.  Congress voted overwhelmingly in favor of attacking Iraq, and both houses had democrat majorities at the time.  The Patriot act had overwhelming support from, and was passed by,  the majority democrat congress.  Also, there was a multi-national coalition of allies who all agreed that it was necessary to go to war in Iraq.  The notion that all of these countries, including the UK, Australia, Poland, Japan, Spain, Italy, Norway, South Korea, AND MANY MORE, simply sent their troops off to die at the whims of George Bush is absolutely ridiculous.  Clearly, in 2003, the majority of the world felt that an invasion in Iraq would serve the greater good.

By the way, republican Dick Armey championed the sunset provisions that would have caused most of the Patriot act provisions to expire on 12/31/2005, but in July 2005, and February 2006, the majority democrat congress passed re-authorization bills which removed the sunset provisions.

So, the notion that Bush is solely responsible for the war on Iraq and the Patriot act is a total load of horse-#$%*!!!  Even more ridiculous is the idea that Hillary Clinton or Obama Barack know, or care, how to handle the current situation.

Bush has been painted as a liar,


Bush is a liar.  Just because the dems are liars, too, doesn't let Bush off the hook.  He is the Commander-in-chief. Over 4000 of our people are now dead, more from other countries, not to mention civilians in Iraq who got in the way.  All based on lies, doesn't matter whether Republican or Democrat lies, and all so rich men can get richer.  If there is anything more despicable, I can't think of it right now.  How does the fact that the Democrats were complicit in the war this change Bush's responsibility in this tragic debacle?
SOHC4 #289
1977 CB550K - SOLD
1997 YAMAHA XJ600S - SOLD
1986 GL1200I - SOLD
2004 BMW R1150R

Jetting: http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php?topic=20869.msg258435#msg258435
Needles:  http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php?topic=20869.msg253711#msg253711

Offline Klark Kent

  • You are in serious trouble if you think I'm an
  • Expert
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,463
  • Our Lady of Blessed Acceleration don't fail me now
Re: Bush's War???
« Reply #106 on: May 18, 2008, 11:59:28 AM »
emotions aside?  you are the one typing horse#$%* in boldface Ed. 

your post is 90% emotional content and speculation, with 10% revisionist history.  for example, all the facts you present about the democratic majority before 2006 are false, as the democrats gained their slim majority in the 2006 election http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/house/  making them not so much a controling force as a neutralizing one and rendering the congress unable to act against an executive branch drunk with an unamerican amount of centralized power. 

Clearly, your position is motivated by emotions, because nothing else on the planet supports it.
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/102.php?nid=&id=&pnt=102&lb=brusc
After september 11th the world was at our doorstep ready to lend support and help us heal.  The Bush administration told the world they wanted to invade an unrelated country and didnt care that they didnt think that was justified, we would go it alone and you can stuff your international support.  Or if you are reliant on aid from us, you can consider joining the "coalition of the willing."  who names things for them anyway George Orwell?

there are a lot of ridiculous notions, but the notion is that the Bush administration is solely responsible for spearheading the war in Iraq (a place that had no role in the attacks of 9-11) is not one of them.  however i do agree that we are ALL responsible for being too intimidated and too lazy to stop them, most of all our elected opposition- which really rolled over on us as demonstrated in your video. 

i think it is ridiculous for you to speculate as to how much hillary or barack obama care without citing the sources of your conclusions.  i don't know if obama and hillary "care" (what does that mean) but I have no doubt that either one would navigate our foreign policy with at least as much strategy, tact and grace as Bush did.  I also think a bag of hammers could do that. 

i think it is hilarious to watch you try and shrug off your party's responsibility for policies you yourself stood behind (or at least never thought were "that bad.")  and it was YOUR PARTY that wrote the patriot act. 

"The USA Patriot Act was enacted on October 26, 2001 as a reaction to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Many lawmakers felt the need to take aggressive action after September 11, and the Bush administration provided them a way to do that: the USA Patriot Act. The USA PATRIOT Act is actually an acronym. It stands for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism." The 300 page act was written by Assistant Attorney General Viet Dinh, kept unavailable to congress members for some time, and passed in two days while Washington, DC was dealing with the anthrax attack. Many congress members had no time to read the act before voting."

YOUR PARTY cooked the intelligence gathered on Iraq, and the "liberal media" sold it to the public
"An in-depth analysis of a series of polls conducted June through September found 48% incorrectly believed that evidence of links between Iraq and al Qaeda have been found, 22% that weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, and 25% that world public opinion favored the US going to war with Iraq. Overall 60% had at least one of these three misperceptions."

own up, switch party affiliation, or shut up.  you are going around in circles.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2008, 12:07:21 PM by Klark Kent »
-KK

75 CB550k
76 Moto Guzzi 850T-3FB LAPD- sold
95 KLR650
www.blindpilotmovie.com

download the shop manual:
http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php?topic=17788.0
you'll feel better.

listen to your spark plugs:
http://www.4secondsflat.com/Spark_plug_reading.html

Offline edbikerii

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,128
    • Gallery
Re: Bush's War???
« Reply #107 on: May 18, 2008, 12:08:16 PM »
I just don't get it.  You've seen the video.  You've heard Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, etc. talk (in 1997 and 1998) about how dangerous Iraq was, you've heard democrat after democrat talk about how we needed to stop Iraq, yet you insist that it was the Bush administration that wanted to go to war.  You know that Senator Hillary Clinton voted in favor of BOTH the Patriot Act AND going to war in Iraq.  Yet, they all go about squawking about how this is all Bush's fault.

Sorry, but when the truth is staring you in the face, there's no logic in arguing against it.

emotions aside?  you are the one typing horse#$%* in boldface Ed. 

your post is 90% emotional content and speculation, with 10% revisionist history.  for example, all the facts you present about the democratic majority before 2006 are false, as the democrats gained their slim majority in the 2006 election http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/house/  making them not so much a controling force as a neutralizing one and rendering the congress unable to act against an executive branch drunk with an unamerican amount of centralized power. 

Clearly, your position is motivated by emotions, because nothing else on the planet supports it.
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/102.php?nid=&id=&pnt=102&lb=brusc
After september 11th the world was at our doorstep ready to lend support and help us heal.  The Bush administration told the world they wanted to invade an unrelated country and didnt care that they didnt think that was justified, we would go it alone and you can stuff your international support.  Or if you are reliant on aid from us, you can consider joining the "coalition of the willing."  who names things for them anyway George Orwell?

there are a lot of ridiculous notions, but the notion is that the Bush administration is solely responsible for spearheading the war in Iraq (a place that had no role in the attacks of 9-11) is not one of them.  however i do agree that we are ALL responsible for being too intimidated and too lazy to stop them, most of all our elected opposition- which really rolled over on us as demonstrated in your video. 

i think it is ridiculous for you to speculate as to how much hillary or barack obama care without citing the sources of your conclusions.  i don't know if obama and hillary "care" (what does that mean) but I have no doubt that either one would navigate our foreign policy with at least as much strategy, tact and grace as Bush did.  I also think a bag of hammers could do that. 

i think it is hilarious to watch you try and shrug off your party's responsibility for policies you yourself stood behind (or at least never thought were "that bad.")  and it was YOUR PARTY that wrote the patriot act. 

"The USA Patriot Act was enacted on October 26, 2001 as a reaction to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Many lawmakers felt the need to take aggressive action after September 11, and the Bush administration provided them a way to do that: the USA Patriot Act. The USA PATRIOT Act is actually an acronym. It stands for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism." The 300 page act was written by Assistant Attorney General Viet Dinh, kept unavailable to congress members for some time, and passed in two days while Washington, DC was dealing with the anthrax attack. Many congress members had no time to read the act before voting."

YOUR PARTY cooked the intelligence gathered on Iraq, and the "liberal media" sold it to the public
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5024408

own up, switch party affiliations, or shut up.  you are going around in circles.

SOHC4 #289
1977 CB550K - SOLD
1997 YAMAHA XJ600S - SOLD
1986 GL1200I - SOLD
2004 BMW R1150R

Jetting: http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php?topic=20869.msg258435#msg258435
Needles:  http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php?topic=20869.msg253711#msg253711

Offline Klark Kent

  • You are in serious trouble if you think I'm an
  • Expert
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,463
  • Our Lady of Blessed Acceleration don't fail me now
Re: Bush's War???
« Reply #108 on: May 18, 2008, 12:20:31 PM »
I just don't get it. 

clearly.  and yet i am still trying to help you get it.

Quote
You've seen the video. 

yes

Quote
You've heard Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, etc. talk (in 1997 and 1998) about how dangerous Iraq was,

I heard clips from Bill from 98 about Iraq as a threat, and a clip of hillary from 2002 about supporting the president's plan

Quote
you've heard democrat after democrat talk about how we needed to stop Iraq, yet you insist that it was the Bush administration that wanted to go to war. 

the clinton era talk was to justify the really harsh policies against Iraq that the Clinton Administration was responsible for- not to justify a war that would occur five years later.  The 2002 clips are of democratic leaders regurgitating intentionally misleading intelligence that the Bush administration was responsible for

The video gains a lot of its power from conflating these two time periods out of context. 

Quote
You know that Senator Hillary Clinton voted in favor of BOTH the Patriot Act AND going to war in Iraq. 

i believe i have addressed both how the patriot act was passed and how bogus intelligence and an atmosphere of fear can fool democratic senators as well as you or I.

Quote
Yet, they all go about squawking about how this is all Bush's fault.

squawk

Quote
Sorry, but when the truth is staring you in the face, there's no logic in arguing against it.

i couldn't agree more.  And seeing as how it took you all of 8 minutes to both read my response, check out all the supporting documents, AND write your well thought out response, me thinks (TfA) there is not only no logic arguing with you but no logic putting the truth anywhere near your face. 

denial is not just a river in Egypt.
-KK

75 CB550k
76 Moto Guzzi 850T-3FB LAPD- sold
95 KLR650
www.blindpilotmovie.com

download the shop manual:
http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php?topic=17788.0
you'll feel better.

listen to your spark plugs:
http://www.4secondsflat.com/Spark_plug_reading.html

Offline edbikerii

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,128
    • Gallery
Re: Bush's War???
« Reply #109 on: May 18, 2008, 01:19:49 PM »
KK, very simply put:  you are wrong.  Iraq had a very long history with biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and had used biological and chemical weapons several times in the past.

Here's the timeline, from a link in your very own NPR article:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4996218
SOHC4 #289
1977 CB550K - SOLD
1997 YAMAHA XJ600S - SOLD
1986 GL1200I - SOLD
2004 BMW R1150R

Jetting: http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php?topic=20869.msg258435#msg258435
Needles:  http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php?topic=20869.msg253711#msg253711

Offline Klark Kent

  • You are in serious trouble if you think I'm an
  • Expert
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,463
  • Our Lady of Blessed Acceleration don't fail me now
Re: Bush's War???
« Reply #110 on: May 18, 2008, 02:34:37 PM »
what you are saying is very simply put.  you fail to realize that the way Iraq was dealt with wasnt the only way it could have been dealt with.  The Bush administration had the intent to invade Iraq since the late nineties.  If there was a democratic agenda that Clinton was advancing it wasn't regime change.  There was an international campaign to pressure the regime into submitting to inspections.  It was Bush (et al) that decided the inspections werent good enough, sent Colin Powell to lie to the UN and from that point on you were either with him or against him.  The cowboy in the movies can decide to do this, but politicians rarely do.  If you follow the money his movitations for invasion are pretty clear (starts with a Halib and rhymes with hurtin') 


At this point though Ed, what does it matter?  While we argue people are dying and the people who pulled the trigger are profiting.  If that doesnt make you sick, if hearing the same kind of sabre rattling about Iran doesn't make the short hairs on the back of your neck stand up, then maybe we can;t change our country together.  But it sounds like you do agree that change is neccessary and hopefully you will hold your chosen leaders to the task of actually changing the way things work and who profits from what.  I will do my best to hold anyone who campaigns on the flimsy concept of change or hope to the impossible task of providing both. 

So long as the corporations that run this country want to make their money selling weapons and gasoline we will find ourselves battling madmen in the desert and paying dearly for it.  To me it looks like a situation where a few people are gaining huge amounts, while vast numbers of people suffer greatly, and people are mostly kept dumb enough to not realize that none of what is going on is in their best interest until its their turn to be unlucky and they are either too poor or too dead to effectively change the system.  If we can change that (and maybe the insurance industry) i think we would be well on our way to being cooler than Canada again.   :P 


something tells me it wont be until after some sort of PNAC nuremburg

oh well, happy trails all the same
« Last Edit: May 18, 2008, 05:50:43 PM by Klark Kent »
-KK

75 CB550k
76 Moto Guzzi 850T-3FB LAPD- sold
95 KLR650
www.blindpilotmovie.com

download the shop manual:
http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php?topic=17788.0
you'll feel better.

listen to your spark plugs:
http://www.4secondsflat.com/Spark_plug_reading.html

Offline ofreen

  • Old Timer
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,082
Re: Bush's War???
« Reply #111 on: May 18, 2008, 04:36:16 PM »
Let's put aside emotions for a second. 

You quoted me in your response, so I guess my post is what you were responding to.  I'd have to say your post appears more emotional than mine.  We seem to agree that the Republicans and Democrats are all responsible for the present mess.  Where it appears we disagree is that you seem to think Bush is less culpable than he is because the the Democrats did the same politically motivated saber-rattling.  Why apologize for the Republicans on this?  Why defend the Republicans on anything?  It has been a long time since the Republicans behaved like Republicans anyway.  The war aside, whatever happened to the fiscal responsibility that is supposed to a Republican hallmark?  It seems as though the only issues that the Republicans have anymore are they are against abortion and gay marriage.


 Beginning on September 11, 2001, there was OVERWHELMING PUBLIC OUTCRY FOR WAR. 

I'd have to call BS on that one.  I live in Idaho, one of the most conservative places in the country, and even here, there were huge doubts among people about going to war in Iraq.

Conveniently, you and several others here forget that on September 11, 2001, the United States of America was attacked and over 3000 American civilians were killed

I remember it well.  I also remember we weren't attacked by Iraq.

Clearly, in 2003, the majority of the world felt that an invasion in Iraq would serve the greater good.


Sorry man, that doesn't hold up either.  I remember how much arm twisting Bush had to do to get his little coalition going and how few signed on.

It is all about greed.  It doesn't matter whether Republican or Democrat, what they have done is a disgrace and they have done it in our name. And we let them do it and are now letting them get away with it.
Greg
'75 CB750F

"I would rather have questions I cannot answer than answers I cannot question." - Dr. Wei-Hock Soon

Offline DammitDan

  • Prodigal Son
  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,470
  • It lives!
Re: Bush's War???
« Reply #112 on: May 18, 2008, 08:43:58 PM »
Klark you get a pat on the back.
CB750K4

Offline Klark Kent

  • You are in serious trouble if you think I'm an
  • Expert
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,463
  • Our Lady of Blessed Acceleration don't fail me now
Re: Bush's War???
« Reply #113 on: May 18, 2008, 09:06:25 PM »
thanks.  always nice when the choir enjoys the sermon.   ;)
i'll let you know if my face gets any less blue because of it.
-KK

75 CB550k
76 Moto Guzzi 850T-3FB LAPD- sold
95 KLR650
www.blindpilotmovie.com

download the shop manual:
http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php?topic=17788.0
you'll feel better.

listen to your spark plugs:
http://www.4secondsflat.com/Spark_plug_reading.html

Offline DammitDan

  • Prodigal Son
  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,470
  • It lives!
Re: Bush's War???
« Reply #114 on: May 18, 2008, 09:10:15 PM »
Ed, weapons of mass destruction are not just Nuclear weapons.  The 1998 clips talking about Iraq are all about the chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction that we KNEW Saddam used on the Kurds in the 80s.  This is what they are speaking about with his "arsenal of weapons of mass destruction," and why the Clinton Administration had to ensure that he didn't rebuild it (hence Operation Desert Fox in 1998).  They're not talking about the same intelligence of a NUCLEAR arsenal and development program in Iraq that was issued by the Bush Administration in 2002 (though it is cleverly disguised that way.)

The "unmistakable evidence" of the development of nuclear weapons was obviously false, as troops have found NO evidence of an advanced Nuclear development program.  So in the end, all of these 2002-2003 speeches in the video were based on faulty intelligence which everyone thought was the absolute truth.  But why did everyone, Democrats and Republicans, think it was the absolute truth?  (Well, actually one outspoken person didn't believe it at face value, but they tried to shut him up quick...  Ambassador Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame, anyone?)

Is it really so unreasonable that the Bush Administration, using tactics of fear and political bullying, presented this intelligence as the absolute infallible truth?  Is it so unlikely that they did this because because it mainly suited the corporate interests whom his Administration supports?  Are you going to tell me that Haliburton just happened to be the best company for the job, at the right place at the right time?

Your video clip is a bunch of malarkey.  Out-of-context, vaguely cited, blame-the-other-guy malarkey.

Is it too late to call Shenanigans?
CB750K4

Offline heffay

  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *******
  • Posts: 7,874
Re: Bush's War???
« Reply #115 on: May 18, 2008, 09:14:27 PM »
yea... i said i wouldn't check back in, but i have been...

this is exactly why i opted to step down as a moderator... i would've pushed the ban button on biker by now...

p.s.  biker, as much as you want this to be YOUR thread... it is not, it will not be about what you want it to be about, it will morph into the conversation that it will inevitably become... you don't have to respond every time someone makes a comment.   :P  if you wanted to start a political argument thread you should have just titled it that.  here's one to grow on...  :P


because i've basically lost interest and i'm just here to make fun of it all... i'm just gonna stick out my tongue some more.


 :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P

yes, i'm trying to get your goat.   :P
Today: '73 cb350f, '96 Ducati 900 Supersport
Past Rides: '72 tc125, '94 cbr600f2, '76 rd400, '89 ex500, '93 KTM-125exc, '92 zx7r, '93 Banshee, '83 ATC250R, 77/75 cb400f

Offline heffay

  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *******
  • Posts: 7,874
Re: Bush's War???
« Reply #116 on: May 18, 2008, 09:16:17 PM »
p.p.s.  i'm on vacation and i didn't bring my goat, ha!   :P
Today: '73 cb350f, '96 Ducati 900 Supersport
Past Rides: '72 tc125, '94 cbr600f2, '76 rd400, '89 ex500, '93 KTM-125exc, '92 zx7r, '93 Banshee, '83 ATC250R, 77/75 cb400f

Offline DammitDan

  • Prodigal Son
  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,470
  • It lives!
Re: Bush's War???
« Reply #117 on: May 18, 2008, 09:17:01 PM »
Awww, but it's fun to poke sticks at eachother from our impenetrable holier-than-thou fortresseseses.  ;D
CB750K4

Offline ofreen

  • Old Timer
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,082
Re: Bush's War???
« Reply #118 on: May 18, 2008, 09:35:52 PM »
So in the end, all of these 2002-2003 speeches in the video were based on faulty intelligence which everyone thought was the absolute truth.  But why did everyone, Democrats and Republicans, think it was the absolute truth?  (Well, actually one outspoken person didn't believe it at face value, but they tried to shut him up quick...  Ambassador Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame, anyone?)

Is it really so unreasonable that the Bush Administration, using tactics of fear and political bullying, presented this intelligence as the absolute infallible truth? 

So the Democrats were just poor innocent dupes bullied into voting for the war by the big mean Bush administration.  Letting the Democrats off the hook is no different than letting the Republicans off.
Greg
'75 CB750F

"I would rather have questions I cannot answer than answers I cannot question." - Dr. Wei-Hock Soon

eldar

  • Guest
Re: Bush's War???
« Reply #119 on: May 18, 2008, 09:44:58 PM »
POKE POKE POKE!!!

Grade A for KK and Heffay!

Offline Klark Kent

  • You are in serious trouble if you think I'm an
  • Expert
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,463
  • Our Lady of Blessed Acceleration don't fail me now
Re: Bush's War???
« Reply #120 on: May 18, 2008, 09:47:00 PM »
So the Democrats were just poor innocent dupes bullied into voting for the war by the big mean Bush administration.  Letting the Democrats off the hook is no different than letting the Republicans off.

why stop there?  if enough of us told our elected representatives that we would still vote for them if they stood up to the fearmongering chickenhawks- would only vote for them if they did, they might have done so, but when we the people are too intimidated by the possibility of the lies being true or too lazy or apathetic to act for what is right instead of what is easy or lucrative, then how can we expect those who rely on that public;s opinion for their livelyhood to speak up?  we can lay blame all day, but in the end it is each and every one of us who sacrificed liberty for security, and we need to start doing something to deserve either.
-KK

75 CB550k
76 Moto Guzzi 850T-3FB LAPD- sold
95 KLR650
www.blindpilotmovie.com

download the shop manual:
http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php?topic=17788.0
you'll feel better.

listen to your spark plugs:
http://www.4secondsflat.com/Spark_plug_reading.html

Offline DammitDan

  • Prodigal Son
  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,470
  • It lives!
Re: Bush's War???
« Reply #121 on: May 18, 2008, 09:57:54 PM »
So the Democrats were just poor innocent dupes bullied into voting for the war by the big mean Bush administration.  Letting the Democrats off the hook is no different than letting the Republicans off.

I'm not letting the Democrats off the hook any less than I'm only blaming the Republicans.  Like I said, everyone was told to trust this intelligence as infallible, and everyone did (Republicans and Democrats alike).  That makes everyone the poor (naive is a good word, idiotic is even better) dupes bullied into voting for the war by the big mean Bush administration.  Fear tactics go a long way in politics...  Hell, fear tactics won a Presidential election in 2004, didn't it?  "We'll keep you safe from the big meanies more than the other guy will."

I think there's a big difference between the Bush Administration specifically and the GOP in general.  I may not agree with all of the GOP's political standings, but the Bush Administration sets a new low.  Even the stoutest Republicans say that the Bush Administration has strayed from the path and gone bat #$%* crazy.  They say it only happened recently, but I think it started way back in 2001 when he first took office.  Who's to say Karl Rove wasn't plotting all this even when the 2000 election was still in progress?  9/11 just provided the perfect backdrop to set the plan into action.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2008, 10:00:24 PM by DammitDan »
CB750K4

Offline ofreen

  • Old Timer
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,082
Re: Bush's War???
« Reply #122 on: May 18, 2008, 10:12:20 PM »
 we can lay blame all day, but in the end it is each and every one of us who sacrificed liberty for security, and we need to start doing something to deserve either.

As I said back here -

http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php?topic=33586.msg358170#msg358170


I'm not letting the Democrats off the hook any less than I'm only blaming the Republicans.

It kind of sounded like it.  If the Democrats lack the political will and courage to do the right thing, then I can hardly expect them to do any better at running the country than the Republicans.

Fear tactics go a long way in politics...  Hell, fear tactics won a Presidential election in 2004, didn't it? 

No, I'd say it didn't.  I don't know what circles you travel in, but I don't know anyone who based his or her vote in the presidential election on fear of terrorism.  Kerry lost because he didn't offer what people are looking for.  The Democrats turn a lot of people off, and that is a fact.  As I said before, if ever an incumbent was vulnerable to getting beat, it was Bush in the last election, but the Democrats blew it.
Greg
'75 CB750F

"I would rather have questions I cannot answer than answers I cannot question." - Dr. Wei-Hock Soon

Offline edbikerii

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,128
    • Gallery
Re: Bush's War???
« Reply #123 on: May 18, 2008, 10:37:50 PM »
There seems to be some confusion about what the events were that led up to the invasion of Iraq.

Here is the lengthy history of chemical, biological and nuclear issues in Iraq.  This source was quoted in one of KK's prior emails, but obviously, it went unread.  I'm posting it here so intelligent people can decide for themselves:


==========================================================================================
Iraq WMD Timeline: How the Mystery Unraveled

NPR.org, November 23, 2005 · Iraq's history with chemical, biological and nuclear weapons is a long and winding path that eventually ended in an American invasion of the country.

In between Saddam Hussein's rise and fall from power, Iraq developed and used so-called weapons of mass destruction (WMD). It also reluctantly submitted to international inspections and destroyed its stockpiles and means of WMD production.

In the end, though, the government's opaque and obstinate nature made it difficult for outsiders to tell exactly what Iraq was doing, if anything, in the realm of WMD.

Saddam Becomes President ::: July 16, 1979
Saddam Hussein becomes president of Iraq after pushing his cousin Ahmad Hasan al-Bakr to resign.

Iran-Iraq War Begins ::: Sept. 22, 1980
Iraq invades Iran, beginning a war that ends in stalemate eight years later.

Israel Attacks ::: June 7, 1981
Israeli warplanes make a surprise attack on the French-built Osirak nuclear reactor near Baghdad. Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin says that his country had to act before Iraq could successfully build a nuclear weapon to use against the Jewish state. Saddam Hussein's Iraqi government says the reactor was not part of a plan to build nuclear weapons.

Chemical Attacks on Iran ::: 1983
Media reports describe Iraqi use of chemical weapons against Iranian forces. Mustard gas is the first weapon used. In 1984 reports say Iraq uses the nerve agent Tabun.

Gassing the Kurds ::: March 1988
Iraq uses chemical weapons against its own population during an attack on the rebellious Kurdish city of Halabja.

Invading Kuwait ::: Aug. 2, 1990
Iraq invades Kuwait, easily overwhelming its tiny neighbor.

Resolution 687 Bans Iraq WMD ::: April 3, 1991
Shortly after Iraq is ejected from Kuwait by an international military coalition, the United Nations Security Council passes its first resolution addressing Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) in Iraq. Resolution 687 states that Iraq must destroy its presumed stockpile of WMD, and the means to produce them. It also limits the country's ballistic missile capability. The U.N. Special Commission (UNSCOM) is established to oversee the inspection, destruction and monitoring of chemical and biological weapons. The International Atomic Energy Agency is asked to document and destroy Iraqi efforts to develop nuclear weapons. Iraq accepts the resolution three days later, agreeing to disclose the extent of its WMD program to inspectors.


Unilateral Destruction ::: Summer 1991
Iraq unilaterally destroys WMD equipment and documentation in an effort at concealment of pre-war work.

Resolution 715 Demands Compliance ::: Oct. 11, 1991
Responding to Iraq's consistent efforts to interrupt or block inspection teams, the U.N. Security Council passes Resolution 715. The resolution says Iraq must "accept unconditionally the inspectors and all other personnel designated by the Special Commission".


'Defensive' Biological Weapons ::: May 1992
Iraq officially admits to having had a "defensive" biological weapons program. Weeks later, UNSCOM begins the destruction of Iraq's chemical weapons program. Progress is halted in July when Iraq refuses an inspection team access to the Ministry of Agriculture.

Denial and Acceptance ::: 1993
Inspections are again held up when Iraq attempts to deny UNSCOM and the IAEA the use of their own aircraft in Iraq. In late 1993 Iraq accepts resolution 715.

Nuclear, Chemical Weapons Programs Destroyed ::: 1994
UNSCOM completes the destruction of Iraq's known chemical weapons and production equipment. IAEA teams largely complete their mandate to neutralize Iraq's nuclear program, including the destruction of facilities Iraq had not even declared to inspectors.

Defection and Revelation ::: Aug. 8, 1995
Hussein Kamel, the former director of Iraq's Military Industrialization Corporation, responsible for all WMD programs, defects to Jordan. As a result, Iraq admits to a far more developed biological weapons programs than it had previously disclosed. Saddam Hussein's government also hands over documents related to its nuclear weapons program and admits to the attempted recovery of highly-enriched uranium.

Al-Hakam Destroyed ::: May 1996
Iraq's main facility for the production of biological weapons, Al-Hakam, is destroyed through explosive demolition supervised by UNSCOM inspectors.

The Fight Against Proliferation ::: 1997
The Additional Protocol is added to the global Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), giving IAEA inspectors more authority to investigate programs in member states. The protocol is in response to the realization that Iraq -- a NPT signatory -- had been able to move swiftly and covertly toward the construction of a nuclear weapon in the late 1980s under the treaty's previous safeguards. Inspections in the 1990s revealed that Iraq was much closer to building a nuclear weapon in the 1980s than had been suspected by IAEA officials.

Resolution 1115 ::: June 1997
In another effort to end Iraq's interference with inspection teams, the U.N. Security Council passes Resolution 1115. The resolution again calls for Iraq to comply with all previous resolutions regarding WMD. By the end of 1997, a diplomatic stalemate forces UNSCOM to withdraw most of its staff from Iraq.


Memorandum of Understanding ::: Feb. 20-23, 1998
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan visits Iraq in an effort secure inspections of what Iraq terms "presidential sites." The U.N. and Iraq agree to support the terms of the newly drafted "Memorandum of Understanding." The Memorandum secures UNSCOM access to eight previously off-limits presidential sites.

Operation Desert Fox ::: 1998
Cooperation ends between Iraq and inspectors when the country demands the lifting of the U.N. oil embargo. UNSCOM and the IAEA pull their staffs out of Iraq in anticipation of a US-led air raid on Iraqi military targets. The four-day military offensive known as Operation Desert Fox begins on December 16, 1998. According to a U.S. military Web site, the mission of Desert Fox was "to strike military and security targets in Iraq that contribute to Iraq's ability to produce, store, maintain and deliver weapons of mass destruction." The operation is considered a success, largely finishing off what was left of Iraq' s WMD infrastructure.


From UNSCOM to UNMOVIC ::: Dec. 17, 1999
The U.N. Security Council passes Resolution 1284, replacing UNSCOM with the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC). Hans Blix of Sweden is named to head the organization. UNMOVIC's staff are employees of the United Nations. UNSCOM's staff had been experts on loan from U.N.-member countries, calling into question the motives of individual team members.


World Trade Center Attacks ::: Sept. 11, 2001
Terrorists attack New York City and Washington, D.C., with passenger jets, radically altering America's view of national security issues.

'Axis of Evil' ::: Jan. 29, 2002
President Bush accuses Iraq of being part of an international "axis if evil" during his State of the Union address. Bush tells Congress:
"Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax and nerve gas and nuclear weapons for over a decade … This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world."


'A Grave and Gathering Danger' ::: Sept. 12, 2002
President Bush accuses Iraq of failing to live up to its obligations to the U.N. during an address to the General Assembly. Bush tells the U.N.:
"We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in his country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left? The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger."


'Material Breach' ::: Nov. 8, 2002
U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 says Iraq "remains in material breach of its obligations" under various U.N. resolutions and gives the country "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament" commitments.


The U.N. Moves Back In ::: Nov. 27, 2002
UNMOVIC and IAEA inspections begin again in Iraq, almost four years after the departure of inspectors prior to Operation Desert Fox.

Recycled Material ::: Dec. 7, 2002
Iraq delivers a 12,000-page WMD report to the U.N. in response to Resolution 1441. U.N. chief inspector Hans Blix says the information provided by Iraq is largely recycled material.

No 'Smoking Guns' ::: Jan. 9, 2003
UNMOVIC's Hans Blix and the IAEA's Director General Mohamed ElBaradei report their findings to the U.N. Security Council. Blix says inspectors have not found any "smoking guns" in Iraq. ElBaradei reports that aluminum tubes suspected by the U.S. to be components for uranium enrichment are more likely to be parts for rockets, as the Iraqis claim. John Negroponte, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., says:
"There is still no evidence that Iraq has fundamentally changed its approach from one of deceit to a genuine attempt to be forthcoming in meeting the council's demand that it disarm."

Sixteen Words ::: Jan. 28, 2003
In his State of the Union address, President Bush continues to view Iraq is a WMD threat. He makes a statement that implies Iraq is trying to develop nuclear weapons. Bush says:
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
It comes to light later that the president based his statement on discredited intelligence.

Powell's U.N. Appearance ::: Feb. 5, 2003
U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell goes in person to the U.N. to make the case against Iraq. Citing evidence obtained by American intelligence, he tells the U.N. that Iraq has failed "to come clean and disarm." Powell adds:
"My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence."


The Burden is on Iraq ::: Feb. 14, 2003
The IAEA's ElBaradei and chief weapons inspector Blix report to the U.N. Security Council on Iraqi cooperation in the search for WMD. They say they have not discovered any biological, chemical or nuclear weapons activities. Proscribed missile programs are discovered and disabled. Blix does express frustration with Iraq's failure to account for its vast stores of chemical and biological agents it was known to have at one point. Blix says:
"This is perhaps the most important problem we are facing. Although I can understand that it may not be easy for Iraq in all cases to provide the evidence needed, it is not the task of the inspectors to find it."

U.S. vs. U.N. ::: March 6-7, 2003
The night before Blix and ElBaradei are to report on inspection efforts in Iraq, President Bush gives a news conference in which he again says Iraq is hiding something. Bush says:
"These are not the actions of a regime that is disarming. These are the actions of a regime engaged in a willful charade. These are the actions of a regime that systematically and deliberately is defying the world."

Blix tells the U.N. the next day:
"Intelligence authorities have claimed that weapons of mass destruction are moved around Iraq by trucks, in particular that there are mobile production units for biological weapons … [But] no evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found."

Appearing with Blix, ElBaradei tells the U.N. that the IAEA has concluded that documents appearing to show Iraq shopping for uranium in Niger are, in fact, forgeries.

Invading Iraq ::: March 20, 2003
The U.S. military and other members of an American-led coalition invade Iraq. Baghdad falls on April 9. President Bush declares an end to major combat operations on May 1. Shortly afterward, the Pentagon announces formation of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) to search for WMD.

A Different Niger Story ::: July 6, 2003
Former diplomat Joseph C. Wilson questions the Bush Administration's use of intelligence about Iraqi WMD programs with an opinion piece in the New York Times titled "What I Didn't Find in Africa." Wilson says he was sent to Africa by the CIA to investigate claims that Iraq had tried to buy uranium ore in Niger. He reports that he didn't find any evidence of Iraq attempting to procure uranium in Niger, contradicting regular statements from the White House that Saddam Hussein was after the radioactive material there.

Tenet Takes the Blame ::: July 11, 2003
Director George Tenet says that the CIA should not have allowed the president to say in his State of the Union address that Iraq was trying to procure uranium in Africa. Deputy National Security Adviser Steve Hadley also accepts responsibility for failing to stop the president from using the information. Tenet says:
"These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the President."


Novak Unmasks a CIA Agent ::: July 14, 2003
Robert Novak, in his syndicated commentary, reveals that Joseph Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA operative. Novak attributes the information to "two senior administration officials."

No Weapons Found ::: Oct. 2, 2003
After three months of looking, Iraq Survey Group (ISG) inspector David Kay tells Congress in an interim report that his American team of weapons inspectors has yet to find any evidence of WMD. Kay says:
"We have not yet found stocks of weapons, but we are not yet at the point where we can say definitively either that such weapon stocks do not exist, or that they existed before the war."


Kay Resigns ::: Jan. 23, 2004
David Kay resigns as head of the ISG. CIA Director George Tenet names Charles Duelfer to replace Kay, whose team failed to find evidence of active WMD production or stockpiles. Kay tells NPR:
"My summary view, based on what I've seen, is that we are very unlikely to find large stockpiles of weapons. I don't think they exist."

Bush Responds to Kay ::: Feb. 3, 2004
With David Kay saying that he didn't believe WMD existed in Iraq, President Bush reiterates his belief that Saddam Hussein was dangerous. Bush says:
"We know from years of intelligence, not only our own intelligence services, but other intelligence-gathering organizations, that he had weapons. After all, he used them."

Hutton Inquiry ::: Feb. 4, 2004
The Hutton Inquiry into allegations from the BBC that the British government had hyped WMD intelligence reports before the war with Iraq finds no basis for the allegations. Tony Blair says:
"The allegation that I or anyone else lied to this House or deliberately misled the country by falsifying intelligence on weapons of mass destruction is itself the real lie."


Senate Intelligence Report ::: July 9, 2004
The Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq is released. It faults America's ability to gauge Iraq's capabilities before the war. Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) says:
"Before the war, the U.S. intelligence community told the president, as well as the Congress, that Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and if left unchecked, would probably have a nuclear weapon during this decade. Well, today we know these assessments were wrong. They were also unreasonable and largely unsupported by the available intelligence."


Britain's Butler Report ::: July 14, 2004
Britain releases the Butler Report, which concludes that Iraq did not have significant, if any, stocks of chemical or biological weapons ready for deployment. Blair responds to the report:
"On any basis, he [Saddam Hussein] retained complete strategic intent on weapons of mass destruction, and significant capability. The only reason he ever let the inspectors back into Iraq was that he had 180,000 U.S. and British troops on his doorstep. He had no intention of ever cooperating fully with the inspectors."


No Weapons Found ::: Sept. 30 - Oct. 6, 2004
The ISG releases its final report and chief inspector Charles Duelfer testifies before congress about his team's findings. After 16 months of investigation, Duelfer concludes that Saddam Hussein had no chemical weapons, no biological weapons and no capacity to make nuclear weapons. This effectively ends the hunt for WMD. Bush responds to the report:
"The Duelfer report showed that Saddam was systematically gaming the system, using the UN oil-for-food program to try to influence countries and companies in an effort to undermine sanctions. He was doing so with the intent of restarting his weapons program once the world looked away."


The Hunt is Over ::: Jan. 12, 2005
White House spokesman Scott McClellan tells reporters that the "physical search" for WMD, having found no weapons, is over.


Robb-Silberman Report ::: March 31, 2005
The Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction delivers its report to the president. Commonly known as the Robb-Silberman report -- in reference to the commission's co-chairmen -- the document describes the failure to find WMD in Iraq as one of the "most public -- and most damaging -- intelligence failures in recent American history." The report, which was commissioned by President Bush, asks what went wrong and conlcudes that wide-ranging reform of the intelligence bureaucracy is needed to guard against global WMD threats.


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4996218
SOHC4 #289
1977 CB550K - SOLD
1997 YAMAHA XJ600S - SOLD
1986 GL1200I - SOLD
2004 BMW R1150R

Jetting: http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php?topic=20869.msg258435#msg258435
Needles:  http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php?topic=20869.msg253711#msg253711

Offline DammitDan

  • Prodigal Son
  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,470
  • It lives!
Re: Bush's War???
« Reply #124 on: May 18, 2008, 11:32:10 PM »
It seems you failed to read the outline yourself, Ed.  It discredits Bush at every twist and turn.  Here's a few highlights:

Quote
'Axis of Evil' ::: Jan. 29, 2002
President Bush accuses Iraq of being part of an international "axis if evil" during his State of the Union address. Bush tells Congress:
"Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax and nerve gas and nuclear weapons for over a decade …
This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world."

Quote
No 'Smoking Guns' ::: Jan. 9, 2003
UNMOVIC's Hans Blix and the IAEA's Director General Mohamed ElBaradei report their findings to the U.N. Security Council. Blix says inspectors have not found any "smoking guns" in Iraq. ElBaradei reports that aluminum tubes suspected by the U.S. to be components for uranium enrichment are more likely to be parts for rockets, as the Iraqis claim. John Negroponte, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., says:
"There is still no evidence that Iraq has fundamentally changed its approach from one of deceit to a genuine attempt to be forthcoming in meeting the council's demand that it disarm."

Quote
Sixteen Words ::: Jan. 28, 2003
In his State of the Union address, President Bush continues to view Iraq is a WMD threat. He makes a statement that implies Iraq is trying to develop nuclear weapons. Bush says:
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
It comes to light later that the president based his statement on discredited intelligence.

Quote
Powell's U.N. Appearance ::: Feb. 5, 2003
U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell goes in person to the U.N. to make the case against Iraq. Citing evidence obtained by American intelligence, he tells the U.N. that Iraq has failed "to come clean and disarm." Powell adds:
"My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence."


Not so solid after all, eh?

Quote
The Burden is on Iraq ::: Feb. 14, 2003
The IAEA's ElBaradei and chief weapons inspector Blix report to the U.N. Security Council on Iraqi cooperation in the search for WMD. They say they have not discovered any biological, chemical or nuclear weapons activities. Proscribed missile programs are discovered and disabled. Blix does express frustration with Iraq's failure to account for its vast stores of chemical and biological agents it was known to have at one point. Blix says:
"This is perhaps the most important problem we are facing. Although I can understand that it may not be easy for Iraq in all cases to provide the evidence needed, it is not the task of the inspectors to find it."

Quote
U.S. vs. U.N. ::: March 6-7, 2003
The night before Blix and ElBaradei are to report on inspection efforts in Iraq, President Bush gives a news conference in which he again says Iraq is hiding something. Bush says:
"These are not the actions of a regime that is disarming. These are the actions of a regime engaged in a willful charade. These are the actions of a regime that systematically and deliberately is defying the world."

Sounds to me more like a witch hunt to start a grand scheme.

Quote
Blix tells the U.N. the next day:
"Intelligence authorities have claimed that weapons of mass destruction are moved around Iraq by trucks, in particular that there are mobile production units for biological weapons … [But] no evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found."

Appearing with Blix, ElBaradei tells the U.N. that the IAEA has concluded that documents appearing to show Iraq shopping for uranium in Niger are, in fact, forgeries.

And it goes on and on and on...

Should Bush take the blame for relying unquestioningly on faulty intelligence?  Isn't it the responsibility of our President to weigh all of the options first, and to research intelligence thoroughly before making such a weighty decision?  It seems to me that Bush had it in his head all along that we were going to invade Iraq, and was simply looking for a reason to sound the charge.

Convincing Congress to go along wasn't hard...  The political pressure to "protect America" is extremely hard to resist, especially with Bush making grand statements to the public like he was.  This is the essence of fear tactics.  Who in their right might would say "NO" when it was made so obvious that Iraq was a real threat?  The pressure is especially strong for those people in the House, whose terms are up after just 2 years.  They really have to keep their constituents placated, or else they're going to lose their seat.  Voting NO on the war resolution would have made them potentially weak in the minds of so many fear-crazed American voters.

And here's the kicker:

Quote
No Weapons Found ::: Sept. 30 - Oct. 6, 2004
The ISG releases its final report and chief inspector Charles Duelfer testifies before congress about his team's findings. After 16 months of investigation, Duelfer concludes that Saddam Hussein had no chemical weapons, no biological weapons and no capacity to make nuclear weapons. This effectively ends the hunt for WMD. Bush responds to the report:
"The Duelfer report showed that Saddam was systematically gaming the system, using the UN oil-for-food program to try to influence countries and companies in an effort to undermine sanctions. He was doing so with the intent of restarting his weapons program once the world looked away."

Oh PUHLEEZE!  You just can't be wrong, can you Mr. Bush?  It's just another way to say, "Alright, look, here's the story, I did was I did, but I uh, yeah, did it fer the right reasons, see?  He was a bad guy, yeah.  You know it.  Sure maybe not all the stuff I said before was true, but ya see it was probably gunna be true, get it?  Yeah, all right."

Impeach Bush before he gets away!
« Last Edit: May 18, 2008, 11:46:39 PM by DammitDan »
CB750K4