Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Frogm4n on March 19, 2004, 11:34:55 PM
-
Well now Clarke's lying as well!
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash60.htm
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FORMER WHITE HOUSE TERRORISM ADVISOR: BUSH ADMIN WAS DISCUSSING BOMBING IRAQ FOR 9/11 DESPITE KNOWING AL QAEDA WAS TO BLAME
Fri Mar 19 2004 17:49:30 ET
Former White House terrorism advisor Richard Clarke tells Lesley Stahl that on September 11, 2001 and the day after - when it was clear Al Qaeda had carried out the terrorist attacks - the Bush administration was considering bombing Iraq in retaliation. Clarke's exclusive interview will be broadcast on 60 MINUTES Sunday March 21 (7:00-8:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network.
Clarke was surprised that the attention of administration officials was turning toward Iraq when he expected the focus to be on Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. "They were talking about Iraq on 9/11. They were talking about it on 9/12," says Clarke.
The top counter-terrorism advisor, Clarke was briefing the highest government officials, including President Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, in the aftermath of 9/11. "Rumsfeld was saying we needed to bomb Iraq....We all said, 'but no, no. Al Qaeda is in Afghanistan," recounts Clarke, "and Rumsfeld said, 'There aren't any good targets in Afghanistan and there are lots of good targets in Iraq.' I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with [the 9/11 attacks],'" he tells Stahl.
Clarke goes on to explain what he believes was the reason for the focus on Iraq. "I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection [between Iraq and Al Qaeda] but the CIA was sitting there, the FBI was sitting there, I was sitting there, saying, 'We've looked at this issue for years. For years we've looked and there's just no connection,'" says Clarke.
Clarke, who advised four presidents, reveals more about the current administration's reaction to terrorism in his new book, "Against All Enemies."
Developing...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course this is from drudge so chances of it being real are 1 in 5.
-
I'm sorry but Al Qaeda did not have anything to do with 911, it was CIA plot.
-
What are you talking about grun? Did you even read the article? Or are you just spouting fringe nonsence again.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
What are you talking about grun? Did you even read the article? Or are you just spouting fringe nonsence again.
LOL :)
I read the article. Would you not expect that on 911 and the days right around you would want to explore every possibility of who did it and discuss options? Wouldnt you want us not to ignore any option of who it was? Wasnt that big criticism about Spain just now? Certainly Saddam could have been stupid enough to try something like that, and he had to be considered. Second lets not forget we were openly invading afghanistan within a few weeks of 911, and I'm betting we had special forces there in a few days after the attack. The decision of who was at fault and who needed to be attacked first was obviously madede quickly and it was decided to do afghanistan and bin laden. So whatever other ideas were discussed around 911 it seems rather obvious they were not a distraction from the hunt for Al Qaeda and the attack on Afghanistan right after 911.
-
'but no, no. Al Qaeda is in Afghanistan," recounts Clarke, "and Rumsfeld said, 'There aren't any good targets in Afghanistan and there are lots of good targets in Iraq.' I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with [the 9/11 attacks],'"
Did you ignore this part of it?
-
When was Afganistan attacked? When was Iraq attacked?
One was invaded in early October 2001.
The other was invaded in late March of 2003.
Can you match the dates and the country invaded? Whatever they discussed, its obvious what they quickly decided on was more important, that much is obvious as we were invading afganistan withing a few weeks of 911.
-
Your missing the point that they wanted to go after iraq because of 9/11 knowing that iraq had nothing to do with it. Then again your part of the crowd that believed we should have invaded iraq 5+ years ago; so what do you care that the admin. had a policy of nation building brewing even though they said they would not during the election of 2k.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
Your missing the point that they wanted to go after iraq because of 9/11 knowing that iraq had nothing to do with it. Then again your part of the crowd that believed we should have invaded iraq 5+ years ago; so what do you care that the admin. had a policy of nation building brewing even though they said they would not during the election of 2k.
But when did it become clear that Al Qaeda did it? Now honestly its obvious that they did it. But if you are going to start a war you better be convinced who you are after. What I think happend during those meetings is thast people considered different otions of who migh be guilty and people argued different viewpoints and that there were disagreements, and thats whats being reported by this article - thats my take on it from an organizational decision making point of view. I'm surprised that now you are the one arguing that other options not be considered wrt to war decisions and that we just rush in...
However, its obvious and totaly unambiguous that they quickly decided that Afghanistan was the real target wrt 911 - whatever discussions took place had no real impact in delaying that decision.
-
so what?
I know you were a saddam groupie frogface, but he is gone, get over it
I don't know what we are waiting for, we should be in Iran by now. See,, we waited too long and darn libya waved the white nuke flag before we could carry out military exercises in his palaces ... get on with it, let's replace every turban with a cowboy hat, the sooner the better. when the draft you frog, you can request cook or latrine duty, something safe and away from the fightin
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
Your missing the point that they wanted to go after iraq because of 9/11 knowing that iraq had nothing to do with it. Then again your part of the crowd that believed we should have invaded iraq 5+ years ago; so what do you care that the admin. had a policy of nation building brewing even though they said they would not during the election of 2k.
I think you need to loosen your turban a touch.
-
Go re-read some of the transcripts from the Bush/Gore debates.
Dubya had a hard-on for Saddam well before 911.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Go re-read some of the transcripts from the Bush/Gore debates.
Dubya had a hard-on for Saddam well before 911.
Do you disagree with that? And if so is it partisan? Did yiu criticize Clinton his countless attacks on Iraq, both with bombs and sanctions, and the cruse missle strikes, the no fly zones and politics and everything else?
Perhaps I'm misreading you but it almost seems as if you want to make it seem that Bush uniquely introduced the Iraq problem into US politics for his own particular and perhaps sinister reasons and you seem to discount the fact that Iraq and its WMD issue was a central part of US policy throughout the 1990s.
-
No question, Grun. Iraq was a problem. Bush decided it was a "front-burner" problem.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
No question, Grun. Iraq was a problem. Bush decided it was a "front-burner" problem.
Is that such a bad thing? I guess I'm asking is what would have been the benefit of letting it drag on indefintely..
-
Too soon to tell. The grand notions of "democratizing" the region and all...
Let's just say I'm not optimistic and leave it at that. :)
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Too soon to tell. The grand notions of "democratizing" the region and all...
Let's just say I'm not optimistic and leave it at that. :)
It is a big risk, I agree. But its worth a try, and I know its certainly better than installing a military strongman type - which would be the easy way to go about "pacifying" a country. I loke the idea for its boldness.
I remember Secretary of State Albright talking about Kosovo in 1999, saying things like "multiethic democracy" and such. Well recent reports show that turned out, dont we. So I know it wont be easy, heck it took the USA 200+ years to become that...
I think we need to stay there and endure for the long term and help these people. We ruled Japan for 7 years until they got independance and a form of "democracy" and similary with germany. Both people had ;ittle knowlege of democracy, both were inflamed with racial/religious prejudices, bioth were militant, Japan had a totally alien culture and language (much more so than iraq/arabs or islam to us today) and of course both were involved in bitter war with USA and had family die of it. So we have to try and there is hope. The worst thing we can do is pull out and abandon them now or weaken our resolve to keep on fighting.
The problem now, and the one that does make it different than Japan or Germany is the level of military resistance by the terrorists. But there just that, terrorist scum and just beacuse we havent quite figured it all out yet does not mean we should pull out, doesn not mean we should stop, and certainly should not allow ourselves to lose hope on account of them.
I am optimistic that we will be OK if we keep trying and keep presenting the iraqi people with the option of hope and proseperty compared the option of death and despair presented by the terrorists and the defeatists.
-
One thing to consider... terrorism isn't an idealogy. Outside of delusional *******s trying to make a political point, it's a method of waging war against a superior foe (actual or even perceived).
It's not going to go away, ever.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
One thing to consider... terrorism isn't an idealogy. Outside of delusional *******s trying to make a political point, it's a method of waging war against a superior foe (actual or even perceived).
It's not going to go away, ever.
That very permance might make it a nonfactor in the equation then but simply a constant that we deal with as we move on.
I'm curious why do you say "outside of guys making political points" Isnt that the whole point of resistance? That these guys are offering an opposing view to the that presented by the suerior force, isnt ideology implied in resistance and thus terrorism? And I do understand that yo are saying terrorism is a tactic, rather than an ideolgy in itself, but the ideolgy is what drives the terrorism. People dont organize and go terrorist without some agenda to drive them and fight for.
-
I dunno... the distinction can be hard to make. We oft hear, "one man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist" and I think it probably has some truth to it.
The difficulty comes in determining whether it's right or wrong to aim for the soft, unprotected side of your enemy. I think it's a gross oversimplification to simply state that "terrorism is evil" without recognizing that it has it's place with the rest of the tools of war.
What's the agenda? That's the best question. Here is where we will find the "evil".
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
I dunno... the distinction can be hard to make. We oft hear, "one man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist" and I think it probably has some truth to it.
The difficulty comes in determining whether it's right or wrong to aim for the soft, unprotected side of your enemy. I think it's a gross oversimplification to simply state that "terrorism is evil" without recognizing that it has it's place with the rest of the tools of war.
What's the agenda? That's the best question. Here is where we will find the "evil".
"one man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist"
Thats true 100% of the time, otherwise people wouldnt be figting.
Determining the nature of "evil" is key. For example I'm 100% sure that some neo-nazi fanatic like McVeigh considered himself a freedom fighter as did his supporters. But just that he consired that to be freedom it does not mean its no evil. This is where morals come in to play a bit but also more importatly this is where we as a society have to decide what we stand for.
Now of course both sides in a conflict go through this process of decing what they stand for and of course they reach different conclusions. Which is right, which is wrong, which is just which is evil? Which sides stands for the good?
Well, personally I would tend agree with the side that is more democratic, open, and offeres more personmal liberties which allow people to chose. Obviously also we have to consider how each side treats human life. While all sides in a war take human life, there is a big difference between for example gassing 6 million jews or crashing civil airliners into civilan bulings with 20,000 people and attacking military targets. So I would say the former are the bad guys, and yes they are less right. Though it wouldnt be so clear cut if the bad guys just attacked military targets, but thats not the case here.
And we must recognize that resistance even against ( pr perhaps especially) a stringer force need not be violent. Look at ghandi and MLK, they achieved great sucess and change without violence. And i would say that non violence makes them morally superior than if they had bombed their oppents. For example I'm convinced that if Arafat was more like MLK and gandhi than like he is, then palestinenas would have had a state long ago.
Basically I think there are ways to objectively determine of somebody is "evil" that do not have to even the basis of the disagreement between conflicting parties.
-
Iraqs refusal to abide by the 1991 cease fire agreement (by uncease firing on coalition aircraft), was lawful reason enough. WMDs and iminent threat were icing on the cake, if it were needed as insurance but it was not. Only to de-testicle the ignorant is all I can think of.
"Leftist chamberlains will always attempt to populate intelligent thought in spite of themselves"
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Iraqs refusal to abide by the 1991 cease fire agreement (by uncease firing on coalition aircraft), was lawful reason enough.
BS. The country of Iraq had a cease fire argeement with the United Nations. The United Nations was the only body that could determine wether or not Iraq was in violation of that agreement and what action to take if it was determinded that Iraq was in fact in violation. This was reaffirmed in the United States sponsored United Nations Security Council resolution 1441, which was not only sponsored by the United States but which in fact the United States voted for.
WMDs and iminent threat were icing on the cake, if it were needed as insurance but it was not. Only to de-testicle the ignorant is all I can think of.
BS mk2. It wasn't at all the icing on the cake. If the United Nations Security Council determinded that Iraq was following "orders" under resolution 1441, then the United States couldn't attack Iraq, under the United Nations charter. The only time a nation state can fight against other, without a mandate from the United Nations Security Council, is for self-defence or mutual self-defence (a la NATO).
The Bush administration tried a new doctine of "pre-emptiveness". They tried to prove that Iraq was an threat to the US that had to be delt with immediately (certainly no time to the UN inspectors finish their job) or the US would be attacked with WMD through Iraq's supposed terrorist connections. To pretend otherwise is...desparate.
-
""Iraq as an imminent threat
The matter of whether or not the United States rightfully considered Iraq as an imminent threat is once again an issue for international discourse.
The National Security Strategy of September 2002, "outlined the U.S. government's policy for national defense. In it, the Bush administration argued that the concept in international law of 'imminent threat' -- which allows countries to defend themselves against opponents who are poised to attack them - must be given a new meaning in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks:[1]
"For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack. Legal scholars and international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on the existence of an imminent threat-most often a visible mobilization of armies, navies, and air forces preparing to attack.
"We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today's adversaries. Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means. They know such attacks would fail. Instead, they rely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons of mass destruction-weapons that can be easily concealed, delivered covertly, and used without warning...
"...The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction- and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In his October 7, 2002, remarks at the Cincinnati [Ohio] Museum Center at the Cincinnati Union Terminal -- identified on the White House web site as "President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat" -- President George W. Bush made the following statements:
The threat comes from Iraq. ... The Iraqi regime ... possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith. ... Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must disarm. ...
Many Americans have raised legitimate questions: about the nature of the threat; about the urgency of action ... the threat from Iraq stands alone ..
Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. ... America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."
A comment from Lean Left, October 21, 2003, reinforces the idea that Bush intended to convey a sense of "imminent threat": "Anyone who says things like 'Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud' is arguing that something must be done now. No amount of parsing can change that."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 8, 2002, the day after the President's speech, Andrew F. Tully, writing for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, commented in his article "Bush Tells Americans Saddam Is An Imminent Threat": "Bush also contended that Hussein works closely with terrorists, including Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden's network that has been blamed for the attacks on New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania on 11 September 2001. There has been no evidence, however, that Hussein was in any way involved in those attacks, and Bush offered none last night."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Just Left of Center comes the astute observation that "While the word Imminent is not present, it’s clear that’s what the message was. ... Here’s what Bush has said about Iraq leading up to the war."
Such Iraqi actions pose a continuing unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. Letter to Congress 7/30/2002.
President Bush declared a national emergency with respect to Iraq pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706) to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States constituted by the actions and polices of the Government of Iraq. 8/2/2002.
Saddam Hussein has thumbed his nose at the world. He's a threat to the neighborhood. He's a threat to Israel. He's a threat to the United States of America. And we're just going to have to deal with him. And the best way to deal with him is for the world to rise up and say, you disarm, and we'll disarm you. And if not -- if, at the very end of the day, nothing happens -- the United States, along with others, will act. 10/1/2002.
The danger to America from the Iraqi regime is grave and growing. The regime is guilty of beginning two wars. It has a horrible history of striking without warning. In defiance of pledges to the United Nations, Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons. Saddam Hussein has used these weapons of death against innocent Iraqi people, and we have every reason to believe he will use them again. 10/5/2002.
Saddam Hussein has terrorized his own people. He's terrorized his own neighborhood. He is a danger not only to countries in the region, but as I explained last night, because of al Qaeda connections, because of his history, he's a danger to the American people. And we've got to deal with him. We've got to deal with him before it is too late. 1/29/2003.
The danger posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons cannot be ignored or wished away. The danger must be confronted. We hope that the Iraqi regime will meet the demands of the United Nations and disarm, fully and peacefully. If it does not, we are prepared to disarm Iraq by force. Either way, this danger will be removed. The safety of the American people depends on ending this direct and growing threat. 2/26/2003.
MoveOn U.S. presidential election, 2004: Democrat Campaign Ads: "Censure President Bush". Film footage shows Donald Rumsfeld's interview on Face the Nation regarding Iraq as an imminent threat. 3/17/04.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the March 15, 2004, Sunday morning edition of NBC's Meet the Press, Condoleezza Rice said that "the overthrow of Saddam had 'greatly served' the fight against terrorism. ... 'I believe to this day that it [Iraq] was an urgent threat,' she said. 'This could not go on and we are safer as a result because today Iraq is no longer a state of weapons of mass destruction concern.'" [2] "
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Iraq_as_an_imminent_threat
-
"There's no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States."
- White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, 8/26/03
"We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
- President Bush, 7/17/03
Iraq was "the most dangerous threat of our time."
- White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03
"Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat...He was a threat. He's not a threat now."
- President Bush, 7/2/03
"Absolutely."
- White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03
"We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended."
- President Bush 4/24/03
"The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed."
- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03
"It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and its threat to the region and the world is ended."
- Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, 3/22/03
"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."
- President Bush, 3/19/03
"The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations."
- President Bush, 3/16/03
"This is about imminent threat."
- White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03
Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies."
- Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/31/03
Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world."
- Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/03
Iraq "threatens the United States of America."
- Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03
"Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03
"Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction."
- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03
"The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. They not only have weapons of mass destruction, they used weapons of mass destruction...That's why I say Iraq is a threat, a real threat."
- President Bush, 1/3/03
"The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."
- President Bush, 11/23/02
"I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?"
- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02
"Saddam Hussein is a threat to America."
- President Bush, 11/3/02
"I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq."
- President Bush, 11/1/02
"There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein."
- President Bush, 10/28/02
"The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace."
- President Bush, 10/16/02
"There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."
- President Bush, 10/7/02
"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
- President Bush, 10/2/02
"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."
- President Bush, 10/2/02
"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
- President Bush, 9/26/02
"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02
"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02
"Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness."
- Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/29/02
-
Now please be kind enough do the same for all the similar Iraq is quotes from the clinton adminstartion...
-
Originally posted by Eagler
so what?
I know you were a saddam groupie frogface, but he is gone, get over it
I don't know what we are waiting for, we should be in Iran by now. See,, we waited too long and darn libya waved the white nuke flag before we could carry out military exercises in his palaces ... get on with it, let's replace every turban with a cowboy hat, the sooner the better. when the draft you frog, you can request cook or latrine duty, something safe and away from the fightin
You such a good christian eagler. Im sure your war god will be happy once all the muslims are gone. Then we can all get together drink cyanide and enter heaven together.
-
Nice Eagler. And quite sad too. What have you against Sikhs? These guys had similar ideas to yours:
(http://www.learn.co.za/content/grade12/History/wwii/hitler/Unit1/12HisT1L2_1IM2.gif)
Onward Christian soldiers...
I thought most of us had learnt from that episode of history.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
so what?
I know you were a saddam groupie frogface, but he is gone, get over it
I don't know what we are waiting for, we should be in Iran by now.
because Us doesnt have millitary power to fight agains Iran.
And whats even bigger fun, US have no any money left :D
So you can just sit home and watch, how iranian goverment dont give a watermelon if you will or not allowe them to develope nuclear technology
Invazion to Afghanistan... naaa there were only few bombs throwen on capital and around, few soldiers were out for a mountain tour and nothing has change. The only one secure area is capital and this can be so only because of NATO(german ) soldiers...
Iraq is similary comedy
-
Originally posted by maslo
because Us doesnt have millitary power ro fight agains Iran.
And whats even bigger fun, US have no any money left :D
So you can just sit home and watch, how iranian goverment dont give a watermelon if you will or not allowe them to develope nuclear technology
Invazion to Afghanistan... naaa there were only few bombs throwen on capital and around, few soldiers were out for a mountain tour and nothing has change. The only one secure area is capital and this can be so only because of NATO(german ) soldiears...
Iraq is similary comedy
Boy are you getting bad information.
-
ok .. so give me some correct informations.
-
Originally posted by maslo
ok .. so give me some correct informations.
If you can't see how absolutely idiotic it is to state that the US is broke, the US can't fight Iran militarily, and that Germany is holding Iraq together then nothing I can say is going to pull you out of your fantasy land.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Now please be kind enough do the same for all the similar Iraq is quotes from the clinton adminstartion...
Irrelevant, the Clinton administration isn't in power, can not be relected, isn't lying right now to get relected and isn't the subject of this thread.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Irrelevant, the Clinton administration isn't in power, can not be relected, isn't lying right now to get relected and isn't the subject of this thread.
Oh no Thrawn. How can you claim the Bush people were actively "lying" but ignore the very similar statments made by the previous US government about Iraq for a whole decade previously. Was the previous US government lying too? Are you perhaps implying the Clinton era staements were simply based on faulty intelligence while, somehow, the Bush era staements are sinister deliberate lies? Maybe we just had imperfect intelligence on Iraq? You know, Saddam really wasnt very forthcoming at all about his "nonexistant" WMD program, kicking out inspecors and keep them out of secretive compounds and all... If you are going to make the bold staement that Bush was deliberatly and catively "lying" about Iraq then I think yiou should explain what your stance is on the previous adminstarions 8 year long policy stance on the Iraq threat as well... were they lying too?
-
Are blind? I don't care if the Clinton administration lied or not. They are not seeking reelection, haven't been in power for 3 1/2 years, and haven't invaded a foreign country recently, nor will they be able to do so in the future.
It's a complete straw man arguement.
Bush adminstration lied, and evidence has been posted to back up that claim.
Then you sqeak, "But, but so did Clinton."
So what? So probably did Grover Cleveland, irrelevant straw man argument. Plus you are hypocrit. You chastise Clinton for lying, then use Clinton's lying as way of justifing Bush's.
You aren't fooling anyboyd, and I'm not sure why I'm even bothering to explain to you, come to think of it. You don't even vote so are pretty irrelevant as well.
-
Grover Cleveland? You are pretty desperate there, Thrawn...
I disnt say clinton lied, nor did I imply it. Talk about a straw man...
What I am asking is if you think Clinton lied with his iraq policy, a policy substantively like that of bush - which you calim is a lie. Or at least for you to explain why his admin had the very similar stance on iraq just as bush, which included miltary attacks and devestating sanctions. Why did clinton have that policy?
Clinton Iattacked Iraq countlesss time for the same WMD reasons. Clinton had the same intel on Iraq as did Bush, both concluded that Iraq was a threat.
If two different consequitive adminastrtaions from different plitical parties had the same intel on the same country wrt to the same general WMD problem then perhaps there is something more to it that simply "bush is a liar."
Your whole point seems to be that bush admin is somehow uniquely responsible for painting Iraq as a WMD threat. Well i say that we have a decade long history of the previous admin saying the excat same thing. And if you wanna make that accusation stick I think you will have to adress the very similar clinton era policy stance on Iraq which included daily militray action a bit more substantively thatn just trying to ignore it, pretend that it didnt exist or say just its irrelevant because its inconvenent to your views.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Bush adminstration lied, and evidence has been posted to back up that claim.
I don't know what fantasy world you're living in. You guys have been yapping about evidence, but you've yet to produce any.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
If you can't see how absolutely idiotic it is to state that the US is broke, the US can't fight Iran militarily, and that Germany is holding Iraq together then nothing I can say is going to pull you out of your fantasy land.
where exactly i said that Germany is holding Iraq together and US broken ?
I said that German forces hold Kabul, whitch belive me or not is not in iraq and i also said that US have no military power to fight Iran, whitch is true according to last knowen numbers.
And i as well said, that US have no enough money for proper war, like attack Iran. I didnt say US army cant fight them.... i say that they will not defeat them. Iran is not third world country like afghanistan or destroyed like Irak were.
Look at US`s debts, flow of international money and you will find out that USA cant handle war with some country with proper army.
-
anyway im still waiting for your correct informations...
-
Originally posted by maslo
anyway im still waiting for your correct informations...
Apparently you didn't understand a word I said.
-
yes i did ... you did say, thatm im wrong if i belive that germany hold iraq.... but you seems to be quite off
edit.: like usualy when you run out of arguments
-
Originally posted by maslo
yes i did ... you did say, thatm im wrong if i belive that germany hold iraq.... but you seems to be quite off
edit.: like usualy when you run out of arguments
Here's a suggestion, go pick up a pocket translator, then come back.
-
ok got one on http://www.seznam.cz/sl
and now tell me, where did i say, that Germany is holding Iraq
-
Originally posted by maslo
ok got one on http://www.seznam.cz/sl
and now tell me, where did i say, that Germany is holding Iraq
Apparently it doesn't work well, as you still don't understand what I said. Keep looking! You'll figure it out!
-
You said
Originally posted by Martlet
If you can't see how absolutely idiotic it is to state that the US is broke, the US can't fight Iran militarily, and that Germany is holding Iraq together then nothing I can say is going to pull you out of your fantasy land.
.... so you better keep your mouth close when you have nothing to say.
-
Originally posted by maslo
You said
.... so you better keep your mouth close when you have nothing to say.
C'mon, you're almost there! Give it another shot!
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Your whole point seems to be that bush admin is somehow uniquely responsible for painting Iraq as a WMD threat.
It's not ment to be, my point much like the thread itself. Is to point out that the Bush administration lied and is continuing to lie about it's reasons for going to war and causing the deaths of thousands of people.
-
(http://www.thehappycynics.com/buf%20Cowboy%20hat.jpg)(http://www.hollywood-costumes.com/graphics2/984furhatpk.jpg)(http://www.cnn.com/images/0011/top.gw.bush.hat.ap.jpg)
(http://www.michelesmith.tv/shop/images/810cowboy.jpg)
(http://history.searchbeat.com/reagan-hat.gif)
yep, a cowboy hat for everyone, even dowding and frogboy:
(http://www.oldmanmurray.com/images/small_steed_fat_cowboy.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
It's not ment to be, my point much like the thread itself. Is to point out that the Bush administration lied and is continuing to lie about it's reasons for going to war and causing the deaths of thousands of people.
Whats the difference between a lie and incorrect information?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Whats the difference between a lie and incorrect information?
Answer:
If a Republican does it, it's a lie.
If a Democrat does it, even under oath, it's incorrect information.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Whats the difference between a lie and incorrect information?
The Bush administration may have had incorrect information in some cases, but they aslo willfully lied about information regarding the reasons to go to war in Iraq and cause the death of thousands of people.
-
Dis Clinton lie about it too when he bombed Iraq because of the WMD, killing many people? Did Clinton lie too when he continued the sanctions because of WMD, killing thousands of iraqi children in the process?
If you say Bush WMD policy is a lie then isnt Clintons similar agressive bombing and killing Iraqi's policy a lie as well? If the WMD threat idea is the issue, then really it shouldnt matter even across both adminstarations...
-
I found out this Clarke fellow is peddling a book... Check it out at amazon..
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0743260244/qid=1079857747/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/103-1728316-4967045?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
I think this puts his sensationalism in perspective... :rolleyes:
-
So bush used same lie, so there shouldnt be a problem Grun ?
Did i got your point correctly ?
major diference between those 2 US laiers is, that one of them is at home and second of them is trying to convince us that terrorism and killing is important for world peace.
So stop crying about Clinton, he is gone and tell us Grun, what should president of US do, after he several times presend wrong informations on public, whitch cause death of few thousand people. .... Does he have any responsibility or he is only poor vicim of his employee ?
-
Yes grun, thats the entire reason these guys are critical of bush. Even though they used to believe in the same things and worked with the man. They wanted to sell books. Even though they could have wrote positive books about him and sold them to bush supporters which roughly equal the anti bush people.
When multiple people that worked within the admin. that are privy to information we are not start comming out critizing the president its never a good sign.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
Yes grun, thats the entire reason these guys are critical of bush. Even though they used to believe in the same things and worked with the man. They wanted to sell books. Even though they could have wrote positive books about him and sold them to bush supporters which roughly equal the anti bush people.
When multiple people that worked within the admin. that are privy to information we are not start comming out critizing the president its never a good sign.
Unless, of course, they have axes to grind and a personal agenda.
When current members of the Administration start blowing their whistles in droves I'll be concerned. Until then, I'll just let you libs grab your pom poms every time one of your compatriots gets canned and writes a book.
-
I sense a giant missed point here.. but that's nothing new for this BBS.
1. Clark isn't saying that "all options were being considered", he is saying that the Bush admin wanted to BOMB IRAQ as a response for 9-11. Because they had "better targets". If this is true it is certainly disturbing.
2. If criticizing Bush helps sell more books, doesn't it follow that most people agree with the criticism? What does this tell you?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I sense a giant missed point here.. but that's nothing new for this BBS.
1. Clark isn't saying that "all options were being considered", he is saying that the Bush admin wanted to BOMB IRAQ as a response for 9-11. Because they had "better targets". If this is true it is certainly disturbing.
2. If criticizing Bush helps sell more books, doesn't it follow that most people agree with the criticism? What does this tell you?
The policy of the US since 1998 was regime change in Iraq. In a meeting discussing response to 9/11 wouldn't it be reasonable to expect someone to suggest that the 9/11 attack could be used as pretext for following established policy of the last 2 administrations as approved by congress?
After all it was discussed and then the idea discarded for other justification. Standing on its own, that an idea was fielded does not alarm me unless it was acted upon. The justification for Iraq was not immediately related to 9/11.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I sense a giant missed point here.. but that's nothing new for this BBS.
1. Clark isn't saying that "all options were being considered", he is saying that the Bush admin wanted to BOMB IRAQ as a response for 9-11. Because they had "better targets". If this is true it is certainly disturbing.
2. If criticizing Bush helps sell more books, doesn't it follow that most people agree with the criticism? What does this tell you?
MT this guy is trying to sell books. Its not that big of a strech to take differing opinions of who thougt who was responsible and then dramatize them into that. And who in the "Bush adminstration" wanted to do it? BTW who is this vague "bush adminstration"? Indviidual opionos in any organization do not reflect the oranizations opinions, they help form it no doubt but in any good org there are systes to resolve intraorganizational negotiation of issues and arrive at some conclusion that considers options and arrives at best conclusion. So I ask you, is the "bush admin" that that you say argued to attack iraq the same "bush adminstration" that invaded afgananistan within only 3 weeks of 911... You see when did we invade afghanistan, in october 911. When did we invade Iraq, in march 2003. So whatever was discussed, you are for open discusssion in a decision making process arent you, its obvious what the ultimate decision that was made and made very quickly, regardless of any differing opinions.
Second point. If criticizing bush helps sell books thaen doersnt that mean that most people agree with the criticism.
Well I hope its just eary in the morning and you havent had that coffe yet, cuz thats an unusally crude and unsophistaced staement from you, unless you really are particularly myopic and wishful in your dislike of bush. :)
1) It means he is attempting to make the book poular with those people who dislike bush.
2) It means that he is attempting to criticize bush in order to create controversy or "buzz" for his book - which is always good for sales.
Or look at it this way, if your favoriye author Ann Coulter is bashing the Deomcratic party in order to sell her books, does that mean "that most people agree with the criticism?"
I think you know the answer MT. Go get that coffe now. :)
-
Originally posted by Martlet
I don't know what fantasy world you're living in. You guys have been yapping about evidence, but you've yet to produce any.
I thought that was basically the argument against the war?
-
I thought that was basically the argument against the war?
But before the war, the controversy was how to deal with WMD's and Iraq's violations of UNSC resolutions.
France, Deutchland, and Russia wanted more time for sanctions and inspections to work, the US and UK had had enough.
As I remember it, the only government claiming that weapons did not exist was Iraq's.
-
Clark isn't saying that "all options were being considered", he is saying that the Bush admin wanted to BOMB IRAQ as a response for 9-11. Because they had "better targets". If this is true it is certainly disturbing.
We all know Bush's administration has coveted Iraq for years. Trying to link Iraq with the WTC attacks has been an open policy.
On March 6th 2003 Bush gave a press conference at the White House on the coming war.
He mentioned Al Queda and 911 14 times.
-
I don't know what fantasy world you're living in. You guys have been yapping about evidence, but you've yet to produce any.
An example par excellence of irony if ever there was one.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
An example par excellence of irony if ever there was one.
Shouldn't you be off watching the Streisand concert on Bravo?
-
Shouldn't you be off watching the Streisand concert on Bravo?
A comeback Mr. Black would be proud of and a superb demonstration of the Martlet intellect at work.
Bravo!
Speaking of which, do you often make a note of when Streisand concerts are showing?
-
Originally posted by Dowding
A comeback Mr. Black would be proud of and a superb demonstration of the Martlet intellect at work.
Bravo!
Speaking of which, do you often make a note of when Streisand concerts are showing?
Since you came out of the closet, I've always tried to keep tabs on you. I wouldn't want you to sneak up behind me. I figure if I monitor Streisand, it's the same as tracking you only easier.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
Well now Clarke's lying as well!
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash60.htm
Check out this article about Clark.
http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/143
-
A likely story Martlet.
Kind of like Townsend's "I was only looking at child porn for my own research" excuses.
-
Silly people, writing a book is the best form of life insurance these guys can get.
-
Originally posted by MrLars
Silly people, writing a book is the best form of life insurance these guys can get.
Good point! Boy was that Vince Foster book page turner or what?
-
Originally posted by Dowding
A likely story Martlet.
Kind of like Townsend's "I was only looking at child porn for my own research" excuses.
Dunno about that. I'm not much interested in your child porn stories.
Apparently there is more than one way to keep tabs on you.