Bush comment...

[Microcell]

Originally posted by faithinkarma
I don't believe anyone has suggested no one is allowed to express an opinion


I meant Fox News. You do seem to think that they cannot express opinions. CNN and the big three all do, and I do not believe that Fox is going down, they are making lots of money and have a large following. If they can broadcast Jerry Springer in this country, then Fox News will remain.

 

[MJames41]

My analogy was very simplistic. It was meant to point out that it wasn't just our intelligence saying he was going to attack us, it wasn't just our intelligence saying he was acquiring weapons of mass destruction, it wasn't just our intelligence saying this guy wants to attack and kill us.

We now take the news reports as if we knew exactly what would happen prior to March of 2003. We didn't. We didn't know we wouldn't find and WMD, we didn't know that the intelligence agencies all around the world would be wrong, we didn't know the UN intelligence would be wrong. Yet everyone points to our intelligence and says it was our fault. I don't get that.

Not an attack, but just pointing out that your post said you were looking at the current news reports. What about the news reports back in January, Febraury of 2003? Or before? Hindsight is 20/20, but lets not forget what we thought at the time - what the world thought at the time.

 

[bsears]

Originally posted by MJames41
My analogy was very simplistic. It was meant to point out that it wasn't just our intelligence saying he was going to attack us, it wasn't just our intelligence saying he was acquiring weapons of mass destruction, it wasn't just our intelligence saying this guy wants to attack and kill us.

We now take the news reports as if we knew exactly what would happen prior to March of 2003. We didn't. We didn't know we wouldn't find and WMD, we didn't know that the intelligence agencies all around the world would be wrong, we didn't know the UN intelligence would be wrong. Yet everyone points to our intelligence and says it was our fault. I don't get that.

Not an attack, but just pointing out that your post said you were looking at the current news reports. What about the news reports back in January, Febraury of 2003? Or before? Hindsight is 20/20, but lets not forget what we thought at the time - what the world thought at the time.

OK...fine...it was all the fault of the intelligence community. no one massaged this outcome ( we may learn differently after the final report AFTER THE ELECTION ) but for right now I will subscribe to your theory it was all faulty intelligence......do you agree with the president's stance that despite being proven mistaken about the reason for war, he is glad he did it and would do it again? Do you see no flaw in this logic?

 

[MJames41]

Now that is a more difficult question. I personally do not see anything wrong with it because I always believed we went for more than just the WMD. In February of 2003 (I think it was, memory isn't what it used to be) I posted on the DB a thread the reasons I thought we were going. Granted, WMD was a major reason, and if someone believed that was the only reason, then there would indeed be a major flaw with the presidents statement. For those who believed there were more reasons for going, then I don't think they would have a problem with it.

 

[faithinkarma]

Originally posted by Microcell

Originally posted by faithinkarma
I don't believe anyone has suggested no one is allowed to express an opinion


I meant Fox News. You do seem to think that they cannot express opinions. CNN and the big three all do, and I do not believe that Fox is going down, they are making lots of money and have a large following. If they can broadcast Jerry Springer in this country, then Fox News will remain.

Whether or not opinion belongs FROM ANYONE on the news is highly debatable...but we can agree to disagree. Personally I would not have chosen to put Jerry Springer and FOX in the same sentence if I was defending FOX, but hey...to each his own.

 

[MJames41]

Originally posted by faithinkarma
Personally I would not have chosen to put Jerry Springer and FOX in the same sentence if I was defending FOX, but hey...to each his own.

On this I agree 100%.

 

[faithinkarma]

Originally posted by MJames41
Now that is a more difficult question. I personally do not see anything wrong with it because I always believed we went for more than just the WMD. In February of 2003 (I think it was, memory isn't what it used to be) I posted on the DB a thread the reasons I thought we were going. Granted, WMD was a major reason, and if someone believed that was the only reason, then there would indeed be a major flaw with the presidents statement. For those who believed there were more reasons for going, then I don't think they would have a problem with it.

Fair enough.

 

[faithinkarma]

Originally posted by minniepumpernickel
FIK, I keep wondering if the people who believe we should still have invaded Iraq, are watching the current news reports? Am I just interpreting this stuff differently? Or I can't figure out what gives...here???

I think people are changing their minds...just look at the polls....the people who participate in these debates, no matter which side they are on, are less likely to change their minds. We care deeply about these issues or we would not be here in the first place. The reasons why we stay firm would require a whole other thread....or maybe we are all just a bunch of stubborn old farts

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by minniepumpernickel
Your analogy is kind of scary. If I did something to someone before they did something to me, just to prevent them from doing something, I would go to jail. It's like vigilante justice. I couldn't take the law into my own hands, unless it was self defense.

Yes, you would unless it was self defense. Now you're gettin' the idea.

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by MJames41
Please then, tell us who is there. Or is it your claim that they are "common Iraqi's rising up against the US" - then why is most of their target women and children of Iraq, as well as the Iraqi police or Iraqi politicians. If they are not there, why are they taking so much credit for the attacks? Or is that another Republican conspiracy?

You hate Bush, fine, we get that. You don't help your cause when you make comments like this however.

I believe that most news reports indicate that the individuals doing the attacking are indeed Iraqi citizens.

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Contrary to U.S. government claims, the insurgency in Iraq (news - web sites) is led by well-armed Sunnis angry about losing power, not foreign fighters, and is far larger than previously thought, American military officials say.

Full Story: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...u=/ap/20040709/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_insurgency

Of course you are free to believe anything you wish but that doesn't make it true.

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
Yes, you would unless it was self defense. Now you're gettin' the idea.

So, we were on the verge of being attacked by Iraq?

I'm pretty sure that all of those myths have been dispelled by recent reports by the CIA and the 9/11 Commission.

 

[we3luvdisney]

Originally posted by peachgirl
What's even sadder is that this administration has lied so much that we're forced to distrust them.

Bottom line --- ALL politicians are liars!

I somewhat disagree with your statement. It would be truly sad if our administration continued to allow him to disobey the UN resolutions, rape, torture and murder his people.

I'm totally blown away when people talk about the WMD, but completely forget about the mass graves across the country and the one that contained 15,000 bodies, which were mainly women and children.

Saddam WAS a WMD!

 

[peachgirl]

Bottom line --- ALL politicians are liars!

Oh, I see. It's okay if Bush lies because they all do.

Btw, I don't believe they all lie, but I know this one does.

 

[we3luvdisney]

Originally posted by peachgirl
Oh, I see. It's okay if Bush lies because they all do.

Btw, I don't believe they all lie, but I know this one does.

Please don't twist my words. I sad ALL politicians are liars. I never said it was okay for Bush to lie, because the others do. My point is that they all lie -- Democrats, Republicans, Independants, etc.

Let's not forget about this one:

"I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me ... I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky," Clinton said during a White House after-school care event with his wife standing by his side.

"I never told anybody to lie, not a single time. Never. These allegations are false. And I need to go back to work," Clinton continued.

 

[MJames41]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
I believe that most news reports indicate that the individuals doing the attacking are indeed Iraqi citizens.



Full Story: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...u=/ap/20040709/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_insurgency

Of course you are free to believe anything you wish but that doesn't make it true.

That would be a lot more impressive if it wasn't for things like these:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5322157
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1250442,00.html
(or do you believe that Jordan is a suburb of Iraq?)
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/24/iraq/main541815.shtml
(check out the part under "In other developments")
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3885189.stm

And, for those who think we are safe from the "non-existant" WMD, why doesn't the Iraqi National Security Advisor think so?
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...64&e=7&u=/nm/20040711/ts_nm/iraq_weapons_dc_1
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto...mideast_afp/iraq_weapons_attacks_040711152321

"Of course you are free to believe whatever you wish but that doesn't make it true."

 

[ThreeCircles]

Ah! So that's why we didn't find the WMDs! Because they took them to another country!

Wow! What a great explanation!

 

[we3luvdisney]

Originally posted by MJames41
That would be a lot more impressive if it wasn't for things like these:

MJames41,

Please forgive me if you've already posted this story -- the bold italics are my comments..


Iraq Says Zarqawi Likely Seeking WMD Materials

By Edmund Blair

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq's national security adviser said Sunday unconventional weapons material might have gone to neighboring states in the war and Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is probably trying to get some.

A Jordanian????? I thought it was only Iraqi citizens that were attacking the allies???

Mowaffaq al-Rubaie also said the Iraqi interim government had approved the transfer of all radioactive material in its possession to the United States, but said he could not be sure more material was not hidden inside Iraq by Saddam Hussein.

Wow, who would think that radioactive material would be hidden. I was under the impression that Saddam gave a full account of all the weapons that were banned by the U.N. resolutions.

Rubaie did not provide any evidence that unconventional weapons materials had crossed the border, or of attempts by militants to acquire them in Iraq.

I'm sure if we ask all the 'terrorist" if unconventional weapons were moved to other countries they would be willing to tell us the truth.

U.S. and U.N. officials said Wednesday Washington had transported about 1.8 tonnes of enriched uranium out of Iraq for safekeeping more than a year after looters stole it from a U.N.-sealed facility left unguarded by U.S. troops.

Artillery shells found by Polish troops in Iraq in June contained the deadly nerve agent cyclosarin, the Polish army said last week.

WHAT???? Deadly nerve agent???? I understand these weapons may be old, but wasn't Saddam suppose to make a full account to the U.N. inspectors?

"Just imagine if these weapons of mass destruction or any of these capabilities of making a dirty bomb or a chemical weapon or anything like this, if it falls in the hands of Zarqawi's gangsters and Zarqawi's people and these global terrorists or Saddam's former regime, what will happen?" he said.

Do you think this could actually happen? There are people throughout this world that state Iraq doesn't have WMD. However, Iraq's national security adviser is concerned. Here's an individual that lives in the country and he has a concern, while people who have never stepped foot into Iraq believe there are no weapons, let alone hidden.

"I have no shadow of doubt that..., with his evil mind, he (Zarqawi) will try to acquire these unconventional weapons," he told a news conference.

Wow, I hope he doesn't plan to join this debate. He may not like the responses from some individuals.

Zarqawi is Washington's top militant target in Iraq and has offered a $25 million reward for his capture. Zarqawi's group has claimed responsibility for bombings in Iraq and the beheadings of an American and South Korean.

Asked if unconventional weapons material may already be in the hands of Zarqawi or others like him, Rubaie said: "We don't know. We have no intelligence information on that."

But he said "many mistakes" were made in failing to secure sensitive sites after the U.S.-led war that toppled Saddam.

Rubaie said the transfer of about 1.8 tonnes of low enriched uranium and almost 1,000 radioactive sources to the United States involved everything collected in Iraq. But he said he could not be certain Iraq was free of weapons of mass destruction.

Mr. Rubaie --- According to individuals throughout the world, there are no WMD in Iraq. You should be able to sleep well!

"Whether he (Saddam Hussein) has smuggled these through the borders during the conflict of last year, whether he has hidden these weapons of mass destruction... we don't know," he said.

Come on, Saddam would never do that. He's a very likable guy. People were dying to see and meet him!

The United States and Britain have failed to uncover any stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, even though the possession of such weapons was one of the reasons cited for launching the March 2003 invasion.

Let's not forget about U.N. resolution 1441.

Rubaie said there were indications that some unconventional materials had crossed borders into neighboring states, and said Iraq would seek to have it returned if so.

"There are some indications that these (unconventional materials) have gone that way during the conflict and immediately after the conflict," he said but gave no details.

Do you think that's why WMD have not been found in Iraq? I thought Saddam was a man to be trusted?

 

[ThreeCircles]

Oh! I get it!

So, this new Iraq Security Advisor, who was no doubt installed by the U.S. pupet government in Iraq before they left the country, has better intelligence than the U.S.?

Hmmmm... No WMDs have been found more than a year after the invasion of Iraq.

Sounds like you and your source are kinda grasping at straws.

 

[we3luvdisney]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
Ah! So that's why we didn't find the WMDs! Because they took them to another country!

Wow! What a great explanation!

Are you saying this scenario is not plausible?

 

[bsears]

I am confused as to why people are arguing about whether or not WMDs existed. We went to war because Iraq had WMDs. We now know that was a false premise. Why bother to continue this argument? Even if WMDs are some day found some place.......we never had any legitimate reason to believe they were there in the first place, so who would be vindicated?