Bush comment...

[lucky_bunni]

I was reading through this article on Yahoo:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...o/senate_intelligence_report&cid=512&ncid=716

Bush defended going to war by saying:

"We haven't found the stockpiles, but we knew he could make them," the president said. "The world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power."

First, couldn't the same be said about Bush? Second, so anyone who "could" make stockpiles of WMDs should be taken on by the U.S.?

 

[Viking]

We have a very old joke in German, which IMHO fits in here quite good:
The police picks up a guy with a box full of burglar-tools. They drag him into the courthouse and the judge wants to send the guy to jail for burglary.
The guy asks 'Why do sent me to jail for burglary although I committed no crime? You didn't find any stolen items in my posession?'
The judge replies: 'Because you had the tools with you!'
Then the guy inquires: 'Why don't you put rape on the list as well? I've got that tool with me, too!'

This seems to be the logic Bush's using That is if you assume that Bush is capable of using logic at all, which I heavily doubt. Like most religious fanatics he prefers belief over knowledge and acts accordingly.

 

[Elwood Blues]

Over here, it's not illegal to own a *****.

 

[KingsFanInRI]

There is a big difference between "would stockpile WMD's" and "has the ability and desire to stockpile WMD's." That's what GWB should have said; he (Saddam) would have if he could have, and he would have used them. I am a hardcore conservative Christian Republican, as right wing as the starboard side of a 747. I love GWB. But even I know that part of his motivation is to finish what his father could not.

As for whether or not the world is a safer place without Saddam Hussein, why don't we try having a poll of Iraqis instead of Americans so that we can get a better answer?

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by KingsFanInRI
But even I know that part of his motivation is to finish what his father could not.

[

You do? How?

As for whether or not the world is a safer place without Saddam Hussein, why don't we try having a poll of Iraqis instead of Americans so that we can get a better answer?

I would that bet the majority of Iraqi's and you must exclude those that were part and parcel to SH's brutal rule, would say that THEY are better off without SH. I imagine at this point in time with all the challenges ahead of them, they don't really care much about how SH's removal affects the rest of the world.

 

[Microcell]

You do know that Kadaffi had admitted to working with Saddam to build WMD, just in Lybia since the pressure was high in Iraq. I know the liberal media just glossed over it in a three second story, but it is true.

 

[Robinrs]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
[

You do? How?

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/27/bush.war.talk/

 

[Dan Murphy]

Originally posted by KingsFanInRI
........why don't we try having a poll of Iraqis instead of Americans so that we can get a better answer?

Might be hard to find enough........

Glad he is out of circulation.

 

[Microcell]

If someone ordered a hit on your father, would you have warm fuzzy feelings about him?? I am sure that aided in his decision, but he was also breaking the terms of his surrender. Remember a condition of his surrender after the Gulf war was UNFETTERED ACCESS to where the inspectors wanted to go to look for WMD??? All he did was dodge and throw up roadblocks the whole time. We were not sure what he was doing. There was no love lost, to be sure, but our president was acting in our best interest. He is not Clinton, I cannot imagine him sitting back and saying "My daddy was almost killed, I wanna get that bad guy" As for finishing what his dad didn't that is just fine with me. I did not vote for his dad the second time because I thought it was wrong of him to promise liberation and not follow through. I see it as cleaning up his dads mess, not using our country to exact revenge. Saddam was not complying and was working with others to keep his hands in things at the very least.

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by Robinrs
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/27/bush.war.talk/

That's quite a leap from "After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad." to conclude that *anyone* knows what he was thinking at the time. Or thinking now.

Can you find an actual quote where Bush says he wanted to finish what his Daddy started and to avenge the attempt on his Daddy's life by going after SH?

There are some real talented (and scary) clairvoyants out there that, IMO, should put their gift to much better use than reading the Presidents mind.

 

[we3luvdisney]

Originally posted by Robinrs
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/27/bush.war.talk/

I'm sorry, but I read your link and I don't see where Bush Jr. said he was out to finish what his father could not.

FYI --- The reason Bush Sr. did not go after Saddam was because he was not one of the objectives (read Colin Powell's book). The main objective was to remove Iraq from Kuwait.

 

[faithinkarma]

Originally posted by Microcell
You do know that Kadaffi had admitted to working with Saddam to build WMD, just in Lybia since the pressure was high in Iraq. I know the liberal media just glossed over it in a three second story, but it is true.

This is as good a place as any to say that the liberal media lie is exactly that, a lie that too many people have swallowed whole. To those of you who believe the only fair and balanced news you can get is at FOX....wait for it to hit the fan next week

NEW YORK, July 9 /PRNewswire/ -- At a New York press conference this coming Monday, four former Fox News employees will go on the record to expose Fox's persistent Republican partisan bias, while releasing internal memorandums from Fox News Channel showing executive level instructions to Fox on how to bias the news.

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040709/dcf030_1.html



As to the OP......now that the commission has clearly said the intelligence used as a reason for war was quite simply wrong, one might have thought it was time to admit some mistakes were made. But the president says he would still have gone to war because he knew Sadaam had " the intent". I have to wonder how the families of the fallen feel about losing their loved ones because of a war over someone's perceived intent. We already know how congress feels about it as both sides have said they would not have authorized this war had they known the truth.

 

[we3luvdisney]

Originally posted by lucky_bunni
First, couldn't the same be said about Bush? Second, so anyone who "could" make stockpiles of WMDs should be taken on by the U.S.?

First ---- This could be said of any leader or country, not just the United States & Bush.

Second ---- Sure, we should be able to eliminate any security threat to this country or our allies. As for Saddam, I'm glad we eliminated him! I would rather deal with the problem now, instead of 10 years down the road.

BTW - I think Bush Sr. should have eliminated him during the first Gulf war!

 

[mkymouse4ever]

My first forway into the CB and now I know why I don't wander down this far. Thought they shut down the debate board?

Happy thoughts, and pixie dust abound

Also, God bless America (and GWB)

MKY

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by we3luvdisney
Second ---- Sure, we should be able to eliminate any security threat to this country or our allies. As for Saddam, I'm glad we eliminated him! I would rather deal with the problem now, instead of 10 years down the road.

Give me a break. If that’s the only reason we’re going to use to justify ill-conceived wars then we've got a lot of work to do. No, a tremendous amount of work to do! When are you and DH signing up for the military?

And if eliminating "security threats" (of which Iraq was not one to the United States) then why did w erroneously shift attention from the real individuals behind the September 11th attacks to invade Iraq?

W and this administration have done nothing but flip-flop on their reasons for going to war. When one reason doesn’t hold water they move to the next. Which reason is it this week? You see, I don’t subscribe to the RNC or w web site so I probably didn’t get the memo.

 

[jennyanydots]

From today's newspaper: Did Bush Pressure the CIA?

It raises some disturbing possibilities.

This administration has serious credibility issues.

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by mkymouse4ever
Also, God bless America (and GWB)

 

[faithinkarma]

Originally posted by jennyanydots
From today's newspaper: Did Bush Pressure the CIA?

It raises some disturbing possibilities.

This administration has serious credibility issues.

Even if they manage to elude the charge of pressuring the CIA, how will they explain away the following discrepancies?

"The repeated elimination of qualifying language and dissenting assessments of some of the government's most knowledgeable experts gave the public an inaccurate impression of what the U.S. intelligence community believed about the threat Hussein posed to the United States, the committee said.


Dedicating a section of its 511-page report to discrepancies between the two versions of the crucial October 2002 NIE, the panel laid out numerous instances in which the unclassified version omitted key dissenting opinions about Iraqi weapons capabilities, overstated U.S. knowledge about Iraq's alleged stockpiles of weapons and, in one case, inserted threatening language into the public document that was not contained in the classified version."

But the Senate committee's sharpest criticism of the unclassified document focused not on changes made in haste but on the systematic alteration of the classified version.


For example, the panel cited changes made in the section of the NIE dealing with chemical weapons:


"Although we have little specific information on Iraq's CW stockpile," the classified NIE read, "Saddam Hussein probably has stocked at least 100 metric tons" of such poisons.


In the unclassified version of the report, the phrase "although we have little specific information" was deleted. Instead, the public report said, "Saddam probably has stocked a few hundred metric tons of CW agents.

the whole article can be read at http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...sionsweremadetociadocument&cid=2026&ncid=1473

 

[Microcell]

Faith, now really. They have Greta Van Sustren, Alan Combs, Geraldo for goodness sake.

I just keep thinking about Peter Jennings during Reagan's funeral saying how maybe if the people in Arabic nations see how we revere our dead, they could like us better. I am sure terrorists thought we spent too much money. He also took the opportunity to jab at President Bush saying he is not liked abroad- duing a funeral?? Not slanted? He also could not hide his disappointment that Bush even won the election four years ago. Thank you god for Fox news. It only seems more slanted than the liberal media because it does not support the liberal view at all times like ABC, NBC and CBS do. It seems contriversial because it reports on views opposite of anyone else.

If I can stomach it, I will watch the liberal stations and start a thread with quotes to support the fact that the majority of the media is entirely liberal. I will also report any conservative statements if I can find any. Please don't hold your breath until I find those conservative statements.

 

[faithinkarma]

Again I say to you...wait for the news next week. There will be not just statements but memos from the brass at FOX instructing how to present the news. The house is about to come tumbling down.

Of course there are liberal members of the press...although I would dispute qualifying Geraldo as anyone to be taken seriously. My point is that the idea that the majority of the press is liberally biased is dog poop. Listen carefully to how the stories are phrased...which adjectives are used in describing people...which interjections are slipped in so carefully.

One example that comes immediately to mind, because I just spoke of it yesterday, is Katie Couric interviewing someone about Edwards being a trial lawyer. She questioned her guest " the lawsuit Edwards won ( and here she interrputed herself in a lower voice saying " whether or not it was deserved" ) x million of dollars......blah blah blah"