So much for a "Clear and Present Danger"...

[tonyswife]

Originally posted by septbride2002
I would like a more recent quote - not one from 34 years ago when he just left Vietnam and was a little jaded.

By the way - I would also not hold a quote from 34 years ago against Bush. Just to show that I am not being unfair.

~Amanda

Please also see this thread where I quoted 2 different articles relating to this subject:
http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=658207

Fine, it's 34 years old. Let him say, "I was young and jaded and I no longer believe that" Let him say it directly and I'll be satisfied. But, all his talk of "global tests" and his senate record support that he does in fact still believe it.

I WOULD hold 34 year old comments against Bush, if he refused to admit fault, or even address it, just to show I'm being fair.

 

[chadfromdallas]

Originally posted by tonyswife
It sure would have stunk if we were right, but waited anyway. A man like Saddam with nuclear ambitions is a baaaaddd thing, no matter how you pronounce nuclear..

And the people that we know about having weapons isn't worse? Saddam ranked LOW.

 

[jrydberg]

Originally posted by chadfromdallas
And the people that we know about having weapons isn't worse? Saddam ranked LOW.

He didn't rank low on anyone's threat scale prior to the invasion. Not George W. Bush's, not John Kerry's, not John Edwards', not Ted Kennedy's, and indeed, not David Kay's nor the Iraq Survey Group's even now.

 

[tonyswife]

Originally posted by chadfromdallas
And the people that we know about having weapons isn't worse? Saddam ranked LOW.

In your opinion.

*dodging stuffed micky*

 

[septbride2002]

I don't think I'd say we went in unprovoked. If there was one thing we had in spades, it was provocation.

Examples please of how we were provoked. Thanks!

Fine, it's 34 years old. Let him say, "I was young and jaded and I no longer believe that" Let him say it directly and I'll be satisfied. But, all his talk of "global tests" and his senate record support that he does in fact still believe it.

I'm sure he'll say that right around the time Bush admitts that he made a mistake in going to Iraq. I guess neither of us should hold our breaths.

So, how many years and resolutions should we have waited for? Hind sight is always 20/20. It sure would have stunk if we were right, but waited anyway. A man like Saddam with nuclear ambitions is a baaaaddd thing, no matter how you pronounce nuclear. BTW, we couldn't "watch" him because he kept kicking the inspectors out and leading them on wild goose chases.

And the United States going to war on a nation with bad information is also a "baaadddd thing" Which is worse? It is not only Sadam Hussein and his family that has suffered. Many innocent lives have been lost - what do you say to them?

~Amanda

 

[chadfromdallas]

Originally posted by tonyswife
I WOULD hold 34 year old comments against Bush, if he refused to admit fault, or even address it, just to show I'm being fair.

Lets see Bush come out and admit fault to saying:

we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do --

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

 

[jrydberg]

Originally posted by septbride2002
Examples please of how we were provoked. Thanks!

10+ years of violating the cease fire agreement that ended the first war, being totally uncooperative with inspectors, developing weapons specifically banned by the cease fire agreement and UN resolutions on Iraq, not accounting for (as required by UN resolutions) the vast quantities of WMDs that he acknowledged having produced. That'll do for now.

 

[tonyswife]

Originally posted by septbride2002


I'm sure he'll say that right around the time Bush admitts that he made a mistake in going to Iraq. I guess neither of us should hold our breaths.

Of course Bush still believe he did the right thing, so do I and a lot of other Americans. Now, if Kerry still fancies himself an "internationalist" as quoted then he shouldn't correct himself. In fact, he should come right out and admit that is exactly what he meant by his "global test" rhetoric.

And the United States going to war on a nation with bad information is also a "baaadddd thing" Which is worse? It is not only Sadam Hussein and his family that has suffered. Many innocent lives have been lost - what do you say to them?

I don't say anything to them. Personally, it's six of one or half dozen of the other. Either the threat of being killed in Iraqi liberation of the threat being killed and tortured by Saddam and his henchmen, for a large variety of reasons. Those poor people were between a rock and a hard place.

 

[tonyswife]

Originally posted by chadfromdallas
Lets see Bush come out and admit fault to saying:

"we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do --"

Sure, as soon as Kerry comes out and admits fault to saying:

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons." - John F. Kerry (Congressional record10/09/02)

and

"If you don’t believe Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn’t vote for me." - John F. Kerry (The Los Angeles Times 01/31/03)

and

"Iraq may not be the war on terror itself, but it is critical to the outcome of the war on terror..." - John Kerry (12/15/03)



*dodging stuffed Lilo*

 

[chadfromdallas]

Exactly.

Id like to see them both come out and say something.

 

[tonyswife]

Originally posted by chadfromdallas
Exactly.

Id like to see them both come out and say something.

Well fat chance of that, they're politicians.

How about this, we'll run. I bet we could get the entire DIS to vote for us and we could kick all the professional politicians out of Washington and build a Disneyland DC.

 

[chadfromdallas]

Originally posted by tonyswife
Well fat chance of that, they're politicians.

How about this, we'll run. I bet we could get the entire DIS to vote for us and we could kick all the professional politicians out of Washington and build a Disneyland DC.

Best plan ever!

 

[richiebaseball]

Originally posted by tonyswife
Sure, as soon as Kerry comes out and admits fault to saying:

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons." - John F. Kerry (Congressional record10/09/02)

and

"If you don’t believe Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn’t vote for me." - John F. Kerry (The Los Angeles Times 01/31/03)

and

"Iraq may not be the war on terror itself, but it is critical to the outcome of the war on terror..." - John Kerry (12/15/03)



*dodging stuffed Lilo*

I'll see your Kerry and raise you an Edwards.

"The terrorist threat against America is all too clear. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam's arsenal, and there is every reason to believe that Saddam would turn his weapons over to these terrorists. No one can doubt that if the terrorists of Sept. 11 had had weapons of mass destruction, they would have used them. On Sept. 12, 2002, we can hardly ignore the terrorist threat and the serious danger that Saddam would allow his arsenal to be used in aid of terror."--John Edwards Sept. 12, 2002

"Others argue that if even our allies support us, we should not support this resolution because confronting Iraq now would undermine the long-term fight against terrorist groups like al Qaeda. Yet, I believe that this is not an either-or choice. Our national security requires us to do both, and we can."--John Edwards Oct. 10, 2002

Did I mention Senator Edwards was on the Intelligence Committee?

Richard

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by cynsaun
Did you read the whole article? Perhaps we are reading a different one? In the article you posted, Charles Dulfer said:

"One of Saddam’s priorities was to escape U.N. sanctions."

"...but he said Saddam did not abandon his nuclear ambitions."

“In the world after September the 11th, that was a risk we could not afford to take,” he said, referring to the 2001 attacks on the United States attributed to al-Qaida."

"Duelfer said that by the time of the war in 2003, Iraq would have been able to produce mustard agent in months and nerve agent in less than a year."

BTW, Senator Kerry saw the same information President Bush did, and he voted for going to war.

Yanno, do we really know if the information the Bush administration showed the world was all the information they had? There was the "Office of Special Plans", set up by Paul Wolfowitz, who's job it was to review the intelligence before it got to the WH.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030512fa_fact

This group also had long standing ties to Ahmad Chalabi, another source of misinformation about Iraq, the Iraqi people, and the insurgency.

Here's another interesting article from The Guardian about the war intelligence:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,999737,00.html

Maybe the intelligence was dead right, but it wasn't what this administration wanted so they massaged it along and created a whole new scenario. And that was the intelligence they showed John Kerry, the American people, and the rest of the world.

 

[chadfromdallas]

Originally posted by richiebaseball
I'll see your Kerry and raise you an Edwards.

Lets not forget Cheney!

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/18/cheney.iraq.al.qaeda/

"The senator has it wrong. Ive never suggested an Iraq and al Qaeda link."


This ones still steaming

 

[septbride2002]

I don't say anything to them. Personally, it's six of one or half dozen of the other. Either the threat of being killed in Iraqi liberation of the threat being killed and tortured by Saddam and his henchmen, for a large variety of reasons. Those poor people were between a rock and a hard place.

So we replace one way of dying for another and that makes it okay? I see.

~Amanda

 

[crazyforgoofy]

Originally posted by septbride2002
So we replace one way of dying for another and that makes it okay? I see.

~Amanda

Well said, Amanda, well said.

 

[richiebaseball]

Originally posted by ThAnswr
Yanno, do we really know if the information the Bush administration showed the world was all the information they had? There was the "Office of Special Plans", set up by Paul Wolfowitz, who's job it was to review the intelligence before it got to the WH.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030512fa_fact

This group also had long standing ties to Ahmad Chalabi, another source of misinformation about Iraq, the Iraqi people, and the insurgency.

Here's another interesting article from The Guardian about the war intelligence:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,999737,00.html

Maybe the intelligence was dead right, but it wasn't what this administration wanted so they massaged it along and created a whole new scenario. And that was the intelligence they showed John Kerry, the American people, and the rest of the world.

Interesting theory. An interesting sidenote, that National Intelligence Estimate could have been filled with 1001 recipes for Irish potatoes and John Kerry wouldn't have known it. He didn't bother to read it.

Richard

 

[Sonny Eclipse]

Originally posted by septbride2002
So we replace one way of dying for another and that makes it okay? I see.

~Amanda

Yea except now the people of Iraq can direct their hatred towards the US. With each innocent civilian killed in Iraq we create more possible terrorist recruits.

 

[richiebaseball]

Originally posted by chadfromdallas
Lets not forget Cheney!

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/18/cheney.iraq.al.qaeda/

"The senator has it wrong. Ive never suggested an Iraq and al Qaeda link."


This ones still steaming

Your steaming comment may be more appropriate than you think.

Is that a direct quote from Vice President Cheney from the debate?

Richard