Fair enough. All this proves to me is that America needs to sort out it's foreign policy, no matter which political alliegance you have stateside.

You also have to remember for the 2002+ stuff, every politician was on the Bush bandwagon for killing every anti-american undesirable. Patrotism is a powerful tool.

___________________
"It's too bad she won't live, but then again who does?"

i agree with Bush's statements near the end of the video.


The democrats are trying to rewrite history. They are just like Arabs and holocaust deniers.

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

I'm not getting this streaming very good on my shitty spare CPU (since my other one's down for repairs), so I don't know what is being said on the program. Let me venture a guess, however, and see if I'm correct -

Is this perhaps a collection of quotes or something along those lines of Dems. who also felt Saddam was a threat and needed to be dealt with too?

If so, I happily concede such a point. I've got no problems with that at all. Take Bill Clinton, for example - numerous times has he mentioned the threat of Saddam and how he had to be dealt with. Numerous times has many Dems. stated the very same thing about Saddam in the late '90's and early 2000's about Saddam. Fine, I certainly concede that.

But who decided to invade?

Who had the opportunity to fully examine all the evidence presented for or against the case to sell to the public? And who presented this evidence to the public?

Was that Bill Clinton?

Now let me be clear on something - I would have happily taken Bill's ass to the woodshed if he went to war in the exact same manner as George did. I'd be just as fucking pissed as hell to see all the counterevidence against the case of Saddam possessing WMDs and nuke capabilities no matter who sits in the office. You have to keep in mind something here - many of us Dems. including myself were behind this president to go to war with Iraq at first because we TRUSTED him. We trusted that the intelligence he was using was correct, and that there was no other intelligence that might weaken his case. We trusted that all was under control with Al Qaeda and bin Laden, and that our troops were actively hunting him down rather than giving such powers to paid off corrupt drug warlords in Afghanistan.

Neither was true.

I happily accept the fact that our intelligence gathering during the 90's had fallen to the wayside. Much of that had to do with HOW we were gathering intelligence, which the 9/1 report lays this out pretty well. After the Cold War, our intelligence gathering more or less took a backseat as we relied less and less on spies on the ground and more on satellite photos and second hand information. If you want to lay that on the feet of Clinton, fine, but make sure you also lay it on the feet of your former Republican President Bush Sr., whom Clinton was more or less following his script of downsizing.

Things, however, are coming out that are clearly showing just how correct Hersh's Stovepipe article truly is:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031027fa_fact

This war was made as a selling point by a group of slimy salesmen:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...sion=6.0.8.1024

Now I've gone into detail before as to all the counterevidence against this Administration's selling points on the war, but the bottom line is this and it's quite inescapable:

This Administration had information that was not passed down to Congress:

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/11/iraq-intel/

Things that were mentioned as selling points were more or less summaries without the caveats and descriptors that clearly showed such "firm" evidence against Saddam was not so firm. And here's a kicker that you Republicans can never escape from. Actually it's two kickers:

1. The claim of the connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam (and ultimately 9/11).

2. The absolute idiocy in post-war planning.

You boys own those two points all on your own. And for #1, combined with the possibility that Saddam had possible nuke capabilities, you guys got yurselves a purty little war, didn't cha?

So yes, in particular Bush is lying through his fucking teeth, especially when the connection between al Qaeda and Saddam was dubious as fuck to begin with, yet the President and his Administration KNEW this beforehand and said it anyway:

quote:

The intelligence report from February 2002 said it was probable that the prisoner, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, "was intentionally misleading the debriefers" in making allegations about Iraqi support for al Qaeda's work with illicit weapons. .....Among the first and most prominent assertions was one by Bush, who said in a major speech in Cincinnati in October 2002: "We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and gases." http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...MNGLTFJRLA1.DTL

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005...in1041302.shtml

The only way you could possibly undercut this is to say that he simply didn't know about it.

And I counter that your president is that fucking stupid enough NOT to know this intelligence handed to him in his lap? Talk about incompetence.

But I don't believe that, and I'd venture to guess deep down neither do you. And just this morning, we see this in the LATimes:

quote:

The German intelligence officials responsible for one of the most important informants on Saddam Hussein's suspected weapons of mass destruction say that the Bush administration and the CIA repeatedly exaggerated his claims during the run-up to the war in Iraq. Five senior officials from Germany's Federal Intelligence Service, or BND, said in interviews with The Times that they warned U.S. intelligence authorities that the source, an Iraqi defector code-named Curveball, never claimed to produce germ weapons and never saw anyone else do so. According to the Germans, President Bush mischaracterized Curveball's information when he warned before the war that Iraq had at least seven mobile factories brewing biological poisons. Then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell also misstated Curveball's accounts in his prewar presentation to the United Nations on Feb. 5, 2003, the Germans said. Curveball's German handlers for the last six years said his information was often vague, mostly secondhand and impossible to confirm. "This was not substantial evidence," said a senior German intelligence official. "We made clear we could not verify the things he said." http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...-home-headlines

So yes, he's lying. As for the Dems. and others who didn't have all the evidence presented to them in full, I can't speak for them. They'll have to stand up for themselves, something which admittedly many of them have difficulties doing.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus They are just like Arabs and holocaust deniers.

Don't lump two mutually exclusive things together. Where the hell did the Arab comment come from anyways? I'm guessing you're referring to Israel/Palestine history. Well, even Israeli revisionist like Avi Shlaim are acknowledging the obvious now, which other Israeli historians have not, the existence of the Palestinian people in the region throught the ages and their forced displacement. Stop taking pathetic jabs Yoepus.

EDIT: Just because you hate Arabs, doesn't mean you have to make things up.

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Don't lump two mutually exclusive things together.

You are right, replace the "and" with "or" (although some Arabs are probably holocaust deniers too).



And for the record: I do not hate Arabs.
I do however, hate the way they make up history (and yes, that is a generalization).

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

Can we keep the middle east out of a discussion for once?

___________________
"It's too bad she won't live, but then again who does?"

Well at least they can realise they were wrong...

Plus if you check what they really say, most of them only condem what saddam might be up to, they are not saying that we should go to war.

Plus if the Clinton admin wanted to go to a large scale war as well, they would have. But they knew it wouldnt be a great idea and didn't.

That said there are a lot of Democratic jackasses as well.

Every one is the democrats are liars. But the democrats only agree that Sadam was a threat and never said we should go to war. In fact Bill Clinton said Sadam wanted to built WMD. But his policy on going about it was completly different from Bush. Clinton wanted to check Sadam with the help of the International community something that Bush never did.

quote:

Originally posted by gabba420 Every one is the democrats are liars. But the democrats only agree that Sadam was a threat and never said we should go to war. In fact Bill Clinton said Sadam wanted to built WMD. But his policy on going about it was completly different from Bush. Clinton wanted to check Sadam with the help of the International community something that Bush never did.

Yeah, it was different, which is why we're at war now, but weren't in the 90s. I'm not saying Clinton did everything right, far from it, but in this case, we see how the alternate method of dealing with people we don't like is working.

quote:

Originally posted by gabba420 Every one is the democrats are liars. But the democrats only agree that Sadam was a threat and never said we should go to war. In fact Bill Clinton said Sadam wanted to built WMD. But his policy on going about it was completly different from Bush. Clinton wanted to check Sadam with the help of the International community something that Bush never did.

What were they lying about? Be specific as to explaining which ones and exactly what they said that indicates they are lying.

And when you're through, kindly re-read my post earlier. If indeed, Saddam was as big of a threat as he was made out to be, and indeed if the Dems. and Clinton had decided to make a case for war to the public and Congress based on intelligence that was dated and shoddy at best, and decided to stovepipe the intelligence and discard any and all counterevidence against their claims, I would be just as upset with them in a heartbeat.

But it wasn't the Dems, that was Bush and the Republicans.

But please explain in detail, if you could.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

Sorry about that. i think i should re-read my work. I meant that Republicans are saying the Democrats are liars, because demo. all voted for war and now say that they never did. I was saying that Democrats during the Clinton era only said that Sadam was a dangerous individual. Clinton wanted to check Sadam with the help of the international community. But now the Republicans are taking text out of context by making it seem that democrats agreed to war during the Clinton era and during the beginning of the war.
In my opinion the democrats are not saying that they never voted for war. Some of them did vote for war. All there are saying now is that going to war was a mistake because they had false evidence and want Bush to admit the mistake also