quote:

Originally posted by Shakka God damn, Cindy--you ain't got shit on Tammy Pruett!

What the fuck, Shakka? You and the rest of the Conservative wingers are comparing Cindy's LOSS of her fucking son to a family who lost NO FUCKING members yet? Who gives a flying fart if everyone and their damn dog serves in the military - what the fuck kind of comparison is this to a grieving mother who lost her son and is looking for answers as to why the hell we went there in the first place, and the cause her son had to die for?

Seriously, what did her son die for?

To have a pro-Shia religious Muslim government installed?

To have a civil war between Muslim religious factions incur?

To have women's rights in that country essentially pissed all over?

It really is quite a pickle we have over there - and I do have to say how damn funny it is to have one little lady cause such a stir for you Conservatives and our President. Hell, I don't think Kerry even got such a rise out of you guys. So please tell me the ultimate reason why her son died, why our friends and our loved ones died - what is our primary goal now? WMD? Go after Al-Qaeda? Get Osama? What the fuck is it, dear Conservatives?

___________________
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 MisterOpus1 Seriously, what did her son die for?

I don't understand why this question gets so much attention. He was a soldier that died doing his job. When he enlisted, there was no checkbox that gave him the ability to decide what he would "die for." As a freely enlisted volunteer, it was his job to go where he was told, to fight for what he was told to fight for, and as a consequence, he knew he may die doing what he signed up to do.

Cindy's son died doing what he knew he was suppossed to do, which was fight where his commander in chief told him to. This was not something that either he or is mother should have been shocked to realize. Everyday we have firefighters and policemen who die in the line of duty, but do we question the validity of the fire they were fighting or the crime they were attempting to stop?

Cindy has every right to grieve at the loss of her son, however this public stunt of questioning the motive behind her son's death is pointless and fruitless. Her son died the same way every soldier throughout history has died; following orders. That's the only motive behind his death there needs to be.

Last edited by NeoPhono on Aug-26-2005 at 00:11

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 What the fuck, Shakka? You and the rest of the Conservative wingers are comparing Cindy's LOSS of her fucking son to a family who lost NO FUCKING members yet? Who gives a flying fart if everyone and their damn dog serves in the military - what the fuck kind of comparison is this to a grieving mother who lost her son and is looking for answers as to why the hell we went there in the first place, and the cause her son had to die for? Seriously, what did her son die for? To have a pro-Shia religious Muslim government installed? To have a civil war between Muslim religious factions incur? To have women's rights in that country essentially pissed all over? It really is quite a pickle we have over there - and I do have to say how damn funny it is to have one little lady cause such a stir for you Conservatives and our President. Hell, I don't think Kerry even got such a rise out of you guys. So please tell me the ultimate reason why her son died, why our friends and our loved ones died - what is our primary goal now? WMD? Go after Al-Qaeda? Get Osama? What the fuck is it, dear Conservatives?

sounds like something someone poised for extreme embarassment in lack of faith and vision would say. heres what Peter Galbraith has said. you know him, right Opus?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/25/opinion/25brooks.html

quote:

President Bush doesn't lack for critics when it comes to his Iraq policies, but the smartest and most devastating of these is Peter W. Galbraith, a former United States ambassador to Croatia. Yesterday, after reading gloomy press accounts about the proposed Iraqi constitution, I thought it might be interesting to hear what Galbraith himself had to say. I finally tracked him down in Baghdad (at God knows what hour there) and found that far from lambasting Bush, Galbraith was more complimentary about what the administration has just achieved than anybody else I spoke to all day. "The Bush administration finally did something right in brokering this constitution," Galbraith exclaimed, then added: "This is the only possible deal that can bring stability. ... I do believe it might save the country." Galbraith's argument is that the constitution reflects the reality of the nation it is meant to serve. There is, he says, no meaningful Iraqi identity. In the north, you've got a pro-Western Kurdish population. In the south, you've got a Shiite majority that wants a "pale version of an Iranian state." And in the center you've got a Sunni population that is nervous about being trapped in a system in which it would be overrun. In the last election each group expressed its authentic identity, the Kurds by voting for autonomy-minded leaders, the Shiites for clerical parties and the Sunnis by not voting. This constitution gives each group what it wants. It will create a very loose federation in which only things like fiscal and foreign policy are controlled in the center (even tax policy is decentralized). Oil revenues are supposed to be distributed on a per capita basis, and no group will feel inordinately oppressed by the others. The Kurds and Shiites understand what a good deal this is. The Sunni leaders selected to attend the convention are howling because they are former Baathists who dream of a return to centralized power. But ordinary Sunnis, Galbraith says, will come to realize this deal protects them, too. Galbraith says he is frustrated with all the American critics who argue that the constitution divides the country. The country is already divided, he says, and drawing up a constitution that would artificially bind three divergent societies together would create only friction, violence and civil war. "It's not a problem if a country breaks up, only if it breaks up violently," Galbraith says. "Iraq wasn't created by God. It was created by Winston Churchill." One of my other calls yesterday went to another smart Iraq analyst, Reuel Marc Gerecht, formerly of the C.I.A. and now at the American Enterprise Institute. Gerecht's conclusions are often miles apart from Galbraith's, but they have one trait in common. Both of them begin their analysis by taking a hard look at the reality of Iraqi society. Neither tries to imagine what sort of constitution might be pretty to our eyes or might be good in some abstract sense. They try to envision which system comports with reality. Gerecht is also upbeat about this constitution. It's crazy, he says, to think that you could have an Iraqi constitution in which clerical authorities are not assigned a significant role. Voters supported clerical parties because they are, right now, the natural leaders of society and serve important social functions. But this doesn't mean we have to start screaming about a 13th-century theocratic state. Understanding the clerics, Gerecht has argued, means understanding two things. First, the Shiite clerical establishment has made a substantial intellectual leap. It now firmly believes in one person one vote, and rejects the Iranian model. On the other hand, these folks don't think like us. What's important, Gerecht has emphasized, is the democratic process: setting up a system in which the different groups, secular and clerical, will have to bargain with one another, campaign and deal with the real-world consequences of their ideas. This is what's going to moderate them and lead to progress. This constitution does that. Shutting them out would lead to war. The constitution also exposes the canard that America is some imperial power trying to impose its values on the world. There are many parts of this constitution any American would love. There are other parts that are strange to us. But when you get Galbraith and Gerecht in the same mood, you know something important has happened. The U.S. has orchestrated a document that is organically Iraqi. It's their country, after all.

Boise, Idaho affiliates CBS and FOX have refused to air a television ad in which Cindy Sheehan asks President Bush questions about the Iraq war.

Sheehan “claims the President lied about, among other things, the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq,” said Jeff Anderson the Vice President of sales at Fisher Broadcasting Inc., which owns KBCI (CBS). “There is no proof that we are aware of regarding the truthfulness of her claim. We require proof of claims such as this. Until that is provided, our station will not carry this ad.”

The same ad began airing in Salt Lake City on Monday on NBC CBS and FOX affiliates.

The timing of the ads coincides with the President’s visit to nearby Donnelly, Idaho where the President will be staying through Wednesday.

To view the ad, go to www.gsfp.org and click on “Watch Cindy’s Message.”
CBS Affiliate Will Not Air Sheehan Ad Because There Is “No Proof” Of Absence Of WMD In Iraq...

Proof:
Official: U.S. calls off search for Iraqi WMDs(Jan 2005)
CIA's final report: No WMD found in Iraq(Apr 2005)
Iraq WMD Hunt 'Has Been Exhausted'(Apr 2005)
U.S. study: Iraq likely didn't ship WMD to Syria(Apr 2005)
US closes book on Iraq WMD hunt(Apr 2005)

TO CBSFOX:
STFU and air the TV ad.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 STFU and air the TV ad.

no. prove that he lied. stop deceitfully shortsiding the real argument that he lied with the official reports.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo sounds like something someone poised for extreme embarassment in lack of faith and vision would say. heres what Peter Galbraith has said. you know him, right Opus? http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/25/opinion/25brooks.html

Actually no, never heard of him 'till I googled just now. Pretty interesting little tidbit from our good neocon buddy, Bobo Brooks in that darn liberal NYTimes. From Brooks:

quote:

President Bush doesn't lack for critics when it comes to his Iraq policies, but the smartest and most devastating of these is Peter W. Galbraith, a former United States ambassador to Croatia ... "The Bush administration finally did something right in brokering this constitution," Galbraith exclaimed, then added: "This is the only possible deal that can bring stability ... I do believe it might save the country."

Now flip over to the LATimes and you see this from Galbraith:

quote:

"The problem is that there are no agreements on these questions," said Peter W. Galbraith, a former U.S. ambassador to Croatia who advised Kurdish politicians on the constitution. "It allows any cleric to make his own interpretation of the law and opens the door to a whole range of abuses." Galbraith said the draft fell well short of the sort of democratic government the Bush administration hoped to install in Iraq. "The U.S. now has to recognize that they overthrew Saddam Hussein to replace him with a pro-Iranian state," he said. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...-home-headlines

Pretty interesting little contradiction, huh? Or is it a contradiction? I mean, it's not like Bobo Brooks has EVER distorted or taken someone's words out of context before:

http://mediamatters.org/archives/se...opic=&go=Search

http://mediamatters.org/archives/se...=Search&p=1&t=0

Right?

And let's also consider what Galbraith states in his book last year:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18150

Pretty much stating that it is NOT the insurgency that we need to worry about, but the upcoming quarrel between the Islamic factions (which he's dead on the mark for fortune-telling). Let's also not forget that Galbraith mentions that the Bush Administration failed to seek the UN endorsement for the Iraqi constitution, despite the pleas from the Iraqi democratic members. And in a direct slap in the face of democracy, Bush instead turned to Ayatollah Ali Sistani for Constitutional advice, the same Sistani who "objected to provisions in (the interim constitution) that would make it difficult to create an Islamic state and would require a permanent constitution acceptable not just to the majority Shiites but also to the Kurds and Sunni Arabs."

So I really tend to wonder what exactly Bobo is quoting from here, don't you?


And about that Constitution - seems the good ol' Islamic boys have a good deal going there to pass their draft - they just fucking pretend to put it to a vote:

quote:

Mahmoud Othman, a Kurdish member of the drafting committee, said lawmakers were supposed to meet later to ratify it. But Shiite representative Khaled al-Attiyah said there was no need to vote because "the job was done" when the draft was handed to parliament on Monday. Another Shiite, Nadim al-Jabiri, said there would be no vote on Thursday because the draft will be approved or rejected in a popular referendum on Oct. 15. http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/na...-home-headlines

Boy, sure seems to include the Sunnis, right? There haven't been any negotiations since Monday, and sure as shit it ain't lookin' like there will be. We've got civil war just around the corner, and our men and women are stuck right in the middle fighting for an Islamic fundamentalist government.

How's that for your fucking patriotism, Q5?

And how 'bout those "last throes", sir Dick?:

quote:

In Najaf, which had been one of Iraq's safest cities and was high on the list of places to where US forces could withdraw next year, as many as 24 people died in street fighting between al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia and a mixture of government forces and the Badr Organisation Shi'ite militia, which is closely allied with the Iraqi Interior Ministry.The Iraqi Government struggled late into the night to restore order, dispatching an elite force of police commandos to help overwhelmed local authorities, and banning outsiders from entering the city.Witnesses saw US armoured vehicles entering Najaf after midnight. http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/s...storyid=3672904

quote:

Armed attacks against offices of al-Sadr's movement and SCIRI then spread across the Shiite heartland of central and southern Iraq . . .Al-Sadr supporters in Diwaniyah, 105 miles south of Baghdad, occupied parts of the city, setting up checkpoints and firing on police and rival groups, police Capt. Hussein Hakim said.Some residents were fleeing to nearby villages, he said.SCIRI members torched a building belonging to the al-Sadr's movement in the Baghdad suburb Nahrawan, police Lt. Ayad Othman. In retaliation, al-Sadr's followers set fire to an office of SCIRI's Badr Brigade militia in Baghdad's heavily Shiite neighborhood of Sadr City. http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlate...5232502,00.html

As for the Constitution itself, it's really quite the "democratic" piece of journalism:

quote:

In both the temporary constitution and the new draft, Islam is cited as one source of legislation, and they prohibit laws that conflict with Islamic principles, democratic standards or a bill of rights that includes freedom of religion. That's comparable to the new Afghan constitution and more liberal than the charters of most Muslim states, including such U.S. allies as Egypt and Jordan. However, complicated provisions for family law cited in some drafts could restrict rights for women in parts of Iraq; and much could depend on the interpretation of the competing clauses on Islam and human rights by a court that reportedly could be made up at least in part by clerics. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...5082301374.html

So again, we're fighting for an Islamic fundamentalist government on the brink of civil war, in which we will be fighting their dissenters (Sunnis), as well as fighting for NO FUCKING RIGHTS TO THE WOMEN OF THAT COUNTRY.

Isn't that swell? I sure think it is.

Okay, to Neo:

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono I don't understand why this question gets so much attention. He was a soldier that died doing his job. When he enlisted, there was no checkbox that gave him the ability to decide what he would "die for." As a freely enlisted volunteer, it was his job to go where he was told, to fight for what he was told to fight for, and as a consequence, he knew he may die doing what he signed up to do. Cindy's son died doing what he knew he was suppossed to do, which was fight where his commander in chief told him to. This was not something that either he or is mother should have been shocked to realize. Everyday we have firefighters and policemen who die in the line of duty, but do we question the validity of the fire they were fighting or the crime they were attempting to stop?

Absolutely we should question how a fire got started - haven't you ever seen Backdraft?

quote:

Cindy has every right to grieve at the loss of her son, however this public stunt of questioning the motive behind her son's death is pointless and fruitless. Her son died the same way every soldier throughout history has died; following orders. That's the only motive behind his death there needs to be.

Don't get me wrong, I certainly think Cindy could be handling this situation a wee bit better than she is. But the answer that he was merely following orders is a moot and uncontested point that neither Cindy nor I am asking. The larger question of why not just her son but all sons and daughters were sent to Iraq is the question that needs answered. Was it to find and eliminate WMD's? Go after Al Qaeda? Bring them Democracy?

Which answer is it now? And given what we know about "intelligence being fixed around the policy", it is a worthy AND patriotic question that needs asked. Why exactly did we send our men and women in harm's way?

And the additional question that Cindy and I myself am wondering is - what exactly are we fighting for now? Does it resemble anything from our so-called original purpose, whatever the hell that was? And is fighting for an Islamic fundamentalist government that fucks women's rights completely and on the brink of civil war, a war in which we'll be caught in the middle fighting for one side - is this really what we're fighting for now?

___________________
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 MisterOpus1 Now flip over to the LATimes and you see this from Galbraith: Pretty interesting little contradiction, huh?

no. you're reaching again.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo no. you're reaching again.

Explain. Be specific. Brooks quoted him as stating just how rosy things are with the writing of the Constitution. The LATimes, however, quotes him as essentially saying how the writing of the Constitution was corrupt and open to future abuses of the law in Iraq.

No contradiction, huh? Interesting.

___________________
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 Q5echo no. prove that he lied. stop deceitfully shortsiding the real argument that he lied with the official reports.

REMIND US AGAIN WHY WE INVADED IRAQ?

quote:

Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. [quote]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. Iraq is a land rich in culture, resources, and talent. Freed from the weight of oppression, Iraq's people will be able to share in the progress and prosperity of our time. If military action is necessary, the United States and our allies will help the Iraqi people rebuild their economy, and create the institutions of liberty in a unified Iraq at peace with its neighbors. Later this week, the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands. Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice and is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean something. Congress will also be sending a message to the dictator in Iraq: that his only chance -- his only choice is full compliance, and the time remaining for that choice is limited. Members of Congress are nearing an historic vote. I'm confident they will fully consider the facts, and their duties. George W. Bush

quote:

Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons. George W. Bush, Radio Address, Oct. 5, 2002

quote:

From 1991 to 1995, the Iraqi regime said it had no biological weapons. After a senior official in its weapons program defected and exposed this lie, the regime admitted to producing tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents for use with Scud warheads, aerial bombs, and aircraft spray tanks. U.N. inspectors believe Iraq has produced two to four times the amount of biological agents it declared, and has failed to account for more than three metric tons of material that could be used to produce biological weapons. Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons. President's Remarks at the United Nations General Assembly Sept 12th,2002

quote:

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. Dick Cheney August 26, 2002 Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons George W. Bush, Sep. 12, 2002 Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons George W. Bush, Radio Address, Oct. 5, 2002 The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas." George W. Bush, Oct. 7, 2002 And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons. George W. Bush Oct 10, 2002 Iraq could decide on any given day to provide biological or chemical weapons to a terrorist group or to individual terrorists,...The war on terror will not be won until Iraq is completely and verifiably deprived of weapons of mass destruction. Dick Cheney Dec 1, 2002 Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent" and "upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents... George W. Bush, Jan. 28, 2003 Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. George W. Bush January 28, 2003 We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more. Colin Powell February 5, 2003 We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have. George Bush February 8, 2003 Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly. Ari Fleischer, Mar. 21, 2003 So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? I think our judgment has to be clearly not. Colin Powell March 8, 2003 Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. George Bush March 18, 2003 We are asked to accept Saddam decided to destroy those weapons. I say that such a claim is palpably absurd. Tony Blair, Prime Minister 18 March, 2003 There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them. Gen. Tommy Franks March 22, 2003 We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad. Donald Rumsfeld March 30, 2003 We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them. George Bush April 24, 2003 Before people crow about the absence of weapons of mass destruction, I suggest they wait a bit. Tony Blair 28 April, 2003 There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country. Donald Rumsfeld April 25, 2003 We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so. George Bush May 3, 2003 I am confident that we will find evidence that makes it clear he had weapons of mass destruction. Colin Powell May 4, 2003 I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program. George W. Bush May 6, 2003

Stop wishing that your boy is not a liar.

BTW, you can still hunt for those WMD's by enlisting.

___________________

Last edited by ogvh5150 on Aug-26-2005 at 14:39

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It 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. Iraq is a land rich in culture, resources, and talent. Freed from the weight of oppression, Iraq's people will be able to share in the progress and prosperity of our time. If military action is necessary, the United States and our allies will help the Iraqi people rebuild their economy, and create the institutions of liberty in a unified Iraq at peace with its neighbors. Later this week, the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands. Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice and is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean something. Congress will also be sending a message to the dictator in Iraq: that his only chance -- his only choice is full compliance, and the time remaining for that choice is limited. Members of Congress are nearing an historic vote. I'm confident they will fully consider the facts, and their duties. G.W. Bush Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons. George W. Bush, Radio Address, Oct. 5, 2002 From 1991 to 1995, the Iraqi regime said it had no biological weapons. After a senior official in its weapons program defected and exposed this lie, the regime admitted to producing tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents for use with Scud warheads, aerial bombs, and aircraft spray tanks. U.N. inspectors believe Iraq has produced two to four times the amount of biological agents it declared, and has failed to account for more than three metric tons of material that could be used to produce biological weapons. Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons. President's Remarks at the United Nations General Assembly Sept 12th,2002 Stop wishing that your boy is not a liar. BTW, you can still hunt for those WMD's by enlisting.

I think what has Dems so riled up is that Dubya did what Clinton never had the sack to do and now they're fighting an uphill battle to get back the power and control they're so obsessed with.

Clinton tells you to get a life

quote:

PRESIDENT CLINTON'S ADDRESS December 16, 1998 PRESIDENT CLINTON: Good evening. Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world. Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. President Clinton: I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish. Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability. The inspectors undertook this mission first 7 1/2 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire. The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again. The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down. Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance. Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the UN. When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate. I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning. Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to UN Secretary-General Annan. The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing. In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars. Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past. Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program. It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions. Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment. Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection. So Iraq has abused its final chance. As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament. In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program." In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham. Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors. This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance. And so we had to act and act now. Let me explain why. First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years. Second, if Saddam can cripple the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past. Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region. That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq. They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors. President Clinton: At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare. If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons. Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to the Muslim world and, therefore, would damage our relations with Arab countries and the progress we have made in the Middle East. That is something we wanted very much to avoid without giving Iraq a month's head start to prepare for potential action against it. Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses. So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people. First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens. The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War. Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions. Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion -- resources that would have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people. We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people. The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently. The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties. Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion. We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully. Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future. Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down. But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so. In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace. Tonight, the United States is doing just that. May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America.

Aw fuck, I should've just posted the whole damn thing in bold. Call me a neo-con if you want, but there are people in this country who haven't lost their will. But clearly there are others who have. Gut check time.

So Clinton lied too, and of course all of the Dems(John Kerry in particular) who proclaimed that Saddam/Iraq had WMDs before the war were all liars too, but the only one that really lied was Dubya, right? Because he actually did something about it instead of having a talkathon. I guess your boys are liars too, eh? Oh wait, I forgot, Dubya only wants oil.

Unless of course you still maintain that all of the WMD capabilities were destroyed in the early 90's or that they never even existed in the first place!

The hardest decisions to make are often times the least popular.






And Opus, my point was that the clearly biased media would like to elevate Cindy to sainthood and put her on some untouchable pedestal when she's no different than any other war mother that has a son or daughter in the line of fire (which they VOLUN-FUCKING-TARILY put themselves in). Service to one's country is one of the most honorable and selfless acts that a person can undertake. Tammy Pruett has a lot more on the line compared to Cindy Sheehan if you want to have a pissing contest over this whole thing. Oooh--Cindy lost more than Tammy, therefore, Tammy just needs to shut the fuck up because she hasn't lost enough yet. Give me a fucking break. Cindy's never had it so good. She's even got her own catering service now. She's become one of the biggest puppets of the left since this war began. Excuse me moveon.org, would you pull your hand out of my ass? It's unfortunate because I truly feel sorry for her loss, but she's making a complete ass of herself.

quote:

When I arrived at Camp Casey II this afternoon I was amazed at what has changed since I was gone. Now, we have a huge tent to get out of the sun; caterers; an orientation tent; a medic tent (with medics); a chapel, etc.

.

She may just set up shop and move to Crawfod permanently.

Hell, from the mouth of Cindy:

quote:

He was a gentle and kind soul who only wanted to help others.

Is that not what he was trying to do when he died? My sympathy is waning.

Now we have anti-war protestors making noise outside of a veterans hospital. I'm sure they "support our troops" even though their very presence is probably killing those critically wounded troops who they claim to "support".

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I think what has Dems so riled up is that Dubya did what Clinton never had the sack to do and now they're fighting an uphill battle to get back the power and control they're so obsessed with. Clinton tells you to get a life

Horseshit. You honestly trying to trek down this road of it's all Clinton's fault too here? You honestly gonna try and pull that one out? Have we not gone down that road a million times before? To recap quickly:

*Clinton most certainly could have done some things better, no doubt. But as the 9/11 Intelligence Report had claimed, the intelligence failures leading up to 9/11 were primarily WITHIN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY. The transition from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism did not go smoothly, to say the least. But it sure as hell didn't help when Bush the elder began the move to slash funding for both the military AND intelligence gathering. As a consequence, instead of relying on a worthy spy network, our intelligence gathering relied more on global satellites and second-hand resources (all in the 9/11 Report). Can some of the blame be laid on the Clinton Administration for this? Certainly. But the case against Iraq was not a strong one, and the need to go after Al Qaeda became instead became more important- and rightly so. This was why Clinton turned down the offer from PNAC to invade Iraq, and told them the fight should be focused against Al Qaeda.

*Who said this?:
"By any measure available, Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him....Clinton correctly focused on Bin Laden."

Answer: Paul Bremer

*Who was the president that decided to invade Iraq, Clinton or Bush? Who's burden was it to weigh ALL evidence for and against the case of Saddam having WMD prior to invasion? Hindsight is always fun to hold, but when weighing supposed evidence of Saddam's WMD arsenal with counterevidence such as this:

quote:

OCTOBER 8, 1997 – IAEA SAYS IRAQ FREE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS: "As reported in detail in the progress report dated 8 October 1997…and based on all credible information available to date, the IAEA's verification activities in Iraq, have resulted in the evolution of a technically coherent picture of Iraq's clandestine nuclear programme. These verification activities have revealed no indications that Iraq had achieved its programme objective of producing nuclear weapons or that Iraq had produced more than a few grams of weapon-usable nuclear material or had clandestinely acquired such material. Furthermore, there are no indications that there remains in Iraq any physical capability for t he production of weapon-usable nuclear material of any practical significance." [Source: IAEA Report, 10/8/98] FEBRUARY 23 & 24, 2001 – COLIN POWELL SAYS IRAQ IS CONTAINED: "I think we ought to declare [the containment policy] a success. We have kept him contained, kept him in his box." He added Saddam "is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors" and that "he threatens not the United States." [Source: State Department, 2/23/01 and 2/24/01] SEPTEMBER 16, 2001 – CHENEY ACKNOWLEDGES IRAQ IS CONTAINED: Vice President Dick Cheney said that "Saddam Hussein is bottled up" – a confirmation of the intelligence he had received. [Source: Meet the Press, 9/16/2001] SEPTEMBER 2001 – WHITE HOUSE CREATES OFFICE TO CIRCUMVENT INTEL AGENCIES: The Pentagon creates the Office of Special Plans "in order to find evidence of what Wolfowitz and his boss, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, believed to be true-that Saddam Hussein had close ties to Al Qaeda, and that Iraq had an enormous arsenal of chemical, biological, and possibly even nuclear weapons that threatened the region and, potentially, the United States…The rising influence of the Office of Special Plans was accompanied by a decline in the influence of the C.I.A. and the D.I.A. bringing about a crucial change of direction in the American intelligence community." The office, hand-picked by the Administration, specifically "cherry-picked intelligence that supported its pre-existing position and ignoring all the rest" while officials deliberately "bypassed the government's customary procedures for vetting intelligence." [Sources: New Yorker, 5/12/03; Atlantic Monthly, 1/04; New Yorker, 10/20/03] 2002: Intel Agencies Repeatedly Warn White House of Its Weak WMD Case Throughout 2002, the CIA, DIA, Department of Energy and United Nations all warned the Bush Administration that its selective use of intelligence was painting a weak WMD case. Those warnings were repeatedly ignored. JANUARY, 2002 – TENET DOES NOT MENTION IRAQ IN NUCLEAR THREAT REPORT: "In CIA Director George Tenet's January 2002 review of global weapons-technology proliferation, he did not even mention a nuclear threat from Iraq, though he did warn of one from North Korea." [Source: The New Republic, 6/30/03] FEBRUARY 6, 2002 – CIA SAYS IRAQ HAS NOT PROVIDED WMD TO TERRORISTS: "The Central Intelligence Agency has no evidence that Iraq has engaged in terrorist operations against the United States in nearly a decade, and the agency is also convinced that President Saddam Hussein has not provided chemical or biological weapons to Al Qaeda or related terrorist groups, according to several American intelligence officials." [Source: NY Times, 2/6/02] APRIL 15, 2002 – WOLFOWITZ ANGERED AT CIA FOR NOT UNDERMINING U.N. REPORT: After receiving a CIA report that concluded that Hans Blix had conducted inspections of Iraq's declared nuclear power plants "fully within the parameters he could operate" when Blix was head of the international agency responsible for these inspections prior to the Gulf War, a report indicated that "Wolfowitz ‘hit the ceiling’ because the CIA failed to provide sufficient ammunition to undermine Blix and, by association, the new U.N. weapons inspection program." [Source: W. Post, 4/15/02] SUMMER, 2002 – CIA WARNINGS TO WHITE HOUSE EXPOSED: "In the late summer of 2002, Sen. Graham had requested from Tenet an analysis of the Iraqi threat. According to knowledgeable sources, he received a 25-page classified response reflecting the balanced view that had prevailed earlier among the intelligence agencies--noting, for example, that evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program or a link to Al Qaeda was inconclusive. Early that September, the committee also received the DIA's classified analysis, which reflected the same cautious assessments. But committee members became worried when, midway through the month, they received a new CIA analysis of the threat that highlighted the Bush administration's claims and consigned skepticism to footnotes." [Source: The New Republic, 6/30/03] SEPTEMBER, 2002 – DIA TELLS WHITE HOUSE NO EVIDENCE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS: "An unclassified excerpt of a 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency study on Iraq's chemical warfare program in which it stated that there is ‘no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons, or where Iraq has - or will - establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities.’" The report also said, "A substantial amount of Iraq's chemical warfare agents, precursors, munitions, and production equipment were destroyed between 1991 and 1998 as a result of Operation Desert Storm and UNSCOM (United Nations Special Commission) actions." [Source: Carnegie Endowment for Peace, 6/13/03; DIA report, 2002] SEPTEMBER 20, 2002 – DEPT. OF ENERGY TELLS WHITE HOUSE OF NUKE DOUBTS: "Doubts about the quality of some of the evidence that the United States is using to make its case that Iraq is trying to build a nuclear bomb emerged Thursday. While National Security Adviser Condi Rice stated on 9/8 that imported aluminum tubes ‘are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs’ a growing number of experts say that the administration has not presented convincing evidence that the tubes were intended for use in uranium enrichment rather than for artillery rocket tubes or other uses. Former U.N. weapons inspector David Albright said he found significant disagreement among scientists within the Department of Energy and other agencies about the certainty of the evidence." [Source: UPI, 9/20/02] OCTOBER 2002 – CIA DIRECTLY WARNS WHITE HOUSE: "The CIA sent two memos to the White House in October voicing strong doubts about a claim President Bush made three months later in the State of the Union address that Iraq was trying to buy nuclear materials in Africa." [Source: Washington Post, 7/23/03] OCTOBER 2002 — STATE DEPT. WARNS WHITE HOUSE ON NUKE CHARGES: The State Department’s Intelligence and Research Department dissented from the conclusion in the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s WMD capabilities that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. "The activities we have detected do not ... add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquiring nuclear weapons." INR accepted the judgment by Energy Department technical experts that aluminum tubes Iraq was seeking to acquire, which was the central basis for the conclusion that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, were ill-suited to build centrifuges for enriching uranium. [Source, Declassified Iraq NIE released 7/2003] OCTOBER 2002 – AIR FORCE WARNS WHITE HOUSE: "The government organization most knowledgeable about the United States' UAV program -- the Air Force's National Air and Space Intelligence Center -- had sharply disputed the notion that Iraq's UAVs were being designed as attack weapons" – a WMD claim President Bush used in his October 7 speech on Iraqi WMD, just three days before the congressional vote authorizing the president to use force. [Source: Washington Post, 9/26/03] 2003: WH Pressures Intel Agencies to Conform; Ignores More Warnings Instead of listening to the repeated warnings from the intelligence community, intelligence officials say the White House instead pressured them to conform their reports to fit a pre-determined policy. Meanwhile, more evidence from international institutions poured in that the White House’s claims were not well-grounded. LATE 2002-EARLY 2003 – CHENEY PRESSURES CIA TO CHANGE INTELLIGENCE: "Vice President Dick Cheney's repeated trips to CIA headquarters in the run-up to the war for unusual, face-to-face sessions with intelligence analysts poring over Iraqi data. The pressure on the intelligence community to document the administration's claims that the Iraqi regime had ties to al-Qaida and was pursuing a nuclear weapons capacity was ‘unremitting,’ said former CIA counterterrorism chief Vince Cannistraro, echoing several other intelligence veterans interviewed." Additionally, CIA officials "charged that the hard-liners in the Defense Department and vice president's office had 'pressured' agency analysts to paint a dire picture of Saddam's capabilities and intentions." [Sources: Dallas Morning News, 7/28/03; Newsweek, 7/28/03] JANUARY, 2003 – STATE DEPT. INTEL BUREAU REITERATE WARNING TO POWELL: "The Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), the State Department's in-house analysis unit, and nuclear experts at the Department of Energy are understood to have explicitly warned Secretary of State Colin Powell during the preparation of his speech that the evidence was questionable. The Bureau reiterated to Mr. Powell during the preparation of his February speech that its analysts were not persuaded that the aluminum tubes the Administration was citing could be used in centrifuges to enrich uranium." [Source: Financial Times, 7/30/03] FEBRUARY 14, 2003 – UN WARNS WHITE HOUSE THAT NO WMD HAVE BEEN FOUND: "In their third progress report since U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 was passed in November, inspectors told the council they had not found any weapons of mass destruction." Weapons inspector Hans Blix told the U.N. Security Council they had been unable to find any WMD in Iraq and that more time was needed for inspections. [Source: CNN, 2/14/03] FEBRUARY 15, 2003 – IAEA WARNS WHITE HOUSE NO NUCLEAR EVIDENCE: The head of the IAEA told the U.N. in February that "We have to date found no evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear or nuclear-related activities in Iraq." The IAEA examined "2,000 pages of documents seized Jan. 16 from an Iraqi scientist's home -- evidence, the Americans said, that the Iraqi regime was hiding government documents in private homes. The documents, including some marked classified, appear to be the scientist's personal files." However, "the documents, which contained information about the use of laser technology to enrich uranium, refer to activities and sites known to the IAEA and do not change the agency's conclusions about Iraq's laser enrichment program." [Source: Wash. Post, 2/15/03] FEBURARY 24, 2003 – CIA WARNS WHITE HOUSE ‘NO DIRECT EVIDENCE’ OF WMD: "A CIA report on proliferation released this week says the intelligence community has no ‘direct evidence’ that Iraq has succeeded in reconstituting its biological, chemical, nuclear or long-range missile programs in the two years since U.N. weapons inspectors left and U.S. planes bombed Iraqi facilities. ‘We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its Weapons of Mass Destruction programs,’ said the agency in its semi-annual report on proliferation activities." [NBC News, 2/24/03] MARCH 7, 2003 – IAEA REITERATES TO WHITE HOUSE NO EVIDENCE OF NUKES: IAEA Director Mohamed ElBaradei said nuclear experts have found "no indication" that Iraq has tried to import high-strength aluminum tubes or specialized ring magnets for centrifuge enrichment of uranium. For months, American officials had "cited Iraq's importation of these tubes as evidence that Mr. Hussein's scientists have been seeking to develop a nuclear capability." ElBaradei also noted said "the IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that documents which formed the basis for the [President Bush’s assertion] of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger are in fact not authentic." When questioned about this on Meet the Press, Vice President Dick Cheney simply said "Mr. ElBaradei is, frankly, wrong." [Source: NY Times, 3/7/03: Meet the Press, 3/16/03] MAY 30, 2003 – INTEL PROFESSIONALS ADMIT THEY WERE PRESSURED: "A growing number of U.S. national security professionals are accusing the Bush administration of slanting the facts and hijacking the $30 billion intelligence apparatus to justify its rush to war in Iraq . A key target is a four-person Pentagon team that reviewed material gathered by other intelligence outfits for any missed bits that might have tied Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to banned weapons or terrorist groups. This team, self-mockingly called the Cabal, 'cherry-picked the intelligence stream' in a bid to portray Iraq as an imminent threat, said Patrick Lang, a official at the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). The DIA was "exploited and abused and bypassed in the process of making the case for war in Iraq based on the presence of WMD," or weapons of mass destruction, he said. Greg Thielmann, an intelligence official in the State Department, said it appeared to him that intelligence had been shaped 'from the top down.'" [Reuters, 5/30/03 ]

*I must admit I chuckle every time this "Clinton believed it too" argument by Conservatives. I mean, this was the guy you folks absolutely LOATHED with every ounce of hatred in your hearts, yet you waste no time attempting to tie the failures of this Administration's actions onto Clinton every single time. Are we supposed to deduce that this Administration, who did everything they could to pretty much undo every single one of Clinton's policies in both the foreign and domestic front, SUDDENLY found it oh so prudent that Clinton felt Saddam was a threat and a regime change was mandated too?

Again I ask, are you being serious?

*And finally, I and any other logically thinkin' lefty wouldn't deny that Clinton felt Saddam was a menance and that a regime change was needed in the near future.

Does this in any way negate the absolutely fucking IDIOTIC and head-up-your-fucking-ass way this Administration went about fulfilling the dream of regime change? You think Clinton sits back, looks at the fucking mess YOU CONSERVATIVES put us in over there in your attempts to pursue disarmament of WMD, pursue Al Qaeda, pursue something that's remotely plausible anymore, and say,

"Wow, what a brilliant plan, Mr. President. You sure handled this EXACTLY the way I had wanted it to happen."??????

Would any sane man look at this fucking debacle and believe for one moment that this was all some grand ingenious scheme?

Or maybe, just maybe Clinton and any other sane individual might have considered having a regime change by some other means? Maybe, just maybe Clinton might have not worried so much about the WELL CONTAINED Iraqi dictator and would have continued pursuing that motherf$cker who actually bombed us, and would have chased his ass down and killed him in Tora Bora, rather than hand over the chase to well-paid off Afghan Warlords, in order to divert troops over to an area that had absofuckinglutely nothing to do with 9/11?

Or maybe that's just too fucking crazy for neocons to wrap their brains around?

*What part of "intelligence being fixed around the policy" from the Downing Street Memo is confusing to the Bush apologists?

quote:

Aw fuck, I should've just posted the whole damn thing in bold. Call me a neo-con if you want, but there are people in this country who haven't lost their will. But clearly there are others who have. Gut check time.

Shakka, this isn't about people who lost their will. It's about wondering why the fuck we are there, what truly led us there in the first place (my fucking Senator Roberts is too much of a hack to actually investigate this himself), and what our sole purpose is there now. It's no mystery here - the public is becoming more educated (finally) on what's going on in Iraq. People just can't swallow the numerous rationales that continue to be thrown at us by this Administration for why we went, nor can they swallow the current rationale for why we are there now.

It's clear that all we are doing is protecting an Islamic fundamentalist government, fighting for that fundamentalist government against a minority Islamic group that has started a civil war because they no longer have any power or say in the matter, and that government doesn't even remotely resemble anything of what we consider a democracy - pissing on women's rights is a shining example.

How else do you expect the public to feel about their friends and loved ones fighting for such an unbelievably silly cause?

quote:

So Clinton lied too, and of course all of the Dems(John Kerry in particular) who proclaimed that Saddam/Iraq had WMDs before the war were all liars too, but the only one that really lied was Dubya, right?

We already covered Clinton.

Kerry's a tool. It was known, however, that not all info. pertaining to counterevidence against the claims of Saddam having WMD was presented to Congress. Regardless, it would have been political suicide for any Congressman/Senator to speak out against going to war at that time after 9/11.

I'm sure you're well aware of that point.

quote:

Because he actually did something about it instead of having a talkathon. I guess your boys are liars too, eh? Oh wait, I forgot, Dubya only wants oil.

I never personally bought into the "all about oil" argument. However, it clearly is one of the underlying motives.

Similar to why we are trying to have a regime change in Venenzuela - their leader wants to reduce oil exports to America and have other partners involved. Leaves us in quite a pickle, as we continue relying so damn heavily on foreign oil, but I digress.

quote:

Unless of course you still maintain that all of the WMD capabilities were destroyed in the early 90's or that they never even existed in the first place!

Huh? You did read the Duelfer Report, right? Is that not exactly what it said?

quote:

The hardest decisions to make are often times the least popular.

Right, counterevidence and switching rationales be damned, huh?

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