H2O, And your picture is proof of Bush's crime; killing innocent Iraqis; men, women and children who posed no threat whatsoever to Americans.
"Shock and awe," you brainless j...k.
cicerone imposter wrote:Not only that, but Bush chased out the UN weapon's inspectors to start his illegal war.
This is pure BS!!!
Bush didnt force them to leave, nor did he "chase" them out.
He advised them to leave, he told them what was coming, but they left of their own free will.
He didnt have the power or ability to "chase" them out, and you know it.
They had the choice to stay, and they chose to leave.
But if you can provide evidence that he "chased" them out or that he forced them to leave, I will be glad to see it.
You may not like the war, but dont try to alter history to suit you.
cicerone imposter wrote:Iraq agrees to unconditional return of UN weapons inspectors - Annan
[Annan speaking to the press].....
Thats what they said, ci, but I recall cat and mouse games continuing. You forget that Hussein was not a man of his word.
okie wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:Iraq agrees to unconditional return of UN weapons inspectors - Annan
[Annan speaking to the press].....
Thats what they said, ci, but I recall cat and mouse games continuing.
and that I recall Bush lying through his teeth playing cat and mouse games with the UN as well as the american public. Could one of be wrong? Perhaps someday Colin Powell will tell us all, perhaps not. So just what was the UN security council vote on authorizing the invasion of Iraq?
Your CIA advised Bush and Congress. Congress voted for war, dys. You seem to forget the basics of what happened. Take it up with your congressman if you are unhappy, or vote for a different one. This is a representative republic, Bush recommended, Congress agreed.
I know you will say Bush made up all the intelligence. There was a congressional investigation into those allegations and it was shown to be false.
Get over it, we are winning right now, aren't you happy or would you rather lose, and would you rather Hussein was still in power, killing hundreds of thousands of his own people, and still threatening his neighbors and us, with who knows what?
okie, The US broke international laws by our preemptive attach on a sovereign nation that posed no threat to us. We are/were a "partner" in the Security Council of the UN. They did not authorize the war. What is so difficult to understand, except your myopia?
From Wiki:
Weapons of Mass Destruction and Al-Qaeda
Further information: Iraq and weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda
Colin Powell holding a model vial of anthrax while giving a presentation to the United Nations Security Council.
Colin Powell holding a model vial of anthrax while giving a presentation to the United Nations Security Council.
Two of the arguments used to justify the invasion of Iraq ?- the capability to produce and/or the possession of weapons of mass destruction and active links to al Qaeda ?- have been found to be incorrect according to all subsequent official reports.[6][7][8] The post-invasion Duelfer Report stated that Hussein had still not given up on trying to produce WMD in 2003. His strategy was to first bring UN sanctions to an end by demonstrating that he was cooperating with weapons inspectors and, once sanctions were lifted, to then revive Iraq's WMD program, including nuclear weapons.[9] The report also stated that Hussein did not want to appear weak. To deter his enemies, he intentionally deceived the world into thinking he still had WMD. There was a "balancing act" between cooperating with the UN and keeping a "strategic deterrent".[10]
A 2007 report by the Inspector General of the Department of Defense, declassified and released at the request of Senator Carl M. Levin (D-Mich), asserted that the claims of an operational working relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, as put forth by a key Pentagon office in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq, were based on dubious or unconfirmed reports.[11] President Bush has, since the invasion of Iraq, explicitly stated that that country was not involved in 9-11, which has also been concluded by subsequent reports,[12] and any alleged contacts with al-Qaeda were in areas outside of Saddam Hussein's control. Also, the day before she voted on the resolution, Senator Clinton said during a speech on the Senate floor that there was no dispute that Hussein was not involved in the September 11th attacks.[13] Nevertheless, BBC News, The Christian Science Monitor, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Institute for Public Accuracy, and Media Matters for America contend that members of the administration repeatedly over the years made suggestive statements with the implied message there was a link between Saddam Hussein and the attacks.
[14]
The Bush administration initially suggested the discrepancy between the allegations and the subsequent findings was due to failure by the intelligence community. However, it became apparent that, prior to the invasion, these allegations had already been widely disputed,[15] which had purportedly been reported to the U.S. administration. An in-depth investigation into the nature of these discrepancies by the Senate Intelligence Committee was frustrated, according to the New York Times.[16] The Robb-Silberman Commission stated that the President's Daily Briefs from the intelligence community tended to repeat information in a misleading way. The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) provided to Congress was more "nuanced" and less "alarmist" than information given to the President.[17] However, the vast majority of Senators did not read the NIE and relied on briefings by the administration. Among those who have stated they did not read the NIE and voted positively for the Iraq Resolution are Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, Republican Presidential candidate John McCain, and former Senator John Edwards.[18]
The assertion such weapons posed a threat towards the U.S. was not supported by the available evidence at the time, according to subsequent reports.[19] The Bush administration asserted that two small trailers that had been found in Iraq were "weapons factories," despite the fact that U.S. intelligence officials possessed evidence to the contrary at that time.[20] Weapon inspectors were given access to the alleged weapon factories, despite statements to the contrary by the Bush administration. Continuing these inspections was made impossible by the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq which forced the U.N. inspectors out, ignoring their requests for more time.[21]
Skeptics argue that the administration knowingly distorted intelligence reports or ignored contrary information in constructing their case for the war.[22][23] The Downing Street memo and the Bush-Blair memo are used to substantiate that allegation.[24] Congressional Democrats sponsored both a request for documents and a resolution of inquiry.[25]
It is true that the situation in Iraq has improved. However it was not justified nor was it ever necessary for our security and in fact has been a distraction from our real concerns with AQ in Afghanistan and Pakistan which has been building up ever since the invasion of Iraq.
Also it has been proven time and time again that the whole administration stretched and distorted and omitted the truth of all the intelligence concerning Iraq in the lead up to the war and even after the invasion.
It is also true that Bush didn't make the UN inspectors leave but they would have been fools to stay in the line of fire after Bush announced we were fixing to invade. So yes in effect, Bush did cut short their ongoing inspections and caused them to leave.
In any event; Iraqis do not want us there in the long term and it is their country and we should listen to them despite what McCain camp says to the contrary now verses what he said back in 2004.
Quote:In response to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's clear statement in support of a 16-month redeployment from Iraq, a senior McCain official tells Marc Ambinder "[V]oters care about [the] military, not about Iraqi leaders." A "prominent Republican strategist" who occasionally provides advice to the McCain campaign said more candidly, "We're f*cked." Recall, this is what McCain said in 2004:
QUESTION: Let me give you a hypothetical, senator. What would or should we do if, in the post-June 30th period, a so-called sovereign Iraqi government asks us to leave, even if we are unhappy about the security situation there? I understand it's a hypothetical, but it's at least possible.
McCAIN: Well, if that scenario evolves, then I think it's obvious that we would have to leave because ?- if it was an elected government of Iraq ?- and we've been asked to leave other places in the world. If it were an extremist government, then I think we would have other challenges, but I don't see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people.
links to back up statements at the
source
Quote:"His domestic politics require him to be for us getting out," said a senior McCain campaign official, speaking on the condition of anonymity. "The military says 'conditions based' and Maliki said 'conditions based' yesterday in the joint statement with Bush. Regardless, voters care about [the] military, not about Iraqi leaders."
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/07/mccain_campaign_responds_to_al.php
One the thing the guy in the McCain camp is right about is that Maliki's domestic politics is driving Malaki to force the issue of withdrawal and it is that force which will keep Malaki to stick to it and not let him get away with stalling tactics. (IMO) Conditions are never going to be so ideal that we can leave with out a care that things can get worse. I just hope that same force won't let Maliki get away with signing that security deal.
revel wrote: It is also true that Bush didn't make the UN inspectors leave but they would have been fools to stay in the line of fire after Bush announced we were fixing to invade. So yes in effect, Bush did cut short their ongoing inspections and caused them to leave.
If that isn't an "order to leave," I don't know the meaning of the word. Anyone with half a brain knows that's an order to evacuate; it's not a simple request.
cicerone imposter wrote:revel wrote: It is also true that Bush didn't make the UN inspectors leave but they would have been fools to stay in the line of fire after Bush announced we were fixing to invade. So yes in effect, Bush did cut short their ongoing inspections and caused them to leave.
If that isn't an "order to leave," I don't know the meaning of the word. Anyone with half a brain knows that's an order to evacuate; it's not a simple request.
So Bush doesnt have the power or authority to order the UN to enforce their own resolutions, but he does have the power and authority to order the UN to remove the inspectors?
Do you not see the contradiction there?
mm, I refuse to answer your stupid questions, so expect no response from me.
cicerone imposter wrote:mm, I refuse to answer your stupid questions, so expect no response from me.
So then this isnt a response?
H2O_MAN wrote:edgarblythe wrote: awe and destruction
Shock and Awe
awe and destruction
You are quoting from the Bush archives. I am using my own version.
cicerone imposter wrote:You are stupid!
So you make a contradictory statement, then you call me stupid for pointing it out.
Are you really so blind that you cant see how you contradicted yourself?
Cycloptichorn wrote:Quote: Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki told a German magazine he supported prospective U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's proposal that U.S. troops should leave Iraq within 16 months.
"U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."
Asked if he supported Obama's ideas more than those of John McCain, Republican presidential hopeful, Maliki said he did not want to recommend who people should vote for.
"Whoever is thinking about the shorter term is closer to reality. Artificially extending the stay of U.S. troops would cause problems."
Wow, the 16th month thing is looking more likely.
This is by all measures an endorsement of Obama.
Cycloptichorn
Nice try, Obama followers, but Iraq's leader doesn't actually support withdrawal.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/iraq_maliki_obama_dc
Quote:BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki did not back the plan of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq and his comments to a German magazine on the issue were misunderstood, the government's spokesman said on Sunday.
Ali al-Dabbagh said in a statement that Maliki's remarks to Der Spiegel were translated incorrectly.
The German magazine said on Saturday that Maliki supported Obama's proposal that U.S. troops should leave Iraq within 16 months. The interview was released on Saturday.
"U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right time frame for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes," Der Spiegel quoted Maliki as saying.
Dabbagh said statements by Maliki or any other member of the government should not be seen as support for any U.S. presidential candidate.
Obama is visiting Afghanistan and is set to go to Iraq as part of a tour of Europe and the Middle East.
Maliki's remarks were published a day after the White House said he and President George W. Bush had agreed that a security agreement currently being negotiated between them should include a "time horizon" for withdrawal of U.S. troops.
Bush has long opposed setting a timetable for withdrawal, and the White House said the time horizon agreed by the two leaders was not as specific as a time frame pushed by Democrats and could be adjusted based on conditions on the ground.
So now it seems that you and other Obama followers were wrong.
mysteryman wrote:Nice try, Obama followers, but Iraq's leader doesn't actually support withdrawal.
Please don't try to be ridiculous when the statements are there for everyone to read. This here:
Quote:Dabbagh said statements by Maliki or any other member of the government should not be seen as support for any U.S. presidential candidate.
does certainly mean that the Iraqi government doesn't want to get caught up in the US presidential campaigns. It means that they don't want to
endorse Obama.
I have a hard time to get from "we don't endorse Obama" to "we don't want US troops to withdraw".
mysteryman wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:Quote: Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki told a German magazine he supported prospective U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's proposal that U.S. troops should leave Iraq within 16 months.
"U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."
Asked if he supported Obama's ideas more than those of John McCain, Republican presidential hopeful, Maliki said he did not want to recommend who people should vote for.
"Whoever is thinking about the shorter term is closer to reality. Artificially extending the stay of U.S. troops would cause problems."
Wow, the 16th month thing is looking more likely.
This is by all measures an endorsement of Obama.
Cycloptichorn
Nice try, Obama followers, but Iraq's leader doesn't actually support withdrawal.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/iraq_maliki_obama_dc
Quote:BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki did not back the plan of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq and his comments to a German magazine on the issue were misunderstood, the government's spokesman said on Sunday.
Ali al-Dabbagh said in a statement that Maliki's remarks to Der Spiegel were translated incorrectly.
The German magazine said on Saturday that Maliki supported Obama's proposal that U.S. troops should leave Iraq within 16 months. The interview was released on Saturday.
"U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right time frame for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes," Der Spiegel quoted Maliki as saying.
Dabbagh said statements by Maliki or any other member of the government should not be seen as support for any U.S. presidential candidate.
Obama is visiting Afghanistan and is set to go to Iraq as part of a tour of Europe and the Middle East.
Maliki's remarks were published a day after the White House said he and President George W. Bush had agreed that a security agreement currently being negotiated between them should include a "time horizon" for withdrawal of U.S. troops.
Bush has long opposed setting a timetable for withdrawal, and the White House said the time horizon agreed by the two leaders was not as specific as a time frame pushed by Democrats and could be adjusted based on conditions on the ground.
So now it seems that you and other Obama followers were wrong.
Not only is Der Speigel standing by their interview, in which the PM said not only once but about three times that he wanted to withdraw, we see this:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/07/20/maliki_aides_statement_came_af.html
Quote:Maliki Aide's Statement Came After U.S. Call
By Dan Eggen
The statement by an aide to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki calling his remarks in Der Spiegel "misinterpreted and mistranslated" followed a call to the prime minister's office from U.S. government officials in Iraq.
Maliki had expressed support for a withdrawal plan similar to that of presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama in an interview with Der Speigel. U.S. troops should leave Iraq "As soon as possible, as far as we're concerned," Maliki had said. "U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."
But after the Spiegel interview was published and began generating headlines Saturday, officials at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad contacted Maliki's office to express concern and seek clarification on the remarks, according to White House spokesman Scott Stanzel.
Later in the day, a Maliki aide released a statement saying the remarks had been misinterpreted, though without citing specific comments.
We were not incorrect; the Bush admin is trying to spin all it can, to play down the outright embarrassment this will cause them. Don't be fooled by the hype.
Cycloptichorn
mm is willingly fooled by the bush hype.
