The Myths of Iraq

Ignorant leftists, everyone.

0 Replies

Commies of limp wrist...it's a certainty.

0 Replies

Dyslexia writes

Quote:

so foxfyre as I understand your post if Bush gets re-elected it's because the voters rationally looked at the issues and found Bush compelling but when Clinton got re-elected it was because the voters "don't have a clue about substance or issues"
very interesting.

Well, rereading my post, I can see how you might interpret it that way, but I didn't quite mean it that way.

Looking back at the 1996 election, the way I saw it, the polls indicated that Dole's 'likability' negatives were much higher than Clinton's despite questions about Clinton's character and dealings and despite the fact that Dole was perceived as the more honest of the two. Dole did well in impromptu and unscripted settings such as speaking on the Senate floor or cracking jokes during a committee meeting. Unfortunately these were seen mostly on Cspan and were rarely shown on national TV. So people saw Dole as old, dull, boring, unattractive. In a campaign that didn't have much in the way of compelling issues at all, he was beaten by a younger, more energetic looking, more photogenic Bill Clinton. There was also the Perot factor in 1996. I am reasonably certain that Perot handed Clinton the 1992 election. I think in 1996 Clinton would have won if Perot had not run even though he still did not get 50% of the popular vote. Of course there are always going to be some who will vote GOP or Dem no matter who is running. But I would venture you would be hard put to find many people who could tell you what the 1996 issues were without looking.

This year Kerry is struggling with an 'unlikeability' factor coupled with a credibility factor, and there are compelling issues. I think in the end the election will be decided on two: the economy and Iraq/war on terrorism. The economy is booming along and looks to get stronger which is good for Bush. Come November if the American people are convinced that the war on terrorism is still a valid issue, I think they may well decide that GWB is the most committed and trustworthy to deal with it.

This is all strictly my opinion of course.

0 Replies

ok then perhaps I really didn't mean it when I said Bush was a prevaricator, what I really mean was Bush is a damn liar. but I could be wrong, it's only my opinion but I understand how you took it that way.

0 Replies

Okay.

0 Replies

Quote:

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- Iraq's current Governing Council president said Monday the United States has only itself to blame for the military deadlock at Najaf and Fallujah because it allowed its troops to change from ``an army of liberation'' to ``an army of occupation.''

In an exclusive interview with The Associated Press, Massoud Barzani said the United States faces a dilemma: It must not be soft in the besieged cities and give insurgents ``the impression that they have the upper hand,'' but it also must make sure civilians are not harmed if military force is used.

The comments from a close U.S. ally in Iraq signal the deepening dissatisfaction between the United States and top Iraqi politicians. Barzani supported the U.S. war effort, and members of his militia fought alongside American soldiers in northern Iraq.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Iraq-Barzani.html

0 Replies

It seems to me that Foxfyre is quite correct when she indicates that the election will turn on two issues--Iraq and the economy. This next week will bring the report of Unemployment figures and new jobs created. If those reports mirror April's report concerning March then it is almost certain that the economy has really improved very materially. It appears that the theory proposed by Blatham concerning Barzani can be regarded as "wishful thinking" since Barzani's comments are by no means the last word on Iraq. All reports on Iraq report that although 5% of the country is in turmoil, the rest of the country is proceeding along on schedule. Ridiculous attempts like the ones made by the radicals in Basra which resulted in many Iraqi deaths can do nothing but convince the Iraqi people that the insurgents are fanatical die-hards which are mainly interested in retaining the positions they held under Saddam and which will do anything, including the massacre of children with indiscriminate bombings, to derail Democracy in Iraq.
The position of President Bush with regards to the main rationale for war against Iraq( the existence of WMD"s) has been quite troubling. However, the evidence is clear that almost all of the intelligence sources throughout the world, including the sources from France and Germany, which could not be said to be in favor of war in Iraq, held that Saddam Hussein had WMD's in his country before the US invasion.
The position of the Democratic candidate has been more troubling since it is clear that he does not wish to withdraw from Iraq and only criticizes the methods used by President Bush and not the Principles applied. It would appear that Ralph Nader is the only one who appeals to the strong anti-war sentiment and it is clear that, at this time, at least 7% of the American voting populace would vote for Nader.
Blurbs like those referenced by Blatham are almost meaningless when viewed in the context of the evidence gathered in the last year.

0 Replies

mporter

Gosh, I'm not sure things are going so swimmingly in Iraq. Perhaps that's why the 52 experts (correct term) in London (noted above) sent that letter to Blair saying things were going bad fast, and heading for worse. The link to the Barzani piece was to note his statement and opinions which clearly are relevant, and not so easily dismissable as you suggest.

The 'everybody thought there were weapons' is a straw man. The lies involved packaging a PR campaign upon shoddy (and known to be shoddy) intelligence, using fear (the nuke scare from Rice) where nobody really thought Sadaam had anything like nuke ability, and suggesting there was some imminent danger from Sadaam...which again, nobody but Bush and Blair claimed as being at all factual.

0 Replies

Mr. Blatham:

I fear you have not studied the situation carefully enough. Despite his impeachment and hounding by the right wing, I thought that President Clinton did a creditable job during his tenure. We had the best economy in many years. It is agreed that Clinton was superb in his foreign relations and his understanding of the subject. On December 18th 1998, as you may recall, President Clinton ordered the bombing of Baghdad. In the speech he gave he was quite clear that Saddam would indeed develop weapons of mass destruction and would utilize them if he were not to be stopped.
Now, you can make a great many intellectual gyrations but I am sure that you cannot say that the foreign policy of the Clinton Administration agreed with that of President Bush.

It is quite clear that President Clinton viewed Saddam Hussein as a deadly threat--so deadly that the US, under Clinton's direction, hurled missles at Baghdad in 1998.

0 Replies

Sad that it took years for 52 experts to discover the truth about the Bush administration, when so many less exalted on these forums knew it from the day he was appointed by a Republican-controlled Supreme Court.

0 Replies

mporter

What you and others seem to ignore is that before really going into the war run up the Bush administration conducted a new inquiry. One of those was the one where they later outed the CIA agent who was the wife of the one who went to Iraq to check out some info about Iraq. There was also reports from intelligence before the war that doubted the existence of stock piles of WMD. This was all in a hearing, I forget exactly which one, but for some reason it is ignored by those on the side of Bush and the same tired line of how previous Presidents and people around the world thought the same about WMD gets repeated as excuses for going to war.

0 Replies

mporter wrote:

Mr. Blatham:

I fear you have not studied the situation carefully enough. Despite his impeachment and hounding by the right wing, I thought that President Clinton did a creditable job during his tenure. We had the best economy in many years. It is agreed that Clinton was superb in his foreign relations and his understanding of the subject. On December 18th 1998, as you may recall, President Clinton ordered the bombing of Baghdad. In the speech he gave he was quite clear that Saddam would indeed develop weapons of mass destruction and would utilize them if he were not to be stopped. Interesting choice of words..."bombing of Baghdad". Shall we acknowedge that the city wasn't levelled? That the stated medium-term goal was 'containment' and LONG TERM goal as regime change? That there was no false claim (as from the Bush administration) that a threat was imminent? That the operation was not preceded by false claims (as from the Bush administration) regarding what WOMD were there such as "we know what palm trees they are under" (Rumsfeld)? That this was not a military force attacking and occupying an oil-rich Arab nation (which is precisely what Usama said the US wanted, and was one line he was using to recruit)? Shall we acknowledge those fundamental differences?
Now, you can make a great many intellectual gyrations but I am sure that you cannot say that the foreign policy of the Clinton Administration agreed with that of President Bush.

It is quite clear that President Clinton viewed Saddam Hussein as a deadly threat--so deadly that the US, under Clinton's direction, hurled missles at Baghdad in 1998.

You might want to peruse the included link for further data... http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/1998/index_12_18.html

0 Replies

Read Bob Woodward's new book Revel or any of a hundred other sources. Yes there were differences about interpretations of available intelligence. Everybody, the Clinton administration, all members of Congress, all WH staffers, the FBI, the CIA, and everybody in the Defense Dept had access to that intelligence and were encouraged to look at it. No doubt most did look at it. The bottom line is that the Clinton Administration, Congress - including John Kerry - WH staffers, the CIA, the FBI, the Pentagon, and all industrialized countries came to the same conclusion - Saddam had WMD. The U.N. inspection team believed they were there.

We now have testimony that some were hastily (and improperly/dangerously) destroyed but not all have been accounted for. Many will still be surprised if they don't turn up somewhere.

There are good philosophical reasons to debate issues re several GWB policies. WMD isn't one of them.

0 Replies

And as to how swimmingly things are going in Iraq...

Quote:

The Post's Karl Vick describes the wounds soldiers are receiving and the doctors who treat them. About 900 soldiers have been wounded in April, roughly a quarter of the war's total. Doctors say they are performing one craniotomy per day, where they remove the skull to get at injured brain tissue. "We've done more in eight weeks than the previous neurosurgery team did in eight months," said one surgeon.

link

0 Replies

Posted on Tue, Jul. 22, 2003

Clinton: Bush Iraq Mistake Understandable

Associated Press

WASHINGTON - President Bush's erroneous reference to an Iraqi-Africa uranium link was understandable, former President Clinton said Tuesday, in part because Saddam Hussein's regime had not accounted for some weapons by the time Clinton ended his term in 2001.

Clinton's comments reinforce one of the pillars of Bush's defense of the war in Iraq - that his Democratic predecessor was never satisfied that Saddam had rid himself of weapons of mass destruction.

"When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for," Clinton said on CNN's "Larry King Live."

Clinton said he never found out whether a U.S.-British bombing campaign he ordered in 1998 ended Saddam's capability of producing chemical and biological weapons. "We might have gotten it all, we might have gotten half of it, we might have gotten none of it," he said.

In his State of the Union speech in February justifying the planned war in Iraq, Bush referred to British intelligence reports that Saddam had tried to purchase uranium for nuclear weapons production. His administration says it now believes those reports were based in part on forged documents.

Clinton confined his remarks to biological and chemical weapons, and did not say whether he would consider credible any report that Saddam had wanted to build a nuclear weapons program.

Nonetheless, he suggested that Bush's mistake was par for the course - and that it was time to move on now that Bush had acknowledged the error.

"You know, everybody makes mistakes when they are president," he said. "I mean, you can't make as many calls as you have to without messing up once in a while. The thing we ought to be focused on is what is the right thing to do now."

Clinton said ending tensions in Iraq should be the priority now - another echo of the current White House's talking points. "We should be pulling for America on this. We should be pulling for the people of Iraq."

Clinton made his remarks as a call-in guest on a program observing the 80th birthday of Bob Dole, his rival for the White House in 1996.

0 Replies

suzy wrote:

"I'm sorry you have no sympathy for the US troops that get hurt or killed,because it s "part of the job".
You're the one with no sympathy. You made your statement to poo-poo the idea that one should be disgusted by the death count, pretty much. (Part of the job, goes with the territory, blah blah blah.) Was that supposed to be sympathy? Sounds to me like you're trying to be cavalier but offended when anyone accepts it as such!
"I don't support misuse of our troops" Nicely said, Wild Bill.
Wilso, we actually do get that news. Some don't care, as you can see.

I am not being cavalier about casualties.My job was to treat the casualties ON THE BATTLEFIELD,so I am intimately familiar with casualties.
You are the one that said you arent sorry.THat makes it sound like you dont care if US troops get killed or not.If I took it wrong then perhaps you should have been more clear on what you meant.
And yes,EVERY PERSON that puts on the uniform accepts the risk.It is part of the job.Nobody likes casualties,but they are part of every combat operation.
I dont support misuse of the troops either,but we are not misusing troops in Iraq.They are being used exactly right,for the most part.

0 Replies

Mr. Blatham:

You are obviously well read and well informed. Please let me know if I am in error when I state that President Clinton said, in his speech given December 18th 1998, just after he had ordered missles to bomb Baghdad-

Saddam Hussein will develop weapons of mass destruction and he will use them.

Thank you, sir.

0 Replies

mporter wrote:

Mr. Blatham:

You are obviously well read and well informed. Please let me know if I am in error when I state that President Clinton said, in his speech given December 18th 1998, just after he had ordered missles to bomb Baghdad-

Saddam Hussein will develop weapons of mass destruction and he will use them.

Thank you, sir.

mporter

Quite possibly those are his exact words. But what necessarily follows?

Thank you, sir.

0 Replies

Foxfyre- You are quite correct about Woodward's comments concering the wide spread knowledge of intelligence which indicated that Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Woodward's "Bush at War" is even more revealing when he writes:

"In a speech to the nation Monday, Cotober 7, the one year anniversary of the military strikes in Afghanistan, the president said that Saddam posed an immediate threat to the US. As Congress debated whether to pass its own resolution authorizing the use of force against Saddam, Bush said that war was avoidable and not imminent. 'I hope this will not require military action" he said....
By early October the UN had not yet agreed on new resolutions. But on October 10 and 11 the House and Senate overwhelmingly vote to grant the President full authority to attack Iraq unilaterally. The vote in the House was 296 to 133, and in the Senate 77 to 23. The Congress gave Bush the full go-ahead to use the military " as he determines to be necessary and appropriate " to defend against the threat of Iraq."

end of quote

The above quote raises several important questions.

l. Does the overwhelming authority given by the Congress to President Bush mean that the Anti-War crowd should change their rhetoric from

"Bush"s War" to "Bush and the US Congress' war"?

It is clear that the President could do nothing without the consent of Congress.

2. Is the overwhelming vote of 77% in the Senate and 67% in the House, clearly bipartisan, a sign that many had seen and heard of evidence that Saddam was, indeed, a threat? One cannot imagine that so many Democrats would vote to give President Bush the authority to attack Iraq unilaterally if they were not convinced it was necessary.

3. Finally, is not the overwhelming vote of the Congress a sign that they felt sure that the American people would accept the attack on Iraq as necessary?
It would seem that the Anti-War group and the media that leans to the left did not have the ability to convince the Congress they should not vote to give the President such authority.

0 Replies

I don't really consider myself antiwar, because I believe that, sometimes, war is a necessary evil.
Not this time, though. And to think he took money from pursuing the "real" terrorist to go to Iraq...
I made my voice heard to senate and congress. I always do. I guess the prospect of being seen as "with the terrorists" provoked many of them to go against their better judgement and vote with the president. (Idiocy for letting the ultra-conservatives get away with this, and to those Americans who felt the same way; shame on them all).
Although they did put some conditions on it, which were ignored. Bush does what Bush wants to do.
That's my biggest problem with him.

0 Replies

The Myths of Iraq

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know