1
   

If I was Bush, I would...

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 May, 2004 02:20 pm
I'll say it again in case you missed it; SADDAM WAS NEVER A THREAT TO THE USA. OBL WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE TERRORIST ATTACK ON THE USA, AND IS STILL A THREAT TO THE USA AND THE WORLD. Got that? Maybe not, but then we must consider the source.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 May, 2004 02:30 pm
Saddam was a threat to the entire middle east, and in turn, to the U.S. Who was it that tossed SCUD's at Isreal during the first gulf war?
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 May, 2004 02:55 pm
cjhsa wrote:
Saddam was a threat to the entire middle east, and in turn, to the U.S. Who was it that tossed SCUD's at Isreal during the first gulf war?


Yeah, but let's face it, those SCUDs must have been using Windows 98 for a tracking system.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 May, 2004 02:56 pm
Cav, you don't want to know what they use in U.S. ICBM's...
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 May, 2004 03:21 pm
Is that like TGI Fridays?
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 May, 2004 06:42 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
perception, It seems you've missed the reason why we attacked Iraq in the first place; this administration said Saddam had WMDs that could be used against us. We now know that is far from the truth, so how in the world is our involvement in Iraq protecting Americans?

What about the mustard gas and sarin recently confirmed? Of course, the occurance of just a couple of isolated incidents means little ... beyond the fact that ordnance some contend Iraq did not have is now identified as having been used as components of improvised explosive devices. If Iraq did not have them, where did they come from? By the way, can you point to a statement by an Administration official which contains the phrase, or even the sense, that Iraq's existant capability to inflict a direct attack on the US played any part in the decision to resume the hostilities suspended by the '91 Safwan accords?

Quote:
Most would argue that the world is less safe today then before we attacked Iraq.


First, I doubt "Most" hold that point of view ... but then again, I could be wrong; there's often a disconnect between what generally is believed by many and what the facts show to be the case. Even if "Most" hold that view, they demonstrably would be wrong. The available evidence does not support that "Less Safe Now" point of view:

Quote:
Patterns of Global Terrorism -2003
Released by the Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism
April 29, 2004

The Year in Review


There were 190 acts of international terrorism in 2003, a slight decrease from the 198 attacks that occurred in 2002, and a drop of 45 percent from the level in 2001 of 346 attacks. The figure in 2003 represents the lowest annual total of international terrorist attacks since 1969.

A total of 307 persons were killed in the attacks of 2003, far fewer than the 725 killed during 2002. A total of 1,593 persons were wounded in the attacks that occurred in 2003, down from 2,013 persons wounded the year before.

In 2003, the highest number of attacks (70) and the highest casualty count (159 persons dead and 951 wounded) occurred in Asia.

There were 82 anti-US attacks in 2003, which is up slightly from the 77 attacks the previous year, and represents a 62-percent decrease from the 219 attacks recorded in 2001.


Pesky things, them facts.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 May, 2004 01:50 am
Well done, Timber
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 May, 2004 08:32 am
timber, Senator Diane Feinstein said that the Senate would not have approved the war in Iraq if they were not convinced by this administration of that fact that Saddam had WMDs. You may take that to mean anything you wish, but I can draw only one conclusion.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 May, 2004 09:53 am
Ya, me too. One conclusion: Senator Diane Feinstein doesn't like to admit that the same evidence the Whitehouse saw led the Senate to agree with Bush. Hillary said she stands by her vote to go to war because she knows the WMD exist, and is frightened by when and how they'll show up. Not if.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 May, 2004 09:40 pm
CI writes:
Quote:
timber, Senator Diane Feinstein said that the Senate would not have approved the war in Iraq if they were not convinced by this administration of that fact that Saddam had WMDs. You may take that to mean anything you wish, but I can draw only one conclusion.


Diane Feinstein, like so many partisan Democrats, was being 100% disingenuous with that statement. Must we post AGAIN all the testimony from leading Democrats in Congress and in the previous and present administrations who looked at all the evidence and came to the same conclusion re WMD as did the current administration? That these people are now accusing the Bush administration of 'misleading' them only confirms that a) they are morons incapable of thinking for themselves, or b) they are lying through their teeth out of political expediency.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 May, 2004 10:15 pm
Fox, I didn't say all democrats; I just mentioned senator Diane Feinstein, and what she said. Whether you wish to agree or disagree with her statement is of no concern to her or to me.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 May, 2004 10:19 pm
I know C.I. and I probably came off with a snit more strongly than I normally would. I just get so tired of the same old partisan lies from Feinstein and others who want so badly for the American people to believe that only George Bush said Saddam had WMD and he single handedly misled all the members of Congress.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/14/2024 at 11:19:55