THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

ehBeth wrote:

Poor Mr. Powell. He hasn't had a good time of it.

Neither has poor Mr. Kerry.

0 Replies

Ican, are you gonna regurge the old pellet that Bush 'only spoke 16 words on wMDs" in his SOU speech in 03/
The single most marketed and hard pressed reason for war WAS INDEED WMDs (whether you try to revise that fact or not).Bushs cronies , all of em, Cheney, Powell, Rice , Wolfy,Ashcroft and Rumsfeld, all spoke loud and often about WMDs, so I must think that they talked abaout this position in advance.
I must say however,, Im disappointed at John Kerry for even hinting that absent good hard WMD evidence, he would have still voted to give the president the authority to use the force option. By doing so hes gotten the Borgs of the right to , in unison say "SEE HES JUST BUSH LIGHT"
when really, the subltety of his statement was purposely missed by most of the newscasters on the GOP payroll. Kerry is guilty of mischoosing his words on this point. I wouldnt have left a dangling sound bite.

Your news post of the tenuous Iraqi -al Qaeda network is a laugher. By all the credible, but disjointed data presented, youd think that we really should be making a similar list on Saudi Arabia for, after all, al qaeda had its founder and many of the Maddrasses that serve as a " minor league network" located in Saudi Arabia

0 Replies

by the way, you Powell quotes prior to ehbeth, were made about the same time he was stumping for the WMD case in front of the UN.
That was the true war reason. Now , you, like all the others of the "body" are scurrying about trying to dig up other cases for justifying pre emptive wars.

I love the Oreilly/Krugman smackdown on the subject on Russerts ahow sunday. Even Oreilly , admitted that the whole war is a cluster F***.

0 Replies

Quote:

Poor Mr. Powell.
He hasn't had a good time of it.

ehbeth

0 Replies

Here's an interesting article about the Bush campaign trail, interesting but troubling: this is about dismantling of democracy in the USA, by the man who boasts of bringing democracy to Iraq.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/comment/story/0,14259,1286212,00.html

McT

0 Replies

Thanks for posting that, McTag. That is troubling indeed. Some of the tactics seem to promote some sort of twisted personality cult. A thief cannot earnestly tell a murderer how to live a good life.

0 Replies

And, before the Bush-cultists arrive, I was speaking metaphorically, not suggesting that the precious Leader was convicted as a thief.

0 Replies

This has been noticed for a while over here. When someone does manage to get into one of these events (which are usually paid admission affairs) and asks an embarrassing question, they are escorted out by campaign staff. At one rally, a couple were arrested for "tresspassing." As this sort of flim-flam is credible only to the gullible, who are likely going to vote for the Shrub in any event, i'm not sure that it will have any significance in the vote. The boy still has to run on his record.

0 Replies

CNN Breaking news

Quote:

Sounds of intense fighting around the Imam Ali mosque in Najaf, Iraq, CNN Producer Kianne Sadeq reports. Details soon.

well, well, that's the would-be disarm the militas...

0 Replies

Great article McTag!

My favorite, and the most telling, part:

Quote:

But, according to the Washington Post, for the last two years he has uttered the elusive Osama bin Laden's name only 10 times, and "on six of those occasions it was because he was asked a direct question ... Not once during that period has he talked about Bin Laden at any length, or said anything substantive". At Ask President Bush events, he mentions 9/11 only to raise the threat of Saddam.

This shows you just how wrong this man's priorities are. It is f*cking ridiculous.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

The Saudis don't like it when he says "bin Laden."

0 Replies

OFFER OF COMPROMISE

Let's assume that Bush's motives for authorizing the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions were bad or evil. No one, not even Bush himself, can prove that Bush's motives were otherwise. Of course, No one, not even Bush himself, can prove that Bush's motives were bad or evil. So there is no danger that this assumption will be refuted.

Next, having made thist assumption, let us ask ourselves if there are sufficiently good reasons for invading Afghanistan and Iraq.

ALLEGATIONS

Some among us allege:
1. In 1998 Al Qaeda declared war against all Americans;
2. Al Qaeda perpetrated 9/11;
3. The Taliban while in control of Afghanistan sheltered al Qaeda in Afghanistan;
4. The Baathists while in control of Iraq sheltered al Qaeda in Iraq.

All four of these allegations are supported by Colin Powell's allegations, by George Bush's allegations, by the 9/11 Commission's allegations, and by the Senate Intelligence Committee's allegations. Verification that each of these allegations were actually made by the sources alleged is easily obtained by simple web searches.

QUESTIONS

Did the US do the right thing when it invaded Afganistan and removed the Taliban, and ended the sheltering of al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and killed al Qaeda in Afghanistan?

Did the US do the right thing when it invaded Iraq and removed the Baathist government, and ended the sheltering of al Qaeda in Iraq, and killed al Qaeda in Iraq?

If no for either, why no?

If yes for either, why yes?

If yes for either, why not yes for both?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

....As this sort of flim-flam is credible only to the gullible, who are likely going to vote for the Shrub in any event, i'm not sure that it will have any significance in the vote. The boy still has to run on his record.

I'm not so sure about that, although I wish it were so. Remember they were trying to promote Dan Quayle at one time, a man who if brains were dynamite, would not have enough to blow his hat off. They just need someone who looks pleasant on TV, then the spinmeisters and the speechwriters can do the rest.
Wasn't there once a competition on one TV station, to decide between Gore and Bush which one you would rather share a cab with?

In trivia such as this the floating vote may lie.

0 Replies

Quote:

4. The Baathists while in control of Iraq sheltered al Qaeda in Iraq.

You were doing so well up until this point, Icann.

Note that this is not a request for you to provide reams of 'evidence' that #4 is true. I've read them before, and I don't agree with your logic.

So, on to the questions.

Quote:

Did the US do the right thing when it invaded Afganistan and removed the Taliban, and ended the sheltering of al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and killed al Qaeda in Afghanistan?

Um, yes and no. Yes because it was a good thing to go in there and clean up the obviously pro-Bin Laden gov't. No becuase we didn't stick around long enough to see the job done, and now the Taliban is resurging across Afghanistan, Opium production is WAY up, and the U.S. is streched too thin to effectively police the place. So this one is good and bad.

Quote:

Did the US do the right thing when it invaded Iraq and removed the Baathist government, and ended the sheltering of al Qaeda in Iraq, and killed al Qaeda in Iraq?

No. The U.S. did not. For two reasons:

1. The admin felt it was neccessary to lie to the U.S. people (don't you dare argue with me on this one, we've all gone round and round enough on it) in order to garner support for an expensive, preemptive assualt on a soveirgn nation. That is categorically wrong.

2. Your statement 'ended the sheltering of Al Qaeda in Iraq' is disingenuous, as there was no real 'sheltering' going on. You are attmepting to equate the situation in Afghanistan with the one in Iraq, and they are completely different.

Our focus has completely dropped off of OBL. Hell, Bush has only mentioned his name 10 times in the last 2 years, and 6 of those instances were in response to a direct question about him. It's pretty obvious that Bush doesn't give a damn about catching Bin Laden - there's no money in it, after all.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Ican, we now know there was an intention by right-wing colleagues close to the President to invade Iraq before the events of 9-11.
We know that the President jumped gleefully at the opportunity 9-11 had given them. He called it his trifecta.
We know that 9-11 was not planned nor financed by Iraquis, but mysteriously, Iraq was the target. It had been pre-selected.
We know that both the US and the UK leaders lied to their governments and their people about the reasons for wanting to invade Iraq.
We know that Iraq posed no credible threat to the USA or to the UK.

These facts by my reasoning amount to the invasion being a crime, a very large crime.

0 Replies

Your facts are mostly speculation.

0 Replies

No, they are not. C'mon, you can do better than that...

or were you talking to Icann?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

What do you mean they are not?

The president jumped gleefully after 9/11?
Neither Bush nor Blair lied.
Iraq was preselected?
Iraq posed no threat?

Please. This is all speculation and hindsight.

0 Replies

Quote:

The president jumped gleefully after 9/11?

No, but he saw the opportunity to forward the strategies his administration wanted to.

Quote:

Neither Bush nor Blair lied.

Bull F*cking Sh*t. I guess we agree to disagree on this one, but your ability to be lead around by the nose like one of the sheep is really astonishing, McG.

Quote:

Iraq was preselected?

Plenty of good targets in Iraq, remember? The goal of the neocons has been to go to war there, has been since before 9/11 even happened, and you know it. www.newamericancentury.org

Quote:

Iraq posed no threat?

Not to the U.S., it didn't. A lot of us realized it at the time. Now the facts have completely bourne us out. That's not hindsight, it's called being right in the first place.

Sheesh.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Ican, are you gonna regurge the old pellet that Bush 'only spoke 16 words on wMDs" in his SOU speech in 03/

No!

farmerman wrote:

The single most marketed and hard pressed reason for war WAS INDEED WMDs (whether you try to revise that fact or not).Bushs cronies , all of em, Cheney, Powell, Rice , Wolfy,Ashcroft and Rumsfeld, all spoke loud and often about WMDs, so I must think that they talked abaout this position in advance.

True!

However, I never bought it as the primary reason, despite all that stuff. All of my acquaintences which include many aviators never bought it as the primary reason, despite all that stuff to the contrary. Yes, not withstanding all that intense propaganda by the news media and politicians, we dared disagree. We dared think for ourselves. We dared not treat the media and politicians as if they were clerics who would excommunicate us for failure to buy their polemics.

We all kept recalling to ourselves and each other that it took only 19 al Qaeda, without any WMD or even fire arms or explosives, to kill almost 3000 on 9/11/2001 in New York, in Washinton D.C. and in a Pennsylvanian pasture. We all kept asking ourselves and each other: How many al Qaeda would it take to do the same thing in Houston, Dallas, El Paso, San Antonio, San Angelo, Midland, Abilene and Austin? Yes, we all kept thinking that the primary reason for invading Afghanistan and Iraq was "to take out the al Qaeda there." As far as we are concerned, news media pontiff-pretenders and politician pontiff-pretenders are no more reliable than a three dollar bill (using polite language).

farmerman wrote:

Your news post of the tenuous Iraqi -al Qaeda network is a laugher. By all the credible, but disjointed data presented, youd think that we really should be making a similar list on Saudi Arabia for, after all, al qaeda had its founder and many of the Maddrasses that serve as a " minor league network" located in Saudi Arabia

Yes, we must also "take out" the al Qaeda being sheltered in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Syria. We want them all taken out whereever they can be found, including those hiding in the US. Afghanistan was first, Iraq was second, and, when finished there, we hope we will have elected a president who will next turn his attention to at least one of those other al Qaeda locations I listed.

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know