LOL!
She's a glutton for punishment... Just like the rest of us!
Joe Republican wrote:
As for the US economy, it's been stagnant for four years, do you want to see some graphs on the topics?
Where did you get that notion? We have enjoyed higher GDP growth rates and lower unemployment than any of the other G8 states for each of the last five years (or more). The U.S. GDP/capita is, by a very large margin, the highest in the world. There was a world wide recession beginning in late 1999. Ours was the softest and involved the least reductin in growth of all the G8 countries. We emerged from it more quickly and with higher growth rates than any of them as well.,
Quote:Have a little realism in your life and stop listening to Faux news, Hannity, Rush and O'Reiley, for they wouldn't know the truth if it cold cocked them across the face.
You don't know anything about what I read, watch or hear. Moreover you haven't demonstrated much ability to yourself know and understand the truth about even readily quantifyable matters such as economic growth rates. I think I'll pass on your advice.
You say that Bush doesn't have one speck of proof (of what???),
The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.
The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.
Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.
and that he is motivated by revenge (for what???).
These far-fetched assertions are not based on any verifiable fact or argument, and fly in the face of many contradictions. They aren't worthy of consideration.
There are other fairly cogent arguments that could be made against our intervention in Iraq. However, you haven't used them.
OK by me if you cling to your superficial prejudgements. However don't make the mistake of trying to sell them to thoughtful people who know the relevant history.
Bush went and attacked a country because he CLAIMED they had WMD's and that Saddam was involved in 9/11. Thousands of people have died and continue to die every single day because of this man, so I do believe he is the one who needs proof to back his claims. The fact that he doesn't have one speck of proof to warrent the killing of thousands of innocent people, is my proof that he lied.
Bush had it out for Saddam right from the get go and that couldn't have been more obvious. Revenge is the name of his game and it's scary to have such a dangerous man behind the wheel.
Montana wrote:Bush went and attacked a country because he CLAIMED they had WMD's and that Saddam was involved in 9/11. Thousands of people have died and continue to die every single day because of this man, so I do believe he is the one who needs proof to back his claims. The fact that he doesn't have one speck of proof to warrent the killing of thousands of innocent people, is my proof that he lied.
Bush had it out for Saddam right from the get go and that couldn't have been more obvious. Revenge is the name of his game and it's scary to have such a dangerous man behind the wheel.
Montana, Montana, Montana.
Bush did not claim Saddam was involved in 9/11 and therefore it is not incumbent upon him to prove that Saddam was involved in 9/11. Is this really that difficult a concept to grasp?
If you are so certain that Bush claimed Saddam was involved in 9/11 you should be able to produce a link to the quote(s) in which he made the claim. You can start by checking out all of the anti-Bush websites. Surely if he actually made this claim they will have proven it on their sites.
Yes, Bush did claim that Saddam had WMDs. So did most of the rest of the world. We know for a fact that he did at one time have WMDs, what we (and the rest of the world) apparently didn't know was that he was capable of the entirely irrational move of getting rid of them, but not letting anyone find out and thereby prevent the US from invading Iraq and taking him down.
In fact this is so irrational a move even for a madman like him that I remain unconvinced that he did not bury them somewhere in the vast Iraqi desert, or transport them to Syria. That's just my opinion though, and not one voiced by the Administration.
Claiming they had WMDs (when everyone else thought they did) is not lying unless Bush knew for a fact that there were no WMDs. This has not and will not be proven although I invite you to try.
It may be that Bush chose to play up the intelligence that told him they had WMDs and play down that intelligence that questioned that fact, but this is not lying, and no amount of exasperated caterwauling from you or others will make it so.
As george has already written, there were other reasons for invading Iraq. I accept that it was Bush's belief that if left to his own devices, by a world that just didn't seem to take his threat seriously, Saddam would have eventually put WMDs in the hands of terrorists. There is no document that proves that this is what he was planning to do, but all things considered, it was not at all a far fetched conclusion. The risk was too great to ignore.
Iraq was also invaded because the West needs a Democratic beachhead in the Middle East. Unfortunately Bush didn't emphasize this reason enough. Perhaps he felt that the voters were not sharp enough to appreciate strategic moves. Based on many of the posts seen in A2K one can understand such an assumption, but it was, nevertheless, a mistake on his part. Presidents should always trust the American people to understand the full reasoning behind their actions. They should not try and play to the lowest common denominator. I think the Bush Administration did, and I have criticized them for doing so, but this failing is a far cry from lying to America to enable an act of personal revenge. While it is quite possible that Bush was only too happy to take Saddam down, I don't believe for a second that personal emotions were the driving force behind his decision. You apparently do, but you also apparently tend to think and express yourself in a rather cartoonish fashion:
Way back on page two (I think), Finn wrote: "And while you are at it, provide us with some proof that Bush lied about WMDs as opposed to being mistaken. "
Mistaken?
Yes mistaken.
A president does not, theoretically, take his country to war unless he is SURE there is just cause. SURE. DEFINITE PROOF. American soldiers put their lives on the line for us, and all they ask is that their Commander-in-Chief never asks them to do so unless he/she absolutely has to. Unless he/she has proof that there is, for example, an "imminent threat". Bush had no such proof, obviously. Without this proof, he had no right to put young American men and women in harm's way.
Well, this is a different argument than "Bush lied about WMDs." Your argument that a president should never be mistaken about the reasons that support his decision to go to war, is unreasonable but not irrational.
Keep in mind that the Administration's argument (and those of its supporters) has been that there were other reasons to invade Iraq than simply his apparent refusal to disarm. You may not believe any of those reasons, but a coherent argument against Bush can't simply ignore them and focus on only what his critics choose to focus upon.
If we consider that invading Iraq was a stratgic move in the longer term War on Terror, then your rule that a President cannot be mistaken cannot possibly apply. No one can be certain that a strategic move will actually work.
I wonder how you feel in a position to speak for all of the men and women who are fighting for us in Iraq. From what I have heard and read, the majority support the decision to invade Iraq, even though WMDs have not been found.
If Bush was "unsure" about the existence of WMD's equivalent to an imminent threat to the US, he could have waited for the weapons inspectors to finish their work. They wanted one more month. Why was that not an option for Bush? If he had any doubt about the WMDs, why not wait?
You presuppose that Bush was not "sure."
Did he see the WMDs with his own eyes? No. Did he have an affadavit from Saddam that had WMDs in the basements of his palaces? No. Did he have essentially the same intelligence that they rest of the world had that led the rest of the world to believe Saddam had WMDs? Yes.
I never heard Bush say Iraq represented an "imminent" threat nor have I seen proof that he did. I did hear him say it was a "gathering" threat.
Imagine that you are the president of the US on 9/11 when your country is dealt the worst blow of its history. You see the people of your nation overwhelmed with grief and anger and fear. You see the economy of your nation bordering on collapse, and you know this was caused by less than 20 men flying four airplanes. You then imagine what would happen if the next attack involved a nuclear weapon or nerve gas or a plague. If, after 9/11, you were to assume that a worse attack could never happen and act accordingly, you would be guilty of criminal negligence. You look around the world and you see Iraq. A country that has had WMDs and used them. A country that has invaded it's neighbors and fired missles into the cities of our allies. A country ruled by a brutal madman who has repeatedly proven that he is capable of the most heinous of acts. Yes, a country that tried to have a former president (whether or not it was your father) assassinated because he foiled its attempt to gain control over the world's oil. A country whose leader had every reason to hate the US and want it destroyed. A country that was thumbing its nose at the collective will of the rest of the world for over a decade. A country which while not having clearly identifiable ties with al-Qaida was known to have supported other terrorist groups. A country that had tried to develop a nuclear weapon and would likely continue to try until stopped or until successful.
That you had serious misgivings about this country before 9/11 is logical, not evidence of some sinister design.
They wanted one more month for 11 years. Do you really believe that if the issue had not been resolved in another month that those asking for another month would have then gone along with war?
I and many others argue that the risk that Iraq posed and the fact that a reactive war would have been of no solace to any of the perhaps hundreds of thousands of people who died in an terrorist attack using WMDs supplied by Saddam, justified the action.
Clearly you disagree. Fair enough. But you and your confreres seem to want to insist upon distorting an opposing point of view into an insidious and diabolical creed, and that is going to far.
I'll tell you why. Because if he waited, the truth would have come out, and there would be no way to sell invasion to the American public. The WMDs had nothing to do with the invasion. They provided a convenient and seemingly plausible justification that the American people could and would buy, but they were never BUSH's reason for invading Iraq. The Bushies had planned to invade Iraq long before 911, and they made the mistake of thinking they could package 911 and Saddam and keep the truth (lack of connection) from coming out.
There you go again.
Well, the truth HAS come out.
NO WMDs.
NO IMMINENT THREAT.
NO JUSTIFICATION FOR PRE-EMPTIVE UNILATERAL INVASION.
Bush knew all this before he invaded Iraq. IMO, this constitutes a lie of despicable proportions.
Your argument is as flawed as Montana's. It is actually more spirited, but fervor doesn't insure validity...something that Liberals just can't seem to understand.
I never heard Bush say Iraq represented an "imminent" threat nor have I seen proof that he did. I did hear him say it was a "gathering" threat.
"There's no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States."
White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, 8/26/03
"We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
President Bush, 7/17/03
Iraq was "the most dangerous threat of our time."
White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03
"Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat...He was a threat. He's not a threat now."
President Bush, 7/2/03
"Absolutely."
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03
"We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended."
President Bush 4/24/03
"The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed."
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03
"It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and its threat to the region and the world is ended."
Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, 3/22/03
"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."
President Bush, 3/19/03
"The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations."
President Bush, 3/16/03
"This is about imminent threat."
White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03
Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies."
Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/31/03
Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world."
Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/03
Iraq "threatens the United States of America."
Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03
"Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03
"Well, of course he is."
White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question "is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?", 1/26/03
"Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction."
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03
"The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. ... Iraq is a threat, a real threat."
President Bush, 1/3/03
"The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."
President Bush, 11/23/02
"I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?"
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02
"Saddam Hussein is a threat to America."
President Bush, 11/3/02
"I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq."
President Bush, 11/1/02
"There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein."
President Bush, 10/28/02
"The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace."
President Bush, 10/16/02
"There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."
President Bush, 10/7/02
"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
President Bush, 10/2/02
"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."
President Bush, 10/2/02
"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
President Bush, 9/26/02
"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02
"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02
"Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness."
Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/29/02
It may be that Bush chose to play up the intelligence that told him they had WMDs and play down that intelligence that questioned that fact, but this is not lying, and no amount of exasperated caterwauling from you or others will make it so.
Iraq was also invaded because the West needs a Democratic beachhead in the Middle East. Unfortunately Bush didn't emphasize this reason enough. Perhaps he felt that the voters were not sharp enough to appreciate strategic moves.
The 90-page PNAC document from September 2000 says: "The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."
"Even should Saddam pass from the scene," the plan says U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain, despite domestic opposition in the Gulf states to the permanent stationing of U.S. troops. Iran, it says, "may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests as Iraq has."
A "core mission" for the transformed U.S. military is to "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars," according to the PNAC.
more...
I dont know about the credibility of this news source, but it is an interesting read regardless.
http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200410\SPE20041004a.html
