Bush accepts responsibility for war "based on faulty intel"

roverroad wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
Tell that to the 10 million Iraqis that voted yesterday.

You're overplaying that significantly. The person that's going to win is the person with the most protection from the US. All other candidates will end up dead if they win. These people voted when Saddam was president too, the only difference is that when Saddam ran he was the only one allowed on the ballot. In this election there are other names, but the US is going to get who they want. It's all a big show.

Tell that to the 10 million Iraqis that voted yesterday.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Tell that to the 10 million Iraqis that voted yesterday.

OK, typical republican, if you say it enough, it must be true. You are a true Bush supporter.

0 Replies

Quote:

Turnout is expected to be around 11 million.

It still won't be a fair election because 100,000 Iraqis didn't turn up.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Maggie Thatcher had actually warned Iraq that if they used CW,that she would respond with tactical (battlefield) nukes.

I know from the media that Baroness Thatcher has criticised Tony Blair for taking Britain to war in Iraq on the basis of flawed evidence about Saddam Hussein's weapons at her 80th birthday recently.

During Thatcher's government, in 1985 , a chemical plant (which the US sayid was a key component in Iraq's chemical warfare arsenal) was built by Britain.

When did she actually say what you quoted?

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Turnout is expected to be around 11 million. Source = ABC. More than 70%.

I know: expected. They are still counting according to Iraquian officials.

0 Replies

roverroad wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

Tell that to the 10 million Iraqis that voted yesterday.

OK, typical republican, if you say it enough, it must be true. You are a true Bush supporter.

Actually, I should have said: "Tell that to the 11 million Iraqis that voted yesterday."

0 Replies

squinney wrote:

What many people have said is that they want him to admit that he surrounds himself with "yes men" that don't want to upset him and only tell him what he wants to hear.

Didn't he pray? Didn't GOD tell him that invading Iraq was the right thing to do? At least that's what Bush wants the religious right to believe: That he, the president and commander-in-chief of the U.S.A., is GOD's "yes man."

Your other thread is directly on point. When his advisors mention that his agenda might conflict with the Constitution--he doesn't want to be bothered with the Constitution because it's just a goddamned piece of paper. What? Did GOD damn our Constition--our nation's foundation of freedom--to hell? Is God against freedom? If so, why did God tell Bush to invade Iraq to free the Iraqi people from Saddam's tyranny?

Who will God send to free us from Bush, his ilk, and the profit-hungry corporations that run this country? Why should Bush, et al., care about bankrupting our country and sending our children to be slaughtered in war under the guise of fighting for freedom overseas while our own freedoms at home are being curtailed? So long as the war profits are going into their pockets and their children are safe in ivy league schools preparing to be the next generation of country-raping leaders, they don't care. To them, the American people are simply useful idiots.

Maybe God won't send anyone to save us from "leaders" like Bush. Maybe we'll have to rely upon ourselves to secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity. The question is: Are we smart citizens or are we useful idiots?

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Betty Dawisha is a Bush hack who hasn't lived in Iraq for years. You can keep your fake optimism, thanks.

I wasn't referring to the war, however, but the idea that some intel lead us to believe that there was a threat from Iraq. There was no reliable intel that showed that; our main piece of intel was completely faked.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.

Cycloptichorn

We KNOW that Iraq had used WMD in the past.
We KNOW that they had WMD stockpiled berore Desert Storm.

Maggie Thatcher had actually warned Iraq that if they used CW,that she would respond with tactical (battlefield) nukes.

Part of the cease fire after Desert Storm was that they account for 100% of their WMD.
They never complied with that requirement.

Now,since they refused to comply,they effectively voided the terms of the cease fire.

So,what we did was continue the war to its conclusion.
Even the inspectors caid they could not account for all 100% of Iraq's WMD.

And,since he had used them before,what reason was there to believe that he wouldnt use them again?

Sure, I understand all that.

But part of the political process of approving the war was convincing the American people and their political representatives that Saddam was actually a threat to the American people. Otherwise, the vast majority of Americans would not have approved 'continuing the war to its conclusion.'

This was done by faking up a bunch of evidence that Saddam still had/was building WMD. The INC was used as a medium of transmitting this information. The prime informant was named 'curveball,' and he told a bunch of lies. And yes, Tico, this information was shared with the US Senate; it was the prime information that the Administration built it's case upon for the need to go to war immediately.

Remember that the US kicked weapons inspectors out of Iraq who were still looking for WMD; the rationale was that we couldn't wait for them to finish, because there was credible evidence that Saddam was an immediate threat. Remember the 'drone planes' and 'mobile WMD factories?' Neither of which existed.

It was no mistake that 'curveball' lied; he was brought in by Ahmed Chalabi, who was doing exactly what he was being paid to do.

An enterprise started with lies and deceit has a difficult time ending in an honorable fashion. But, hey; I challenge you. I really do. Don't take my word for it. Do your own research on the subject, please.

Cheers

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

Turnout is expected to be around 11 million. Source = ABC. More than 70%.

I know: expected. They are still counting according to Iraquian officials.

Yes ... thanks, Walter. I know they're still counting.

Thanks again.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Actually, I should have said: "Tell that to the 11 million Iraqis that voted yesterday."

Iraq, Population 26,074,906. You would think if it were such an important and legitimate election that there would be a better turn out. I know... Tell it to the 11 million Iraqis that voted yesterday...

0 Replies

freedom4free wrote:

Quote:

Turnout is expected to be around 11 million.

It still won't be a fair election because 100,000 Iraqis didn't turn up.

You sir, win, best comment of the week.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

freedom4free wrote:

Quote:

Turnout is expected to be around 11 million.

It still won't be a fair election because 100,000 Iraqis didn't turn up.

Using that logic, no election is ever "fair." After all, what about all those that died prior to the election?

I guess the Chicago elections would be fair, huh?

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

freedom4free wrote:
Quote:

Turnout is expected to be around 11 million.

It still won't be a fair election because 100,000 Iraqis didn't turn up.

You sir, win, best comment of the week.

Cycloptichorn

You need to raise your standards, Cyclops.

0 Replies

26 million citizens
15 million elegible voters
10-11 million turn out

us
276 million citizens
120 million turn out
hmmmmmmmm

0 Replies

Turnout ranged between 33 percent and 66 percent of eligible voters, I'd say it was somewhere in the middle. You would think that with what is being billed as such an important election that there would be a better turn out? Sounds like Iraqi's are smarter than you give them credit for.

0 Replies

ralpheb wrote:

26 million citizens
15 million elegible voters
10-11 million turn out

us
276 million citizens
120 million turn out
hmmmmmmmm

You're forgetting that they found truck loads of fake ballots. How many truck loads did they not find? I'd say the real number is probably about 6 million.

0 Replies

Of course you would.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
Maggie Thatcher had actually warned Iraq that if they used CW,that she would respond with tactical (battlefield) nukes.

I know from the media that Baroness Thatcher has criticised Tony Blair for taking Britain to war in Iraq on the basis of flawed evidence about Saddam Hussein's weapons at her 80th birthday recently.

During Thatcher's government, in 1985 , a chemical plant (which the US sayid was a key component in Iraq's chemical warfare arsenal) was built by Britain.

When did she actually say what you quoted?

During the first gulf war,according to "stars and stripes" newspaper,she was reported to have said this when the possibility of Iraq using WMD was raised.

0 Replies

freedom4free wrote:

Quote:

Turnout is expected to be around 11 million.

It still won't be a fair election because 100,000 Iraqis didn't turn up.

So,does that mean the US elections arent fair,because not every eligible voter votes?

Also,
Roverroad said...

Quote:

Iraq, Population 26,074,906. You would think if it were such an important and legitimate election that there would be a better turn out. I know... Tell it to the 11 million Iraqis that voted yesterday...

Now,deduct all the children that are not allowed to vote,deduct all those that for whatever reason CHOSE not to vote.
Now,deduct those that were ineligible to vote because of a legal cause (criminals,etc)

So,out of the 15 million that didnt vote,if you can subtract the numbers of people I mentioned,then that number is substantially smaller.

0 Replies

Mysterymna-- It would appear that the left will snatch at any absurdity to denigrate the most excellent election in Iraq.

They are wrong!

Various sources list eligible voters in Iraq from 12 million to 15 million.

See

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10003-2004Oct5.html

The Washington Post said that there were 12 Million Eligible voters in October 2004. Other sources say 15 Million. Even if we take 15 Million as the correct figure( and I am sure there will be more information on this in the next month or so) that means that eleven fifteenths of the nation's eligible voters went to the polls or, to put it as a percentage--about 73%. That compares VERY FAVORABLY WITH OUR 50% TURNOUT.

The left, as usual, do not have the facts.

0 Replies

Bush accepts responsibility for war "based on faulty intel"

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know