1
   

OMG! Hell Just Froze Over!!!

 
 
Reply Mon 21 Aug, 2006 07:37 pm
CBS News in 2004

Quote:
After the president returned to the White House on Sept. 11, he and his top advisers, including Clarke, began holding meetings about how to respond and retaliate. As Clarke writes in his book, he expected the administration to focus its military response on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. He says he was surprised that the talk quickly turned to Iraq.

"Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said to Stahl. "And we all said ... no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.

"Initially, I thought when he said, 'There aren't enough targets in-- in Afghanistan,' I thought he was joking.

"I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection, but the CIA was sitting there, the FBI was sitting there, I was sitting there saying we've looked at this issue for years. For years we've looked and there's just no connection."

Clarke says he and CIA Director George Tenet told that to Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Clarke then tells Stahl of being pressured by Mr. Bush.

"The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this.' Now he never said, 'Make it up.' But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this.

"I said, 'Mr. President. We've done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There's no connection.'

"He came back at me and said, "Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report."

Clarke continued, "It was a serious look. We got together all the FBI experts, all the CIA experts. We wrote the report. We sent the report out to CIA and found FBI and said, 'Will you sign this report?' They all cleared the report. And we sent it up to the president and it got bounced by the National Security Advisor or Deputy. It got bounced and sent back saying, 'Wrong answer. ... Do it again.'

"I have no idea, to this day, if the president saw it, because after we did it again, it came to the same conclusion. And frankly, I don't think the people around the president show him memos like that. I don't think he sees memos that he doesn't-- wouldn't like the answer." ...

.....Clarke went on to add, "There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever."

When Stahl pointed out that some administration officials say it's still an open issue, Clarke responded, "Well, they'll say that until hell freezes over." --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Then, TODAY...

Quote:


No Shiiit! Of course no one said Iraq ORDERED 9/11. Stop stumblin' around mr. pResident.

Oh, and THANK YOU for finally admitting that Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11.

At least all those people in hell are finally getting some relief! Very Happy
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,493 • Replies: 63
No top replies

 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Aug, 2006 07:43 pm
TA pyeept a pyeepta pyeepta,a Thats all folks!
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Aug, 2006 08:34 pm
We did not go to war against Iraq
( the 2nd Gulf War )
because of what Saddam did in the past.

We went to war to prevent him
from doing what we feared he wud do to us in the future.
We accomplished our mission 3 years ago.



As of NOW, I think its a waste: just foreign aid.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Aug, 2006 10:37 pm
So many children left behind. You've just got to do something about your education system. Force students to stay in school until at least the fourth grade.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Aug, 2006 01:38 am
Stipulating that events disclosed Saddam's Iraq did not possess stockpiles of nor was engaged in the active production and/or development of WMD, the facts remain such were but components of the casii beli, and that willful Iraqi avoidance, obstruction, and deception of UN disarmament protocols was not merely instrumental in but was directly and proximately the cause of and fully justified suspicions to the contrary. The fact remains that apart from consideration of possession of WMD or of capabilities and activities related thereunto, Saddam's Iraq had been for 12 years in violation - "material breach" - of her obligations under the terms of the ceasefire agreed to pursuant to the Safwan Accords of 1991, despite a succession of increasingly stern of UN resolutions demanding Iraq cease her defiant intransigence and comply with her obligations. At no time was Iraq claimed to have had an operational role in the events of 9/11. Hostillities suspended in 1991 were resumed due to Iraq's continued failure to meet her obligations, including hostile action on the part of Iraq consisting of firing on aircraft engaged in enforcing UN authorized restrictions on Iraq's airspace usage, Iraq's refusal to fully and freely cooperate with the proscribed weapons sanction monitoring and enforcement, her continued repression of and brutality toward her own people, Iraq's harboring, aiding, and abbeting of persons and organizations known to be terrorist in aim and/or activity, all combined with Iraq's continued declared and demonstrated intentions toward certain of her neighbors and othe nations, including but not limited to Kuwait, with the consequent threat to the stability of a region vital to global peace and prosperity, rendered ongoing tollerance of Saddam's Iraqi regime no longer a viable option.

Saddam's Iraq did not comply with her disarmament obligations, actively hindered verification and enforcement of same, while developing and producing proscribed weapons delivery systems. Iraq openly supported terrorism. Iraq undertook direct hostile action against UN-authorized assets and personnel engaged in enforcement of UN requirements. Iraq threatened neighbors and other nations through word and deed. Iraq knowingly, willfully, and defiantly refused to abandon a course of actions which unambiguously were proscribed under pain of military action. The only connection ever made between Saddam's Iraq and the events of 9/11 was that those events made clear the unacceptably dangerous folly of permitting any such situation and circumstance to maintain. Saddam's Iraq and only Saddam's Iraq had it within her power to spare herself the resumption of hostillities suspended in 1991. Saddam's Iraq chose to not do so.

Look once more at "why we went to war with Iraq"

Quote:
Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
October 2, 2002





Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;


Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to


(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.


(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. --


(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS

(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).

(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.


Saddam's Iraq was not linked to the events of 9/11, Saddam's Iraq stood convicted of multiple, ongoing violations of terms and conditions imposed on pain of military intervention, violations which at once clearly identified Iraq as a state supporter of terrorism, a clear and present danger to the peace and stability of the region, and an unambiguous, by self-declaration as well as by deed, threat to the security and interests of The United States. Saddam's Iraq was given the warning, "Halt or I will shoot" more than a dozen times across as many years. Saddam's Iraq remained defiant, even in the face of an overwhelming military presence issuing the plainly stated final warning. Saddam's Iraq got herself shot.

Just as the WMD issue was but a component of the attack on Saddam's Iraq, that attack was but a component of the War on Terror, as currently are the Iraqi insurgency, the Afghani campaign, the Israel/Hezbollah/Hamas/Lebanon/Syria conflict, the attacks in Spain, Britain, and throughout the Pacific Rim, and as apparently will be Iran. Like it or not, war has a new face, and this is war, real war, World War. In real war, there is only one "exit strategy", and that is to decisively deprive one's enemy of the will, means, and capability to continue waging war.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Aug, 2006 07:35 am
Sorry, timber, major disagreements there.

First thing, I would question any single nations claims to be acting on behalf of the United Nations when the United Nations never have legitimized such action.
Imagine Iran or Syria would start bombing Israel, and state that all they were doing was acting on Israel's violation of UN resolutions.
Sorry, but that doesn't fly.

Then you are saying that "at no time was Iraq claimed to have had an operational role in the events of 9/11."

That's probably true. I will probably not be able to find a quote from someone in the adminstration saying "Iray had an operational role in the events in 9/11".


BUT I will be able to find numerous, numerous quotes when admin officials, including the Prez, bluntly invoked exactly that implication. Here, a snippet of the famous "Mission Accomplished" speech:

Quote:
The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001 and still goes on.

That terrible morning, 19 evil men, the shock troops of a hateful ideology, gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the beginning of the end of America.

By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation's resolve and force our retreat from the world.

They have failed.

In the battle of Afghanistan, we destroyed the Taliban, many terrorists and the camps where they trained. We continue to help the Afghan people lay roads, restore hospitals and educate all of their children.

Yet we also have dangerous work to complete. As I speak, a special operations task force lead by the 82nd Airborne is on the trail of the terrorists and those who seek to undermine the free government of Afghanistan.

America and our coalition will finish what we have begun.

From Pakistan to the Philippines to the Horn of Africa, we are hunting down Al Qaida killers.

Nineteen months ago I pledged that the terrorists would not escape the patient justice of the United States. And as of tonight nearly one half of Al Qaida's senior operatives have been captured or killed.

The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We have removed an ally of Al Qaida and cut off a source of terrorist funding.

And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Aug, 2006 10:27 am
Shrub has his war. He can tell the truth, now.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Aug, 2006 10:29 am
Timber, you're a pretty smart and open-minded conservative...

Are you seriously trying to tell us that you honestly believe that the war with Iraq was sold on its own merits and not on the back of 9/11?

That dog won't hunt....
0 Replies
 
blacksmithn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Aug, 2006 10:34 am
DrewDad wrote:
Shrub has his war. He can tell the truth, now.


Tell the truth now, roast in hell later. Assuming there is a hell for coldblooded arrogant liars.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Aug, 2006 11:20 am
No problem, OE - nothing there for which you should apologize. I acknowledge and accept that we don't agree.

I imagine you'll find unsurprising my disagreement with your assessment of the "Mission Accomplished" speech. You may read into it whatever you wish, however, what it said to me was that while one battle in a long, multi-front war, a war against a new kind of enemy, had been won, that enemy was far from defeated and the war which that enemy had thrust upon us continued and would continue untill that enemy had been rendered without the will, means, or ability to wage war against us.

What you see as unilateral action on the part of the US I see as the US putting its blood and treasure where the UN's mouth long had been. I see the UN as a fiction, an entity which by its inaction, ineptitude, and irresolve has delegitimized itself, made itself irrelevant, impeding global peace and stability, in fact enabling, even engendering, the terrorist threat facing today's world. As to "... any single nations claims to be acting on behalf of the United Nations ... I call to your attention that The US, as a distinct entity apart from the UN, and that Sadadam's Iraq, as a distict entity apart from the UN, were signatories, among others, to the Safwan Accords. The ceasefire, disarmament, and human rights obligations imposed thereby and likewise thereby acknowledged and accepted on the part of Saddam's Iraq were not met by Saddam's Iraq, irrespective of the UN. That those obligations might have been set out under the auspices of the UN is immaterial to the fact Saddam's Iraq, despite having signed the Safwan Accords, persisted in hostile word and deed, including but not limited to gunfire and missle launches, directed specifically against The US and/or US assets, personnel, and/or interests, thus abrogating the ceasefire terms by which hostilities had been suspended, thereby creating an ongoing circumstance of unjustified, illegal attack on The US, with consequent reopening of hostillities between those two parties to the Safwan Accords. In short, Saddam's Iraq did not, as obligated and agreed, lay down arms and cease hostilities against The US, but rather persisted in firing on US assets and/or personnel, thus nullifying the ceasefire agreement to which as individual entities Saddam's Iraq and The US were signatory parties; Saddam's Iraq by open, direct and willful action brought on itself the resumption of hostilities with The US.

You say " ... Imagine Iran or Syria would start bombing Israel, and state that all they were doing was acting on Israel's violation of UN resolutions.
Sorry, but that doesn't fly
". I submit that is a straw man, in that the UN resolutions pertinent thereto are not Chapter VII resolutions in the interest of securing unilateral compliance on the part of the sanctioned state with a demand or demands on pain of military action, but rather are Chapter VI resolutions, calling upon the parties affected to negotiate in good faith a resolution to the dispute(s) pertinent thereto or to submit to arbitration thereof. By no stretch of the imagination may one say the parties with which Israel is and has been in dispute have negotiated with Israel in good faith, nor have those parties sought, or even acknowledged, let alone accepted arbitration, regardless of any action on the part of Israel; their firing on Israel, whether directly or, as is the case, by proxy, would and does constitute an act of war perpetrated by those states on the state of Israel.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Aug, 2006 11:27 am
SCR 1440 made no provision for military action against Iraq for non-compliance, nor was non-compliance alleged by any competent official of the UN. Therefore, the invasion by the United States was an unprovoked act of war, for which no sanction by the United Nations can be alleged. Sauce for the goose, etc. . . .
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Aug, 2006 11:38 am
DrewDad wrote:
Timber, you're a pretty smart and open-minded conservative...

Are you seriously trying to tell us that you honestly believe that the war with Iraq was sold on its own merits and not on the back of 9/11?

That dog won't hunt....

Au contrere, mon frere, it is your dog that has strayed from the field. The events of 9/11 provided but catalyisis; they did not create the condition of hostilities between The US and Saddam's Iraq, they underscored the dire and urgent necessity of addressing and removing the clear and present danger of the ongoing and building threat posed by Saddam's Iraq in its association with and support of international terrorism. It is a fiction of those who for whatever reason are opposed to Bush and/or the US that the resumption of hostillities with Saddam's Iraq was in any other wise connected with the events of 9/11 - and a tedious, specious fiction at that.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Aug, 2006 11:49 am
Setanta wrote:
SCR 1440 made no provision for military action against Iraq for non-compliance, nor was non-compliance alleged by any competent official of the UN. Therefore, the invasion by the United States was an unprovoked act of war, for which no sanction by the United Nations can be alleged. Sauce for the goose, etc. . . .

Nonsense; as already severally mentioned, Saddam's Iraq materially, actively, and unilaterally abrogated the ceasefire terms pursuant to the Safwan Accords. Saddam's Iraq, irrespective of any UN resolution, persisted in open, armed hostilities directed specifically against US assets, personnel, and/or interests; the original Gulf War never ended, it merely was paused, and Saddam's Iraq, among numerous other related and unrelated casii beli, willfully and knowingly released that pause.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Aug, 2006 11:53 am
You're the one who is peddling nonsense. I was in error, but when i realized it, it was too late to edit my post. The relevant Security Council Resolution is SCR 1441 (dial-up users are warned that this is a PDF document, and may cause problems for them). Read it for yourself, at the very end, having listed its series of decisions regarding Iraq and the consequences of non-compliance with the inspections regime, the Security Council states that it has decided to "remain seized of the matter." In no portion of SCR 1441 is military action authorized.

Additionally, you ignore the point that UN inspectors subsequently stated that Iraq was complying with the inspections regime, and that they had found no evidence of womd or womd programs.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Aug, 2006 11:54 am
timberlandko wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
Timber, you're a pretty smart and open-minded conservative...

Are you seriously trying to tell us that you honestly believe that the war with Iraq was sold on its own merits and not on the back of 9/11?

That dog won't hunt....

Au contrere, mon frere, it is your dog that has strayed from the field. The events of 9/11 provided but catalyisis; they did not create the condition of hostilities between The US and Saddam's Iraq, they underscored the dire and urgent necessity of addressing and removing the clear and present danger of the ongoing and building threat posed by Saddam's Iraq in its association with and support of international terrorism. It is a fiction of those who for whatever reason are opposed to Bush and/or the US that the resumption of hostillities with Saddam's Iraq was in any other wise connected with the events of 9/11 - and a tedious, specious fiction at that.


Specious fiction? Apply that to Bush & Co.'s continual chant of Iraq/terrorism/9-11/Saddam Hussein.

Clear and present danger? Forsooth!

Destabalizing, perhaps, but hardly a clear and present danger to the US.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Aug, 2006 11:57 am
In addition to there not being any authority for military action in SCR 1441, subsequent presentations to the United Nations failed to secure UNSC support for military action in Iraq. The Big Bird is attempting to claim that SC Resolution 686 et sequitur which dealt with the Gulf War cease-fire authorized military action. Obviously, the Security Council did not agree with that analysis.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Aug, 2006 12:04 pm
Re: OMG! Hell Just Froze Over!!!
squinney wrote:

Bush never once said that Iraq had a direct connection to 9/11 - not once. He said repeatedly that Iraq might well still have WMD and/or WMD development programs, and based on the information available at the time, he was right. Had Saddam developed serious doomsday weapons, the world would have paid a terrible, terrible price.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Aug, 2006 12:07 pm
Re: OMG! Hell Just Froze Over!!!
Brandon9000 wrote:
Had Saddam developed serious doomsday weapons, the world would have paid a terrible, terrible price.


And you know this to be a fact because?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Aug, 2006 12:18 pm
Re: OMG! Hell Just Froze Over!!!
Setanta wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Had Saddam developed serious doomsday weapons, the world would have paid a terrible, terrible price.


And you know this to be a fact because?

Shall we start a thread on what would have been the likely consequences had Saddam Hussein obtained nuclear weapons or extremely potent bioweapons? Certainly there would have been many scenarios in which the world would have paid an awful price. What would WW2 have been like had Hitler developed these things and the means to use them effectively? No matter what differences you are about to list between SH and AH, they are/were both evil madmen bent on dominating their parts of the world (e.g. Hussein's annexation of Kuwait).
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Aug, 2006 12:22 pm
Pretty weak, Brandon. The Germans in the 1940s had access to chemical weapons and didn't use them. The term evil madman is meaningless in this context. In short, you are just articulating your inchoate fears, not any evidence to support your contention.
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
 
  1. Forums
  2. » OMG! Hell Just Froze Over!!!
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/19/2024 at 02:08:43