• Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
  • Hello all! We will be performing a website & forum update soon. You may get logged out so now is the time to make sure your email address in your account is correct - go to your account to check it and update it now. Send us a message with your username and/or email address if you need help.

Surge is a Success!!

New posts
Nice avoidance.

You bring this up every single time. Why should I keep answering it?

Scooterbug,
I don't know why you are having so much trouble wrapping your mind around this, but Bush never said we invaded because Hussein was involved in 9/11. You said he said that. You've yet to point me to where he did. I gave you two books that might help you actually add something to the conversation, or at least prevent you from completely sounding like an idiot at the next cocktail party, but you said because I posted it, it must be skewed so it wasn't worth reading. I replied that one was written by the liberal hero who broke Watergate and on the NYT best seller list for a month and a half and the other was recommended by a liberal magazine. That's when you trailed off the board to talk about things that don't require as much mental activity.
 
You bring this up every single time. Why should I keep answering it?

Scooterbug,
I don't know why you are having so much trouble wrapping your mind around this, but Bush never said we invaded because Hussein was involved in 9/11. You said he said that. You've yet to point me to where he did. I gave you two books that might help you actually add something to the conversation, or at least prevent you from completely sounding like an idiot at the next cocktail party, but you said because I posted it, it must be skewed so it wasn't worth reading. I replied that one was written by the liberal hero who broke Watergate and on the NYT best seller list for a month and a half and the other was recommended by a liberal magazine. That's when you trailed off the board to talk about things that don't require as much mental activity.

I can't think of anything requiring less mental activity than having a discussion with you. I think it kills more brain cells than alcohol consumption!
 
I can't think of anything requiring less mental activity than having a discussion with you. I think it kills more brain cells than alcohol consumption!

OK. I'll make it easy. Where did Bush lie about WMDs? Before you answer that, look up the definition of "lie". Second, when did Bush say that Hussein was involved in 9/11. I hear this all the time, so a simple Google search should come up with examples fairly easy.
 
lie
Pronunciation: (lī), [key]
—n., v., lied, ly•ing.
—n.
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture
3. an inaccurate or false statement.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them, a CIA report concludes.
In fact, the long-awaited report, authored by Charles Duelfer, who advises the director of central intelligence on Iraqi weapons, says Iraq's WMD program was essentially destroyed in 1991 and Saddam ended Iraq's nuclear program after the 1991 Gulf War.
The Iraq Survey Group report, released Wednesday, is 1,200 to 1,500 pages long.

President Bush strode onto a stage in Cincinnati and told the audience that Saddam Hussein's Iraq "possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons" and "is seeking nuclear weapons."
"The danger is already significant and it only grows worse with time," Bush said in the speech delivered October 7, 2002. "If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?"
Speaking on the campaign trail in Pennsylvania, Bush maintained Wednesday that the war was the right thing to do and that Iraq stood out as a place where terrorists might get weapons of mass destruction.
"There was a risk, a real risk, that Saddam Hussein would pass weapons or materials or information to terrorist networks, and in the world after September the 11th, that was a risk we could not afford to take," Bush said.
But Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, seized on the report as political ammunition against the Bush administration.
"Despite the efforts to focus on Saddam's desires and intentions, the bottom line is Iraq did not have either weapon stockpiles or active production capabilities at the time of the war," Rockefeller said in a press release.
"The report does further document Saddam's attempts to deceive the world and get out from under the sanctions, but the fact remains, the sanctions combined with inspections were working and Saddam was restrained."

Presidential statements, particularly on matters of national security, are held to an expectation of the highest standard of truthfulness. A president cannot stretch, twist or distort facts and get away with it. President Lyndon Johnson's distortions of the truth about Vietnam forced him to stand down from reelection. President Richard Nixon's false statements about Watergate forced his resignation.

Bush's statements, in chronological order, were:

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons." United Nations address, September 12, 2002

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."-Radio address, October 5, 2002

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."

"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."-Cincinnati, Ohio speech, October 7, 2002

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."-State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." Address to the nation, March 17, 2003
 
Last edited:
It's interesting to me UT that Iran is frequently tossed out as the boogeyman by those opposed to US actions in Iraq. Most of the Iranians I know personally are intelligent and moderate. Clearly, there are radical elements in the leadership that the US is trying to isolate without military force. Might it be that a moderate shia dominated Iraq would help to empower those same forces in Iran? The status quo was hardly acceptable. Time will tell if the alternative is better. By the way, it's hard to be hawkish when you have children.
 
You bring this up every single time. Why should I keep answering it?

I have never posed this question actually. And clearly you should avoid it because it creates so many difficulties for the pro-Bush position in Iraq.

Your silence is telling.

Are you hanging your support on Bush?s policies on a narrowly defined set of accomplishments or are you willing to consider the greater context?

It is a very simple question.
 
It's interesting to me UT that Iran is frequently tossed out as the boogeyman by those opposed to US actions in Iraq. Most of the Iranians I know personally are intelligent and moderate. Clearly, there are radical elements in the leadership that the US is trying to isolate without military force. Might it be that a moderate shia dominated Iraq would help to empower those same forces in Iran? The status quo was hardly acceptable. Time will tell if the alternative is better. By the way, it's hard to be hawkish when you have children.

I?m guessing most of the Iranians you know are living in or visiting the US. Then I am not surprised that you find them to be intelligent and moderate.

However, I would never label any element in Iraq as the ?boogieman? as I am not inclined to over-hype or dramatize any of the hurdles to be overcome as the reality is scary enough without embellishment.

And to address your question about a ?moderate? Shia government in Iraq helping to influence Iran, I think that you will need to define ?moderate?. Pro-American I assume? I think you have a way to go before we can conclude that there is any reasonable chance of seeing a ?moderate? Shia government in Iraq. Regardless, I think you will need to consider the role that a Shia Crescent would have on de-stabilizing the existing Sunni dominated US allies in the region. Anyone want to discuss a new Mid-East arms race?

Now lets turn to the un-answered, and highly relevant questions that I first posed:

1) Does a democratic Iraq, with an anti-American government still constitute a ?victory? for Bush?s policies in your opinion?

2) I have agreed that a pro-Western stable, democratic Iraq would constitute a ?victory? for Bush?s policies. Quid pro Quo- What would defeat in Iraq be?
 
Scooter,
You miss intent. That's the whole freaking point. Are you telling me that pretty much every other intelligence service in the world was lying? What about every Senate democrat that opened his or her mouth at the time, where they lying?
 
I have never posed this question actually. And clearly you should avoid it because it creates so many difficulties for the pro-Bush position in Iraq.

Your silence is telling.

Are you hanging your support on Bush?s policies on a narrowly defined set of accomplishments or are you willing to consider the greater context?

It is a very simple question.

It does not create difficulties to answer, it is just a completely asinine question, but I wouldn't expect less from you. You try to boil down the pro-war position to two things, while you proclaim brilliance and nuance and want to look at every thing in hindsight for your position.

I'm open to movement on Iran, but I don't think it's necessary because they have a populace ready to do so. The economy in Iran is slowing right now, and economic sanctions would help push a revolution. But, you have a limp wristed UN with conflicting interests on the Security Council, so you won't ever get sanctions. If you'll remember, we tried letting the populace do that with Iraq, remember?

YouTube - Al Gore Criticizing Bush 41 on Iraq in 1992

See, one of the things about not being taken seriously, and not being in power, is you don't have to be consistent, you don't have to be responsible, and you don't have to face consequences for your previous statements, speaches or policies.
 
It does not create difficulties to answer, it is just a completely asinine question, but I wouldn't expect less from you. You try to boil down the pro-war position to two things, while you proclaim brilliance and nuance and want to look at every thing in hindsight for your position.
.

More avoidance, on your part.

If you will notice, I have been very careful to ask you to explain your position so as not to be charged with the exact thing you are now claiming.

The following quote: ?Long term, if we achieve what we set out to accomplish, the US will benefit. We set out to depose Hussein and foster some sort of representative government that would be less likely to fund and harbor terrorists.? Is your language, not mine.


You have flatly stated a support for Bush?s policies based on a very narrow set of achievements, I am merely asking you if this is your position or are you prepared to consider the greater context.

Explain your position.
 
New posts


Sign Up for SoWal Newsletter












                               
Back
Top