JH, I've said many times that my belief was that Iraq was not in complyance with UN resolutions regarding WMD. Why would be hesitant to say Clinton hasn't lied to the public. Of course he has. Did he lie about Iraq and how much of a threat they were? Perhaps, I certainly wouldn't rule that out. So I don't really have a problem believing Clinton lied about it, though I don't have the proof that he did lie about it, like we do about Bush. We know that Bush claimed he had report stating that Iraq was six months away from a nuke. We learned that said report actually never existed. We know that Bush then said he made a mistake and meant an earlier report. Then we learned that the earlier report never existed either. On Bush's third attempt to explain it, he said that he meant the IISS report. It turned out that the IISS report wasn't even released until AFTER Bush's initial claim of a report. It's been proven that Buhs Lied. Bush lying about that does not mean that Iraq was in compliance regarding WMD. It does mean that our President lied to us.
FB, our discussion about this matter is over. We will obviously never convince eachother of anything. If you feel comfortable arriving at an unique conclusion, then what can I say? You are the ONLY person I have ever heard that espouses your particular theory, so knock yourself out, lol.
Gee, I would feel bad about your attempt to be condescending, but I just don't feel that intimidated. I almost feel sorry for you instead. Yeah, yeah. The compasionate Liberals who care so much about freedom and civil rights are up in arms because a Dictator's right to oppress his people has been threatened. The "sovereignty" argument is absolutely disgusting. Saddam has as much right to rule a country as Hitler, Stalin, or any other murderous dictator- NONE. Congress voted overwhelmingly to give the President the authority to attack Iraq because, as Congress INCLUDING A LARGE MAJORITY OF DEMOCRATS VOTED, Iraq possessed illegal WMD, Iraq was a threat to America, and Iraq has Al Queda ties. Spin away idiot boy, but you can't change these facts. I story that you quoted concerning Powell was refuted BY POWELL. Your credibility is ZERO, so go complain to somebody else because your opinion is dirt to me.
? It was? I remember him making generic statements after the story broke such as "we were sure therew were WMD's, anything otherwise is silly, blah blah blah", but I don't recall anything in the line of a direct refutation of the hotel room story. Link or quote me one if there is, lest your credibility become "ZERO" if not....
Heres the statement,,he didnt mention the hotel room story because its pure BS. http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/arms/03061222.htm Question: If you can go to Iraq for a minute. The case you made at the UN centered around actual weapons, actual chemicals that Iraq was thought to have. And now it seems in defending the military action in Iraq, the emphasis is on a weapons programs, why that rhetorical shift? Secretary Powell: First of all, if you go back and read my transcript of my presentation, you will see that I spoke to all elements. I spoke to the presence of weapons. I also spoke to gaps in knowledge, what previous inspections said they might have and did have and what happened to it. Where is it now? And we also talked about programs, so we were interested in all aspects of it. The biological weapons labs that we believe strongly are biological weapons labs, we didn't find any biological weapons with those labs. But should that give us any comfort? Not at all. Those were labs that could produce biological weapons whenever Saddam Hussein might have wanted to have a biological weapons inventory. So I think you have to look at both, the weapons themselves and the exploitation efforts that we have underway are going continue. And we are going to look at every part of that country, every bunker that we can get into, every bunker we find. And we are going to examine all of the documents. And we are going to conduct interviews that will lead us, not only, we believe, to weapons that still exist, but to the programs themselves, we want to find and rip up weapons and programs, and want to make sure we know what intelligence exists within Iraqi society. There are nuclear scientists there. Saddam Hussein kept them together so that if the opportunity presented itself, he could recreate a nuclear program. We want to make sure those scientists are no longer kept together in a cell, a cell of scientists working together, but that they go on and find other things to do with the information they have inside of their head and with their intelligence. Question: But it doesn't seem that anyone wants to actually say right now that they are confident there were actual weapons in Iraq. Secretary Powell: We believe there were weapons in Iraq. We have solid judgment of the intelligence community behind us. And we believe in due course, when the exploitation is completed -- by exploitation I mean sending in the large team that is prepared to go in now, some 1,300 people -- when their work is done, the world will see what we were talking about. Question: The credibility cliché that somehow credibility has been damaged, U.S. credibility? Secretary Powell: I don't think so. I think our credibility is intact. I think that we will be able to demonstrate convincingly through the mobile labs, through documentation, through interviews, through what we find, that we knew what we were speaking about. But let's go back a little further. It is not just the United States that made a claim on the 5th of February, when I made my presentation. Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, used weapons of mass destruction. It was documented over a period of many years. At the end of the first Gulf War in '91, we found weapons of mass destruction and destroyed those we found. As late as 1998, there was no question in anyone's mind. President Clinton spoke out forcefully. His intelligence leaders, his Director of Central Intelligence said that there were weapons. Other intelligence organizations in other countries have said so, so this isn't a figment of somebody's imagination. This isn't something that was overblown or made up in the basement of the CIA late one night. These were real weapons and real programs that Saddam Hussein refused to come forward and explain to the world. And if he didn't have weapons of mass destruction, it would have been an easy thing for him to make an honest declaration after 1441 resolution was passed. And it would have been easy for him to come forward and say, "Here, go anywhere, any time, any place, I'll provide anything you want" as opposed to continuing these deception efforts. If he didn't have weapons of mass destruction or the capability to produce them, on the 6th of February, you tell me why, after watching me make this presentation and go on at some length about this van that we had never seen, but we believe existed, why didn't he come out the next day, pull that thing out in front of the whole world press corps and say, "Powell doesn't know what he is talking about. Here it is and we use it to make hydrogen gas for birthday balloons or weather balloons." He didn't do that. He kept it hidden. He brought back -- he brought out all kinds of other vans to try to deceive us, but this van was kept hidden. Why? Do you want to give Saddam Hussein the benefit of the doubt? Well, we didn't, and now we don't have to worry about it anymore. We don't have to worry about those weapons of mass destruction because Iraq has been liberated and the Iraqi people are free.
To put it more accurately, he didn't say that the hotel room story WAS pure BS; in other words, he didn't confirm or deny it as heathy claimed.
I've heard plenty of others come to the same conclusion, and I've used and posted evidence backing my conclusion. That evidence comes from articles where other people who've also looked at the evidence come to the same conclusion. Even Treeman abandoned argument when presented with total facts about Bush lying concerning the Nuclear Report the President claimed to have.
I have a couple of questions for you guys.. What do you think Saddam was going to do with it? Do you think he was just going to let it sit there forever? What should we have done, waited to have a dirty bomb go off in downtown Los Angeles? Come on, the guy was clearly an enemy of the USA, and would have helped terrorists in their fight against us. That in my mind makes him an IMMENENT threat. I am thankful that we have people of action in power and not people who will sit idly by as a punching bag. I guarantee the rest of the world has taken notice that we will not tolerate being a target....... Good for us. DD
DD, your post hoc rationalizations about imminence aside, I agree that they have taken notice, I disagree that such notice has done anything but strengthen the resolve of our fanatical, irrational enemies and create more of them in the process. Every time a news report, whether it be real, false, exaggerated, whatever, is broadcast of Americans killing muslims to poor, disgruntled muslims around the world, you amplify the threat. Sure, this might keep us safe from the possibility of Iraq reconstituting its inactive nuclear program (that they apparently didn't even work on even when there weren't any inspectors in the country), but is it going to stop a pissed off Saudi from dirty bombing LA in 2007? You're aboslutely delusional if you think otherwise.
SamFisher, You are kidding right, what are you saying, that it is better to sit idly by and let people punch us consistently in the face? WTF are you smoking if you think that more people hate us today then before....BS. The difference is that more governments are cooperating, and are more willing to listen to the US when it talks. Same thing back in the day before Reagan took office...Iran defied that wimp Carter and the day before Reagan took office they cowered and released the hostages. I for one am happy that there are fewer countries that terrorists can assemble and be supported by the government. Times have changed.....you are with the civilized world or against us. Technology has put the power to kill multiple people in one lunatics hands....and the world has to band together to stop it....glad the USA is taking a leadership role in this, and glad to protect the backs of people that are pissing and moaning about the USA and making more people mad at us. Guess, what? They were mad already, well, now they are scared too. Good for us. DD
You need to do some research on that statement--you are way off, as most of your recent posts have been.
under... Whatever dude.....you don't like em, don't read em. Good thing the majority of Americans happen to agree with me. We still have your back. DD
Sure, DD, right on, that's exactly what I think. This is the kind of crap that happens all the time on this BBS, Black and white, either-or tunnel vision. Ex. "You are against war in Iraq; therefore you think we should be terrorized; You criticized israel, therefore you support Hamas". Sorry, the world doesn't work that way, there's more than just two possible solutions to every problem DD, have you read any of the stuff that the international press has written about Iraq? Let me tell you, it's a little different from what you read in the Chronicle. In addition, most polls(i don't have time to link to them), for whatever their worth, indicate that international opinion of us, even in countries that don't hate us, has gone WAY down since the war. Why do you think the "coalition" of the Willing was 2 countries? That's awful for a couple of reasons, one it gives the fanatics more motivation and makes new recruits more sypathetic. Two, it keeps our so-so friends and neutrals from wanting to help us as much. Guess what: the FBI's jurisdiction doesn't extend to France or Germany or Indonesia or Pakistan, where the majority of terrorist rings are broken up. The squandering of int'l political capital from 9-11 against terror by the cowboy way that Rummy, Wolfy and co. approached Iraq is truly tragic. There are French and German troops fighting and dying in Afghanistan as we speak right now, for you and me. Think they're going to help us out again anytime soon after a year of browbeating? think again. You mean the infamous october surprise? yeah, that's a good one. If you mean "fear" as in "feared that the Reagan Admin wouldn't send them the arms that they promised to sell them in exchange for the release of the hostages", you're right, but that's a separate can of worms:http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1992_cr/h920205-october-clips.htm Really? Even assuming that anarchic Iraq is now less safe for terrorists, is this tradeoff worth the fact that more terrorists will be created in the long run? I say not. Besides, terrorists can congregate in Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Florida anyway it. That line might go over well in Cairo Illinois, but not in Cairo Egypt. WHich one are you more worried about? How can you be scared when you are either suicidal and/or have nothing to lose? Scared of what? dying? poverty? They were mad, and now millions more have been and will be driven over to their side. Do you know who Mohammed Al Doury was? He is a household name in the Arabic world. He was a palestinian kid, caught in a shootout near the beginning of the recent intifada. It was captured live on video and broadcast around the world, now most arabic cities have named streets after him. The funny thing is, later independent forensic investigations indicate that he wasn't even shot by Israelis, he had to have been shot by the Palestinians. Unfortunately, by the time this was realized, he was already on postage stamps across the arabic world. DD, perception is everything.
OK, I wasn't paying too much attention to this forum for a while... but can other posters refresh my memory? Is johnheath really this stupid? Anyone? Is he just a character that espouses nonsense just to entertain himself? I don't think I've ever met anyone that honestly believes that Iraq had ties to al Qaeda... this is awesome. Can you send a photo of yourself to me johnheath? My sister has an image problem. Maybe if she put your photo up on the refrigerator, she could remind herself that there are tons of people that are worse off than she will ever be.
Thanks johnheath, but do you have a photo of yourself properly clothed? She's a woman, but she's still my sister.
The world does not fear our military----This is what the world fears, especially the middle east--mullets.
Ad hominem attacks seem pretty standard now if you disagree with either treeman or johnheath. I stopped paying attention to that part of the forum.
Wow, you are just digging a hole for yourself, aren't you? I will try FOR THE THIRD TIME to see if you can comprehend this simple concept. The United States Congress granted President Bush the authority to attack Iraq if Iraq did not comply with our demands. In the document, THAT A MAJORITY OF DEMOCRAT LEGISLATORS SIGNED, ties between Iraq and Al Queda were cited as one of the reasons that Iraq was a threat to America. Here some of the text in S.J. Resolution 45, because I KNOW you have not read it. JOINT RESOLUTION To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq. 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 Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 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'; 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 resolution 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 United States 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 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) 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 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994); Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress 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 Resolution 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 of 1998 (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 interests 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, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'. Ok smart guy, I want you to read VERY SLOWLY now, so perhaps you can understand my point. A clear majority of Senate and House Democrats, President Clinton, and an overwhelming percentage of his former cabinet all agreed that- A. Iraq possessed WMD. B. Iraq had ties to Al Queda. C. Iraq was an immediate threat to the U.S. You cannot spin this document away. The text is clear, and the majority Democrats signed onto this resolution. If President Bush lied to the American public about these subjects, then the majority of Democrats also lied. THIS IS THE POINT I WAS MAKING, THAT YOU WERE TOO SLOW TO COMPREHEND. (does capitalized text help you at all?) A this point in history, a lack of credibility in our leadership will end up getting Americans killed overseas. Congressional Democrats are now spinning their previous votes and statements, making Bush out to be a liar, and creating a dangerous situation for our troops. Of course, dolts such as you will buy this garbage hook, line, and sinker- but what is new? There is a reason that Democrats want the least motivated and educated members of our society casting votes in November, and people like you are their dream constituancy.
I hate to be a stickler for accuracy, but that doesn't say that the Iraqi regime had ties to Al Queida. It says they were known to be in Iraq. It does say that we have a right to defend ourselves against countries that have ties to Al Queida but it never says that Iraq's government had ties.
