I don't know if this is true or not, BUT...if it is, it shouldn't be called intelligence, it should be called something like "maybeness" or "potentiality"
Don't forget that these statements are meant to outrage you. You're a targeted audience They're meant to perpetuate a state of maximal polarization in this country -- the state of affairs most suited for vampires like Mr. Rove to suck the nation dry. -- Josh Marshall
1 Well I can probably name about 20 nations with much more tragic Human rights issues. So does this make Bush a humanitarian? To fix the one nation that has the oil reservers, the vendetta issue, and someone to cake walk over that is a familiar foe is more like it. If Bush is so humanitarian, why havent we involved ourselves in intervening in any other tragedies around the world (here comes the, we can only do so much response) 2 Yet we thought it would be a great idea to pull military out of Afghanistan to go fight a war in Iraq? Have we finished the job in Afghan? Is Mr Bin Laden dead or in custody? Is his group of idiots dimantled? Have we squashed him yet? 3 But we ally ourselves in many instances with a country like Saudi Arabia? Does daddy have enough business intrest built up in Saudi Oil to make it ok for them? 4 But Sadamm to this point has proved he wasnt lying. Until Mr Bush proves the world wrong, the only lying SOB when it comes to WMDs is......W The reasons changed as the 9-11 link got defunked then when the WMDs myth slowly was defunked (to the tune of McKay quitting on MR Bush), W had to find something and kept changing it to fit the need. "What you dont want us to go after 'terrerisss' you hate america" Part of me is glad to see the lies, misconceptions, and all out dirtiness that is has and was Bush and the republican lie machine get exposed everyday. Part of me is not...everyday, he drifts us further and further into his stinkhole. Yep hes the moral choice of America allright.
Why must it be the US? Why not Canada, Germany, or France? Oh, I forgot, they're all too busy deploying to Darfur.
Gwayneco, so it isn't a war on terror then. According to Giddyup we have to attack terror wherever it is. Why wait for France or anyone else. We didn't in Iraq.
In the SOTU2003, al Quaeda is mentioned a grand total of 8 times-- 5 in a single paragraph I believe. Below I've quoted the only linkage in the address between Saddam and al Quaeda: "With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own." The statement deals with terrorists <b>including</b> al Quaeda. I'm still looking for that singular <b>because</b> that you say is there...
That is NOT what I said. The kind of impulsivity that you are suggesting would be ridiculous. You pick your fights. Iraq is geo-politically important in 2003 so down goes the gauntlet.
Why not? It was the much anticipated pronouncement about the administrations intentions towards Iraq. Isn't that what this argument is about?
You are talking about the left dividing the country and then post an article about someone from an AUSTRALIAN newspaper? The article starts off with a falsehood claiming that liberals backed Saddam Hussein which isn't true and never has been. The liberals have always been against Saddam Hussein, and nothing in this article shows anything to the contrary.
Giddy the SOTU points out what we all knew, Saddam was a bad guy. It doesn't use Saddam's inhumanity as reason to go to war. Nowhere in the SOTU does it make that claim. The talk of Saddam's inhumanity and getting rid of him is a by-product of overthrowing him, but never mentioned as a reason that would justify the U.S. invading the country unprovoked.
How do you overthrow him without a war? Hadn't he been asked to leave before? andymoon has long lobbied for insertion squads to have killed him, but then we'd be in there anyway because of the power vacuum... 9/11 ratcheted up the danger of watching a tyrant who had snubbed us for a long time...
My such skillfully knowledgable rhetoric. So you would support an invasion of Northern Sri Lanka? I don't say we have to do it now just give me a timetable. Its a war on terror in general afterall and there's a lot of terrorists out there so why dally.
So its a war of convenience and not terror? Actually I prefer that much more than some sort of Messianic war on terror idea. So if Iraq stabilizes and we somehow actually do defeat Al Qaeda where do we use our military to invade next? Northern Sri Lanka or Northern Ireland? Under your reasoning its a war on terror in general so its not going to be over until we wipe out every terrorists. Not just the Muslim ones and not just the ones that threaten us directly.
"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th" attacks." -- George W. Bush, 9/2003 At least Bush was being honest for once. Did you hear what he said, giddy?
I must be rubbing you the wrong way; you are usually more fair-minded in your rebuttal. It's a war on terror but you can't go everywhere at once so you have to prioritize your battles. I would say, though, that worldwide any Muslim terrorists are far more problematic than Catholic. Don't you agree?
