There is no evidence that Saddam's Iraq had anything directly to do with 9/11 but 9/11 was a watershed event which led to the War on Terror in Iraq.
brilliant, positively friggin' brilliant! in the same post where you say i've never said "If you don't support the president you're against the troops" you repeat the charge that "you have joined in the demonization of veterans and families of fallen soldiers that do not support the president's policies" when in fact the record, and in this self same thread is precisely the apposite! you do your main men krugman and rich pround, my man! and actually, i've never said war opponents were insincere, i've said you were, and the preponderence of evidence supported by your posts would suggest i'm right. and if you want to prove me wrong- it'd be soooooo easy....after all, there's so much good news from iraq...
to quote joan baez, in concert the other night: Where have all the graveyards gone? Long time passing Where have all the graveyards gone? Long time ago Where have all the graveyards gone? Covered with flowers every one When will we ever learn? When will we ever learn? when will you?
Basso you have said that protestors, and others against the war are helping the terrorists on more than one occasion. You have claimed that those that bring up the U.S. torture of prisoners is aiding the terrorists. Batman already quoted you directly saying that his side loved abortions. Your broad characterizations and demonization of the other side even to the point where you have selectively edited your items that you've posted leaves you lacking in claims of victimhood and evenhandedness in your approach.
God basso, are you seriously getting dumber in front of our eyes? I said that you didn't need to use those words in order to consistently imply it and then I showed how you consistently implied it. And you come back with, "Aha! You flip flopped!" And you meant it too, didn't you? This is just getting sad. For a long, long time I really thought you were willfully playing dumb. But I'm really coming to believe you actually are dumb. Sorry for picking on you. Really.
Nobody on the left says they wanted Saddam in power. In fact I was fine with a policy of regime change. Nobody on the left has suggested that we support Saddam and tyranny. Why are you posting blogs that seem as if you are arguing that is the position of the left? No bAsso, the thing we object to, is the use of a full scale military invasion and occupation of Iraq in a war that was started by the U.S., and handled very poorly. It didn't have to be that way. There are about a dozen shades in between all of which would have been better. All of which would have gone against Saddam's tyranny, which the left has always been against. So post your mass grave stories and Rushdie asking if the left is against tyranny. The left has never supported Saddam, applauded mass graves, or been in favor of tyranny. That is the exact kind of either pretended or real ignorance on your part, that you have every opportunity to correct.
Just a tip for those of you concerned with others in this forum. If you think that someone is harrassing you, you are free to report it. But, if you think someone is harrassing someone ELSE, that isn't for you to run to the moderators about. If the person supposedly being harrassed doesn't think enough of it to report it, neither should you. Carry on.
Jeff, I would like to take this time and complain about the thread titled "They made cuts in my penis ...". I have to read this all day long. It is just killing to read it. So I want like to humbly request that "penis" in the thread title be replaced with "love pump". thanks and you too carry on, NW
HAHA. That title's been killing me too. I suggest following the example of the tv-edited version of the classic film "Real Genius" and change "penis" to "pinky. As in "can you hammer a nail through a board with your pinky?"
so War to disarm Iraq, became War to overtrhow Saddam, to War to Deomocratize Iraq, to War on Terror in Iraq.. did I get the order right?
No... because it was always all four. Saddam was warned to irrefutably demonstrate disarmament. He jerked us around again for a couple more months until he figured we were serious this time about marching to Baghdad (which we should have done in 1991). Was Operation Iraqi Freedom described as an exercise in colonialism or as a part of the war on terror?
The laugh outloud post of the day. Can a modertor please change the title. The title represents the merging of the hangout,which is noted for such discussion,with the debate and discussion forum.
I can't believe than anyone can stil say this with a straight face. The only thing that the administration officials were regularly touting pre-war was WMDs. Bush may have mentioned other things in the SOTU, but his officials on all the talking heads shows, Powell at the UN, and the Faux News pundits were all talking about WMDs almost exclusively. At which point, he allowed the weapons inspectors unfettered access to Iraq. No, he allowed the inspectors in and allowed them to operate without restriction. They were about to report that there were no WMDs in Iraq and would have delivered that report had GWB not pulled them out. GWB pulled out the weapons inspectors, not Saddam. "Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed. And it will not disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power. For the last four-and-a-half months, the United States and our allies have worked within the Security Council to enforce that Council's long-standing demands. Yet, some permanent members of the Security Council have publicly announced they will veto any resolution that compels the disarmament of Iraq. These governments share our assessment of the danger, but not our resolve to meet it. Many nations, however, do have the resolve and fortitude to act against this threat to peace, and a broad coalition is now gathering to enforce the just demands of the world. The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours." GWB It was sold as a war to "disarm" Saddam Hussein. Nevermind the fact that up until the invasion, the UNSC was "liv[ing] up to its responsibilities" by running the weapons inspections as they were not convinced that Iraq had WMDs. Nevermind that it was not our place to find Iraq in noncompliance, nevermind that there was no threat whatsoever from Iraq. And now they just tell us "nevermind the WMDs, we were doing this because Saddam was bad, mmmmmmkay."
1. So did Saddam allow "immediate" and "unfettered" access to weapons inspectors or was there a 4 and 1/2 month delay? 2. One thing 9/11 proved beyond a doubt was the unreliability of intelligence. We know a lot about people but not enough about things. 3. I never said "Nevermind the WMDs..." 4. Had the UN done their job, we would not have had to insist on taking charge of inspections post 9/11. 5. As I've always said, it would have been patently foolish (I know, I know) for the Administration to "tout" WMDs if they did not have a reasonable expectation to find them. Also, I think it is fair to point out that spokesmen and -women don't always get to pick the questions that they get asked. WMDs are good for ratings and sound bites.
I don't remember a 4.5 month delay, but even if there was one, the point is that inspectors were in country doing the job that the UN gave to them: verifying that Saddam had disarmed. Since that was purportedly our goal, we should have let them do their job rather than kicking them out. There was plenty of intelligence coming across that said that Saddam had no WMDs, including everything that the weapons inspectors were reporting. Unfortunately, GWB and his cabal decided to believe an agent of the Iranian government (Chalabi) without even bothering to corroborate any of the "intelligence" they were being fed. Intelligence is far more unreliable when you start with the conclusion (Iraq needs invadin') and fix the intelligence to fit that conclusion. War supporters on this board as well as in the administration have repeatedly told war opponents that the lack of WMDs does not mean that the war was not justified because Saddam was a tyrant or because we are bringing freedom to the ME. You may not have said those words exactly, but you have put forth this message many times over. We never took "charge of inspections," we issued an ultimatum. Saddam responded to said ultimatum by allowing the inspectors to come back in, presumably to avoid an invasion. The inspectors were doing their job when Bush pulled them out to invade. Rice spoke of mushroom clouds over NYC, Cheney mentioned nuclear weapons as well, Powell went to the UN and talked about Sarin, and Bush talked about darned near every WMD known to man. It wasn't the reporters asking questions, these statements were made in speeches and on talking heads shows. GWB and his cabal hyped the WMD angle at every chance they got when, based on their actions in pulling out the inspectors, it was never about WMDs at all. They either lied or made some serious judgements in error regarding their sources of intelligence (taking intel from an agent of a hostile government). Either way, they should not be leading this war, much less this country.
