so as a rule of thumb if you're not sure, destroy a country, spend $300B, and send 1870 solidiers to die.. thats the main justification that Bush has presented to go to war.. do you think if it were not for these lies congress and the people would have supported this war? and the adminstration actively spread these misinformation.. do you think the media pressed them to lie?
I actually heard this woman speak for the first time when she was on Hardball with Chris Matthews, and she sounded like her head was completely empty and an anti-war group just plugged in a wire to her brain telling her what to say. Even Chris Matthews, hardly a friend to the Bush administration, was taken aback by how ignorant she was. She actually said "we should have been going after Osama Bin Laden instead of attacking the whole country of Afghanistan" and that "there are no terrorists in Iraq!" I am sorry for her losing her son, as a parent, I have thought about how horrible I would feel if something happened to my son, but it's clear that this woman knows absolutely nothing about U.S. foreign policy and has no credibility when it comes to discussing any matters besides her own personal experience with her son. She has allowed herself to become a left-wing anti-Bush prop, which is very sad.
So did anyone see Bush giving the speech in Idaho thanking the mother with 4 sons in Iraq and another and her husband who were back home after training troops there. It was a clear response to Sheehan.
A grieving Mother is thrust on to the national stage and you Jeffster take the opportunity to tear her apart because she made some minor errors while discussing US foreign policy on a live talk show. Unbelievable.
Apparently from one of the 19 families he met today after the speech, there was a women whose husband died a year ago in Iraq that met Bush last year. So she got to see him again. Rumor is there were no photos…
Saddam had been in violation of UN sanctions since 1991. He flaunted it. The new posture is that acts of terrorism are war not crime. We are building Iraq not destroying her.
<B>andymoon 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.</b> The quote you provided spells out a 4 1/2 month delay. <B>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.</b> So there was conflicting intelligence? I guess after you've been attacked it's better to just hope you're safe rather than ensure your security in the war on terror. Is that why we need OBL.... because he ignites all the bombs? <B>Intelligence is far more unreliable when you start with the conclusion (Iraq needs invadin') and fix the intelligence to fit that conclusion.</b> Well, of course. <B>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.</b> That's because all of those things were factors. I never trembled with fear for Saddam's nuclear capability. He finally got what he should have gotten in 1991. <B>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.</b> IIRC, the inspectors were there but Saddam was making their job difficult. Remember Bush's famous line: "We're not on a scavenger hunt..." Iraq is the size of California. <B>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.</b> They were. <b>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.</b> Didn't they send in another team of inspectors-- military this time?
"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." That doesn't say that Saddam did not allow the inspectors in for 4.5 months, it says that even 4.5 months after the US went to the UN, some members were still ready to veto any action. I recall Saddam allowing inspectors in immediately after we issued our ultimatum. He just about bent over backwards to meet our demands and if you believe evidence that is far more corroborated than that about WMDs was, would have allowed the CIA and FBI into Iraq to verify the weapons inspectors finds. Yes, there was conflicting intelligence. When that happens, you believe the intelligence that is backed up and corroborated, not that which comes from a single source and cannot be verified. So you are perfectly OK with the fact that the administration started with their conclusion and fixed the intelligence to fit that conclusion?!?! The hyping of nuclear capacity is what took me from disbelieving the "evidence" to supporting the invasion. I was one of the ones who was duped and as such, I am upset about that. I thought we should have taken out Saddam in '91 too, but that does not change the fact that the administration was dishonest with the public when making its case for war. No, you are thinking of the '90s. Saddam allowed the inspectors unfettered access until Bush pulled them. It is in the report. They were what? Sure, they invaded and found exactly the same thing we would have found had we allowed the UN inspectors to finish their job.
we're serious alright.. do you have any other response aside from that? so in your honest assessment, how does she compare to these? http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=100260 http://gprime.net/video.php/presidentialspeechalist
Okay, if you actually are serious then, I'll respond to each of those ridiculous claims. First of all, she was not "thrust on to the national stage." No one forced her to go on national talk shows or hold press conferences, she chose to do that. Secondly, I didn't "tear her apart", I made an assessment of the obvious lack of knowledge she displayed despite the "moral authority" that anti-Bush groups have bestowed upon her because she lost her son. Thirdly, those were not MINOR errors for criminy's sake, they were completely ignorant and flabbergasting statements. I don't speak for anybody but myself, so if there are groups or individuals out there that have a purpose of ridiculing Mrs. Sheehan or implying she does not have the right to grieve or to speak about her son, I do not share their views. But she does not have to allow herself to become a political pawn, which she has most definitely done. And of course much blame goes on the media also, for doing the usual sensationalist job of exploiting all people involved, for the goal of better ratings, and not of any semblance of accurate news reporting.
Jeff all politcal power brokers use pawns to project images and promote the ideas they want promoted. The general public does not deal with issues on an intellectual basis but from their emotional responses. Do you think George W. Bush had any real intellectual prowess as the face behind the ownership of the Texas Rangers or as the largely ceremonial Governor of Texas. No, but he was the son of the former president with the right look. He was handpicked by the real power brokers for the emotional response he evokes. That just the way politics works. Go back and watch Wag The Dog again before you want to blame the pawns.
there's a raft of quotes from the mid-90's forward from the ilk of Clinton, Kerry, and the various agencies and deliberative bodies stating opinions that Iraq had or was rapidly developing nuclear capability. Anybody have those handy? I've read them here...
