Democracy can only be "imposed" on them if they don't otherwise want it.. Iraqis however seem to like their democracy... Polls show the majority of people there prefer democracy as their government and also the majority take part in the elections, at turnout rates that even put major world democracies to shame.
I have not forgotten.. In case you haven't noticed, pretty much ALL of your leaders lie to you. Also in case you didn't notice, I was clearly responding to a claim made about BUSH lying about WMD's.. What does the fact that your politicians from the evil dark side also bs you, have to do with that?
"Policy" is NOT your objective.. Policy means a course of action or procedure to do something.. Supporting an internal revolution was THAT policy from 1998. You seriously think that if two plans have the same end objective then they are the same policy??!? Say this hospital claim they will help you with your pain.. They keep drugs in cabinets for exactly that. You go in with a migraine and so the doctor decides to inject you with some sodium pentathol and you die. Now, the doctor might say, "I followed hospital policy.. Hospital policy is to treat the patient's pain, and I made their pain go away." Was it really the same policy? Read above... Also I don't dispute that the previous government emphasized this importance of getting rid of Saddam. I don't think the Iraq war and Saddam overthrow was a Bush Jr. idea at all.. It was over a decade in the making... From Bush Sr. stabbing his otherwise ally Saddam in the back, to Clinton softening up the country promoting crippling sanctions and shooting rockets and missiles at and bombing the (*)(*)(*)(*) out of the country for years, paving the way for the culmination of it all, stamping Saddam beneath boot at last.
Are you joking? The ENTIRE attack was preventable! They didn't prevent it, that does NOT mean they couldn't have.. Maybe follow up on those hijackers going to flight school, the same guys who would hijack those plains... Maybe follow up on that Moussaiu lead.. Maybe do something about that ACTIONABLE intel you have directly tied to the plot itself.. Then maybe decide to NOT allow people to bring weapons onto planes.. That's a good one! Of course the entire day was preventable.. Nevertheless, the day of, as it was happening, from real soon after 9 when these leaders were known to know an attack was underway, certain things could have been done........ There were fighters that could have made it to DC in time to intercept 77 before it hit the Pentagon, and a president who could authorize a shoot down. Additionally, obvious targets like the White House, Capitol Building, Pentagon etc. can start being evacuated of nonessential personnel.. They were after all (the non derelict department leaders who were actually tracking developments that is) operating under the assumption that another hijacked airliner was heading towards DC (according to the official story report) It would have been too late to do anything about the WTC disaster and wouldn't have made a difference for 93 but lives at the Pentagon COULD have been saved. Which is it? He could have dismissed himself or not? How is NOT seeking more information about the attack and finding out if there's something he can do as commander in chief less "prudent" than sitting there "projecting calm"? Which is more important, saving lives or making kids not cry? Are you familiar with what "prudent" means? And about this stuff about he wasn't going anywhere out of that seat until the SS was ready, Ethereal said the same thing and I'll tell you the same I told him: NOBODY who was there, not the secret service, not the reporters, not the teacher, not his chief of staff, and not even Bush HIMSELF have said this.. Everybody basically says the same thing, that Bush CHOSE to sit there in order to "project calm". Hello?!?!? Bush wasn't interested in communication OR being informed of developments.. As soon as Bush was finished with the lesson and his encouraging the kids to stay in school, he was then lazer focused on writing his speech, remember? How many times do you need telling the same thing, again: FALSE DICHOTOMY.
"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." -George W. Bush... Incidentally, the Cheney, Rummy, Rice and Powell et. al. all also played the "no doubt" card. Are you seriously denying the existence of doubt among the intelligence community? And simply reporting the "facts"? Give me a break.. As they lie in the vaguest terms, they also did in the specific, including the nonsense about the Niger and yellowcake and that which we now know that they KNEW was crap BEFORE they said it. Yeah Blix.. What did he have to say about it? Certainly not "no doubt" about those WMD's, inconsistent with the universal consensus dishonesty the admin were trying to play.... He said he didn't know yet, he just needed a little more time! That's all.. Bush was too impatient, possibly fearful Blix wouldn't find anything after his full search making a war harder to justify, so just told Blix to drop his clipboard and get out the way quick because shock and awe's coming to level the place first. You honestly think Blix looking for weapons is an argument proving Saddam had weapons?!?! I think I'll look for a giant wad of cash now.. It's guaranteed to be there! It's just recycling the hollow talking points worn out over the course of a decade.. Yeah yeah Saddam would have made the biggest nukes in the world and sold them to AQ and blah blah try doing something different this time and offer PROOF for the empty claims of the last decade.
I thought it was a good interview , I always did like the man ( voted for him ) but he sure had a bunch of skunks around him , that Chaney and Rumesfeld are just a couple of no-goods and scoundrels . . .
He forgot to tell the american public he was hearing the threats for decades and refused to listen what the opposing force had to say about the way america tries to run the world. His latter response was even worse. Hes not a worth a bullet and should rot in jail till he dies.
Nobody ever takes on the fact that he had the all-time most unique position of power after 9-11 to do anything, good and/or bad he wanted, ANYTHING. The whole world had his back, not even Jesus had a moment as good, he could save the world and be King forever, instead, he merely listened to Karl Rove's suggestion that he use the moment for political partisan gamesmanship. Nobody ever blew an opportunity like W did. And then things got bad...
Karl Rove? What??? Tell me what he did that day that was PARTISAN? I felt good about him that day....what exactly did he do or not do that you didn't??
Yes it is the rest is just the means. The ILA clearly lays out the reasons Saddam could not be allowed to remain in power as did the ATUMF. If the objective is the same as in the removal of Saddam and installing democratically elected government. I don't need to say anything, President Clinton and the Congress said it, Saddam could not be allowed to remain in power. "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998 "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998 "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001 "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002 "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 Was it really the same policy? The realization that Saddam could not be allowed to remain in power predates Bush and he is not a Jr. We were never allied with Iraq. At which Clinton failed and Bush succeeded. You do need to get some of your facts straight.
Nope, not under the legal system or the intelligence systems we had in place. Well I guess that on the mere suspicion that at some time there might be an attack somewhere we could have shut down the transportation system. But we had no actionable intelligence and the idea that al Qaeda would attack us again was nothing new. No it wasn't and no formal investigation has shown otherwise. After we figured out what was going on the order WAS issued but it was too late for any fighters to take out the planes that did attack. Where did you get the idea they weren't. Dismissed himself to where and what? His staff was doing their job of preparing his exit and in the meantime setting up communications. There was nothing for him to do in those seven minutes and he made the call to not panic the crowd and the press by jumping up and running out of the room. Would he have preferred the short story that was being read end in 2 minutes instead of the 7 it took. Yeah I imagine so, but to second guess him is totally unfair to him. Yes he has a chief of staff that does that and advises him he decide to take the prudent course and not show chaos and panic. They don't need to say, most people know it. But if you listen to his interview yes that is what he states, the SS and the military decide when to leave and how that egress will be made.
Yes that was true. Along with the UN inspectors who had cataloged those weapons and never accounted for them after they were kicked out. What do you think they were looking for? Doubt that Saddam had possessed and was capable of producing WMD? Not an intelligence agency that had any credibility. It wasn't nonsense, the Iraq government WAS trying to find a source for yellow cake and was in possession of yellow cake. That Saddam was still not in compliance and they had not accounted for all the WMD they had catalog If everyone was so sure, convinced Saddam had not ready to go WMD no proscribe equipment or materials then why did the UN want to go find them? Blix was the one demanding they go find them. Do you honestly think that the ONLY threat Saddam poses was the ready to go WMD we never found? Tell me what convinces you that Saddam have given up totally his desire to possess WMD. Yes you are doing that. You point out what we didn't find yet ignore what we did find.
On that day I didn't ignore my country's best interest and think about gaming the opposition, instead, I did the unthinkable and gave W my full but highly guarded support, only to watch him squander it and the most incredible gift to any one man. Karl and Bush instead used that moment for the lowest ideals while America suffered. Your pride of him/them that day was placed where?
I'm not really sure what to make of this. I have always felt that 911 was more about the Bush family than it was this country and listening to GW about it now: when we should have known this ten years ago, is a bit anticlimatic. I'm not sure I can trust what he's said about his own experience based on what the record shows were his failings. Some of it might be interesting, but I think rather contrived as well: GW Bush is not a good man and he operatd under some kind of cloak that brought nothing good to this country. So, as I say, i'm on the fence about it, and I lean more toward trying to protect this country from elements like his rather than being interested in any of their explanations.
That's a bit vague there.. I named specific things.. Tell me what system would prevent them and how. Name one roadblock that would have prevented them from not allowing weapons to be taken onto planes. Name one roadblock why Moussaiu's computer doesn't get searched. Name one reason why they couldn't go after Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, known terrorists going to flight school, who wound up being hijackers on 9/11. Shut down the transportation system?!?! Straw man.. Fail. Bush's whole presidency was new, he spent it being bombarded with warnings and doing virtually nothing about counterterrorism. But as I've clearly shown, there was actionable intelligence.. They didn't take the action though. Name ONE investigation that concludes the attack was unpreventable. Yes that's EXACTLY the point.. They were mere minutes too late... So had some military leader man decided to issue such an order sooner, then we wouldn't have had that problem! The white house did eventually start evacuating when flight 77 impacted at the Pentagon.. The Pentagon was NOT evacuated, that's the whole point here. Any of the many rooms in the school... Even the adjacent classroom the SS were staged in. I'd talk to relevant heads at the USAF/NORAD and FAA at once, considering we know this is an air attack. What do you mean "setting up communications" exactly.. What specifically does this process entail? Do the Secret Service and president not ALREADY travel with the ability to communicate? First of all, it's closer to 30 minutes Bush wasted here, not 7.. Don't forget the relatively pointless press conference Bush just had to have. Why? Why would he wanted it to have ended sooner? To do what with the extra 5 minutes? Help work on his speech? Why? Why is it unfair to second guess a decision made by a leader? You just make it up as you go along don't you.. That is NOTHING like what Card said.. Card said, "A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack." The rest was up to Bush. So they are all lying then? Which is it? Answer once and for all which is the true reality you think: 1) Bush had no choice but remain seated due to security procedures (as you and Ethereal argued) 2) Bush CHOSE to remain seated and continue the lesson, as EVERYBODY ELSE claims? So, once again, you're confronted with the same problem and you'll not avoid it... If you continue to try to insist on choice 1 then this means you are saying Bush and EVERYBODY ELSE who was there that day are liars because they answered a different reason when asked why Bush sat there on his arse. Quote the part where he says he had no choice he was compelled to stay in his seat and continue the read due to security rules.
Have you STILL not looked up the word "policy" in your dictionary? ???? NONE of these quotes insisted the U.S. invade Iraq or ANYTHING like that policy. First of all I already agreed with you about the fact that regime change ideas predated Bush Jr.'s presidency.... And he's not a Jr., what is he OLDER than his dad? Give me a break... You stood by while he gassed his own people and did nothing, made deals with him, shook his hand and allowed loads of materials for WMD's to be imported into his country. You were best buddies with Saddam right up until the First Gulf War. Clinton's only role was to soften up Iraq a bit.. And he did do that.. Technically, Bush Sr. is the one who failed when he left Saddam there.
You think that's true? You think there was "no doubt" in the intelligence community? You need education on the topic. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB254/index.htm The CIA, the IAEA, intelligence agencies from other respectable countries ALL claimed that things like active nuclear weapons programs and biologicial weapons labs currently in operation were NOT verified true beyond doubt. Remember, we're talking about "some of the most lethal weapons ever devised" here.. Yes they knew he had antiquated cobweb covered mustard gas relics from the 80's lying around somewhere probably, but as far as the real claims go, like the bio weapons and nuclear weapons programs currently active, there was LOADS of doubt. Interestingly, I find it funny how you try to pretend that just because somebody is looking for something must mean that person expects to find it.. The IAEA were looking in order to RULE OUT just as much as to confirm... Looking is done to find out what the REAL case is. That is their job and that is what they were doing, but fortunatily for Bush he had bombs dropping before they could make their determination. Why don't you listen to Blix' REAL rationalale for why they were looking: "I think that we have to do our job well, investigate thoroughly and then describe very honestly what we see to the Security Council. And some of the things might please people there and other things may not please the people." Blix is respectably being unbiased and independent as is HIS JOB... YOU are trying to ascribe a false agenda to his searches so you need to pony up a quote from him that he believes these things are there and THAT is why he's looking out of determination to find what's there. Well at least you agree the CIA have no credibility. More historical revisionism.. They were fraudelent phony documents.. In fact, Bush was even told NOT TO make that claim for a previous address on account of the US State dept. found the intel to be bogus, only to ressurrect it because he had no other things to trumpet for his 03 state of the union address. Look at what Hans Blix, the guy you are trying to pretend was like a hound dog hot on the trail of WMD's he knew for sure were there, said about it the Niger/yellow cake nonsense: "They have been saying for a long time that Iraq made an effort to import active uranium, and my colleague demonstrated the other day that they came to the conclusion that it was a fake document that everybody is relying upon. " EVERYONE including the IAEA, the CIA, the US state department and even Bush himself knew that crap was fraudelent. Do you seriously disagree? I assume you have real evidence about the alleged Niger yellowcake deal? That's what Blix had to say? First of all, quote this.. Second of all, that's NOT the same thing as "I have no doubt Saddam has the most lethal weapons ever devised and an active nuclear weapons program". THAT's what you need him to say in order to prove your case. Quote please.. Is this more straw dummies again? I didn't say anything about Saddam posing a threat. Knowing what you know now in hindsight, knowing what you did and didn't find in occupation-era Iraq, name the BIGGEST way Saddam could have hurt you, had you not started that war. Nothing as I never claimed such a thing. Right so what did you find?
Hey KK8 , I see you're up to your usual hobby of whacking Democrats ... I went to your link , read it , and yeah , I would agree that we all expected to find WMD's there in Iraq , but we didn't . . . so either they're still there buried in the sand or it was all bogus from the start , which is it ? As for me , I find it more interesting to think about those 11 pallet loads of $1000.00 bills , millions of dollars , US currency , that Chaney helped Rumsfeld push through the CIA for covert operations / bribe money to the Iraq sub-chieftans and tribal war lords of that region . . . and that money has never been recovered , nor has it been accounted for . . . but I'll bet you Dick & Rum knows just exactly where it is , , , cause G Gordon got it invested in Gold for them . . now that'd make a great U-Tube video , wouldn't it ? ? ? COLOR]
Best theory I've heard is that the Russians helped take them into Syria. I like that one's the best....so, to touch on what you said....yes, maybe they are buried in the sand in Syria. You're welcome....
I guess if President Clinton had instituted something like the Patriot Act and we had shut down all air transportation and arrested all Middle Eastern men it might have been stopped. And Bush personally directed those investigations? If we had could they have flown those planes into the Towers? The warnings were no different that what were routine for the precious ten years and are you ignorant of the fact that Bush on his first day order a complete review and assesment of our intelligence systems and agencies with regards to terrorism and that that report landed on his desk the day before the attack? So to say he did nothing is a fallacy. Really, what intelligence did we have that stated the day, the method, which planes and the time? Post from and official investigation that we had the information that would have stopped the attack short and massive closing of airports for an undetermined time period. UBL had been making these threats for YEARS they were nothing new and nothing we had to act on. Richard Clarke's testimony before congress. They did issue their orders as was the planned routine. Because we didn't know what was happening until then and no one had a clue that the Pentagon or DC was a target until then. That IS what they did, they prepared a room for temporary communications while the SS and the military made plans to exit the school. Watch the interview and you will get a better idea. It was 7 minutes after he got the got word of the second attack. OH well I guess he wished it would have gone on for an hour then. Hindsight is 20/20 isn't it. So they are all lying then? Which is it? He choose to remain calm and collected as I have clearly stated. Quote where I said he had no choice? It was a matter of making the proper choice at the time. He did.
