1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Set The Record Straight

Discussion in 'Legal' started by bountyhunter, Feb 8, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. bountyhunter

    bountyhunter member

    A lot of arguing about what members of the Bush administration said about WMD's, and a lot of people developing amnesia of convenience so they can re-write history. Here's a really concise compilation of audio clips on the subject (it's an audio file):


    Hear it straight from the horse's mouth.
  2. idd

    idd Well-Known Member

    How they've moved from "SADDAM HUSSEIN IS BUILDING NUKES! HE'LL HAVE THEM ANY DAY NOW!! AND HE'S COMING TO KILL US ALL USING REMOTELY-CONTROLLED DRONES!!!!" to "Saddam Hussein was engaged in weapons of mass destruction-related program activities."

  3. HABU

    HABU Well-Known Member

    BFD. Did W. blow it? Perhaps. Sodom is gone, thats a good thing. If someone is gonna go with the anti-W. propoganda, they can vote for Kerry.

    Newsflash: All presidents will screw up. Thank goodness Gore wasn't calling the shots.
  4. nico

    nico Well-Known Member

    the ingelligence was (apparently) faulty because the CIA has/had weak personal intelligence (espionage). What former president weakened the CIA to the poor state it's in now? (I'll give hint: monica's boyfriend) And what senator/democratic presidential candidate voted for every bill that weakened the CIA? BTW, how come every other major intelligence agency in the world thought Iraq had WMDs just a few years ago? And what happened to the WMDs that were documented in Iraq in 1998?
  5. bountyhunter

    bountyhunter member

    But, he's the first one to haul us into a war based upon reasons he stated publicly which turned out to be 100% WRONG. All wars are controversial, there was even opposition to WWII where we were attacked. Point is, Bush broke new ground. He claimed the right to attack and destroy another country based solely upon the belief that the country may be a threat. That "pre emptive assassination" doctrine is not one that any other nation that was not an outlaw nation ever tried to pull off.

    But, that is not what is infuriating so many people: he lied, he got caught, and he just keeps denying it. he keeps claiming there was good reason to go to war... he keeps claiming that the war in Iraq is related to 9/11.... and he just refuses to admit he screwed up. The reason he claims we had to go to war just keeps mutating. Itw as because they had nukes... no, well then they had bios and chems stockpiled... no, well they were supplying and supporting Al Qaeda....no, well Saddam was a bad guy who killed people... what? Oh yeah, we liked that about him when he worked for us and killed Iranians. But, we wnet to war to bring peace to the oppressed Iraqis.... wait, there are three distinct groups there who want to start a civil war and don't want peace..... well, then we went there to stabilize the region by intimidating the fundamental islamics....

    Pick the reason you like best. If you don't see the one you like, just wait. They come out with a new one every week.

    That is terrifying because if and when he gets away with this, he will believe he has carte blanch to attack anybody, anytime, anywhere.:barf:
  6. bountyhunter

    bountyhunter member

    Absolutely, it was Clinton who forced Bush to walk into the oval office with a hair up his butt about attacking Iraq. Since Bush had already decided his course of action, what the hell difference would the intel have made? When Greg Thielmann (the senior intel analyst) made recommendations based upon the totality of our sources as well as our allies, Bush ignored it because it didn't point to war.

    Right..... it's all Clinton's fault Bush went off half cocked over the objections of the UN and our allies. Clinton must have drugged him with "looney" juice.
  7. bountyhunter

    bountyhunter member

    And here's the price:

    1) About $400Billion (so far)

    2) 550 US dead, about 3000 woundd (so far)

    3) Near total drain on available MIL forces weakening our ability to wage the real WOT

    4) Alienation of our allies

    5) An occupation of at least three years with open-ended costs and drain on our resources.

    If you think that was a good deal to take out a two bit thug dictator, I've got a bridge I'll sell you.
  8. Goodpasture

    Goodpasture New Member

    It was also Clinton who forced the shrub to cut benefits for dependents and wages for the troops.

    It is bad enough to force our sons and daughters into a private war. It is unconscionable that he force them into bankruptcy to do it.
  9. nico

    nico Well-Known Member

    do you have any proof of this? If so, I'm sure the DNC would love to hear it. Not too long ago, every major intelligence agency IN THE WORLD thought Iraq had WMDs (which isn't just nuclear weapons). In 1998, Clinton attacked Iraq because of their WMD program (his claim). Does anyone refute the fact that Iraq violated countless UN resolutions? Does anyone know what happened to the WMDs that were documented in 98 and have since then been unaccounted for? Does it make any sense that a terrorist who happens to run a litter box of a country would all of a sudden decide to dispose of his WMDs after he threw out UN inspectors and the world did nothing but blow up a few tents? btw, last time I checked, we had more allies than France, Germany, and Russia.
  10. fallingblock

    fallingblock Well-Known Member

    So that's why the Clinton folks were that way?

    "Clinton must have drugged him with "looney" juice."


    The Iraq war has been well worth the costs so far in terms of a strategic reshaping of the Middle East.

    Bailing out now would make it all a bit wasteful, but then the party of Clinton does not understand what is necessary to 'win' these sort of situations. :barf:
  11. Lennyjoe

    Lennyjoe Well-Known Member

    If the U.S. was being ruled by a Dictator like Saddam and our people were brutalized, murdered and lived in fear, I would hope some country would come in and save us.

    Even at the cost we have given to help that country, its worth it.

    I serve to protect the freedom that others have provided for us. Why shouldnt other Nations have the opportunity to enjoy the freedoms they are entitled to?

    To see men, women and children walk up to an American Soldier with tears in their eyes thanking them for freeing them from a brutal dictatorship like Saddams is worth every night I spend away from my family.

    Some times Americans can be so nieve to whats going on in other Nations.

    To choose between Kerry and Bush, I elect Bush.
  12. Delmar

    Delmar Well-Known Member

    Anyone figured up the cost of enforcing the no-fly zone for a dozen years?
    Unless KIA started making our aircraft carriers and F-14/15/16's, it can't be cheap.

    The loss of life is always sad, and I hate to see it. But, if and its only an if at this time, a democratic Iraq will be a big nail in the coffin of the select few monarchies in the area, the sooner we are going to see the sponsored terrorism in the middle east go away.

    How do you stop the killing when the other side has weapons and won't listen?

    You hunt them down where they live.
  13. Bob R

    Bob R Well-Known Member

    Do you have documentation for this statement? If so I would love to see it.

    If not, why try to push it off as fact?

  14. greyhound

    greyhound Well-Known Member

    This is one point people make that I strongly disagree with.

    Post 9/11 its time to examine alliances that have been in place since the Cold War. Some of them just have no strategic or geographical importance anymore. The Middle Eaat and Asia are the hot spots now, not Europe, thanks in large part to Islamic terrorism.

    Countries like the oft mentioned France, Germany and Russia are not our enemies, as some like to paint them, but neither are they allies (well, I guess Russia never was). They are trading partners that have different
    priorities. We should trade freely with them of course, but we need to understand that militarily its best for them that we don't flex our power.

    We should stand with our British brothers and recognize the logistics and Special Forces help from allies like Australia and Poland. (And Canada, at least in Afghanistan.)

    And if "alienation of allies" means bucking the UN, that Bush had the stones to do that in reason #1 why I will be voting for him. In my opinion, since the Cold War the UN's main mission has been to try and counterbalance US power given the void left by the collapse of the Soviet Union. Trying to keep the US impotent is one of the things that led to 9/11, i.e. "The US is a paper tiger". About time somebody told the UN to go pound sand.

    Another thing about allies that is weird right now is that is seems that alliances among democracies may change according to the administration. In the UK, Australia, and Canada there is a goodly percentage of anti-US, leftist protesters who strongly disagree with their governments alliance with us (some members in those countries will have a better feel for it than I). If those administrations are turned out, their relationship militarily with us might be quite different. Also, here in the US, the self proclaimed "The Comeback" Kerry has pledged that he will march hat in hand to the UN begging forgiveness, and has also pledged to restore our "traditional" alliances. So it all seems kinda fluid right now.
  15. Khornet

    Khornet Well-Known Member

    Bounty, you have a memory problem

    .........unless it was before your time. Re: presidents getting us into wars on false pretenses: try "Gulf of Tonkin Incident".
  16. boofus

    boofus Guest

    In my opinion the WMDs were never that important to begin with.

    The reasons the US should have gone to war was:

    Saddam was playing games with the U.N. for the past 12 years. He ejected weapons inspectors twice. Kept delaying inspectors and moving assets around the country. Banned access to certain sites.

    He continually moved air defenses to the 'no-fly' zone and took pot shots at the American and British pilots patrolling there.

    His people were being bled dry by U.N. sanctions while Saddam pockets the money from Oil-for-Food. Face it, he lived in luxury in 13 palaces or whatever with gold plated MP5s and Lexuses while his people were scrounging for everything the U.N. sanctions banned. (they were scavenging while not being fed to plastic shredders by Saddam's sons)

    Saddam did not abide by the terms of his surrender in the first Gulf War, he had 12 years to comply. Kicking out the U.N. inspectors and shooting at Brit and American pilots is cause enough for going to war.

    EVEN IF the U.N. finally decided to act and moved in troops or peacekeepers or whatever. The U.S. armed forces would have ended up mobilizing to shore up the U.N.'s weakness. This happened in Somalia and Liberia when U.N. troops came under attack until U.S. Marines showed up. The U.N. is a joke and despots around the world know it.

    Might does not equal right. But right without might to back it up is nothing. :scrutiny: Just my thoughts on the matter, take what you like and leave the rest.
  17. c_yeager

    c_yeager Well-Known Member

    It seems that our TRADITIONAL concept of allies hasnt really changed that much. Germany has spent more time as our enemy than as our ally, Russia has been in that same collumn for longer and in a bigger way than anyone. And we generally havent had any problem with people invading and subjugating France. Sounds like little has really changed.
  18. JimP

    JimP Well-Known Member

    Boofus, right on with ya'.

    Now we are hearing it was "preemptive assassination"? My god, when will these people quit?? When we get a weak rat (I know - redundant) in the whitehouse who will completely remove our ability to protect ourselves?? :barf:

    Guys, stop with the lies. Your play book is really too small to keep spouting this crap. Funny how $Bill was telling the truth and a year later G-Dub is lying.
  19. mrapathy2000

    mrapathy2000 member

    you mean the ones that voted for new UN resolutions but were paid off with oil vouchers not to assist us? the ones that had the same intelligence stating Saddam had WMD's and could produce more and even nuclear weapons in the future? have you been watching the nuclear proliferation any? Saudi Arabia wants them now. iran can get them as well. how else should the president stop it, harse language and big rocks?

    are allies that abused the food for oil program by sending iraq cluster bombs and advanced aircraft from france,russia that was discovered burried in the sand.
  20. idd

    idd Well-Known Member

    The United States military does not exist to enforce UN resolutions.

    Such as?

    Flat wrong. The UN ordered their own inspectors out. They were not "kicked out" by Saddam.

    The world is filled with dictatorships, many of them installed or supported by the US government. Check out Uzbekistan.

    How dare those Iraqis defend the sovereignty of their country! What dastardly tricks will they think up next?

    How do you suppose the US would react if some country came over here and tried to impose a "no-fly zone"?

    When Clinton was in office I condemned his policies and his lies.

    Let me guess: you guys watch a lot of FOX news, right?
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page