Good quote from Bush's speech tonight
- Thread starter morganm01
- Start date
- Status
More like being trained to protect their country... not actually protecting it yet, and I suspect they also counted just about everyone involved in government.
How about a not-so-good quote: "And for America, there will be no going back to the era before September 11th, 2001, to false comfort in a dangerous world."
That's right. We'll never be safe again, and we ought to remember that before we complain about Herr Ashcroft's next batch of proposed legislation.
How about a not-so-good quote: "And for America, there will be no going back to the era before September 11th, 2001, to false comfort in a dangerous world."
That's right. We'll never be safe again, and we ought to remember that before we complain about Herr Ashcroft's next batch of proposed legislation.
sensop
Member
We were never "safe".
"Currently, there are over 60,000 Iraqi citizens under arms, protecting the security
"...Our armed forces are, however, doing all they can to confiscate those arms in the interest of a more stable Iraqi community."
Do you really think the administration WANTS armed and independent Iraqis? They'd much rather have a docile population that'll bow to whatever whims we get into our heads.
"...Our armed forces are, however, doing all they can to confiscate those arms in the interest of a more stable Iraqi community."
Do you really think the administration WANTS armed and independent Iraqis? They'd much rather have a docile population that'll bow to whatever whims we get into our heads.
Malone LaVeigh
Member
Did he say anything about the WMDs, ready to put a mushroom cloud over one of our cities in 45 minutes?
Did he say anything about the whereabouts of Saddam? How about Bin Laden (remember him)?
Did he say when the troops are coming home?
Didn't think so.
Oh, DRC, I'm still waiting for the big surprise. Can I stop holding my breath now?
Did he say anything about the whereabouts of Saddam? How about Bin Laden (remember him)?
Did he say when the troops are coming home?
Didn't think so.
Oh, DRC, I'm still waiting for the big surprise. Can I stop holding my breath now?
Malone LaVeigh
Member
And Iraq had exactly what to do with that?
"How about aiding and abetting terrorists."
I don't think anyone here has access to the intelligence necessary to confirm or refute that. The Bush Administration doesn't think it can sustain the link between Saddam and WoMD. That tells me how to treat other claims that have been made by the Administration based on questionable evidence.
Why hasn't anyone accused the U.S. of harboring terrorists? We let the 9/11 hijackers in the country, let some of them train to fly aircraft, ...
I don't think anyone here has access to the intelligence necessary to confirm or refute that. The Bush Administration doesn't think it can sustain the link between Saddam and WoMD. That tells me how to treat other claims that have been made by the Administration based on questionable evidence.
Why hasn't anyone accused the U.S. of harboring terrorists? We let the 9/11 hijackers in the country, let some of them train to fly aircraft, ...
Duncan Idaho
member
For the same reasons that we don't blame a scantily clad woman for her rape.
We (as a country) give everyone - even criminals - the benefit of the doubt. We let death-cult nut animals into our country because not everyone that practices Islam does so in a manner that meets the description/definition of "death-cult". They worship as normal human beings that acknowledge that they feel humbled and are in awe at a Universe that seemingly has no bounds in terms of the miracles and revelations that it holds.
Sadly, animals like Muhammad Atta look, sound, and act like any other Egyptian practitioner of Islam.
He was also studious (he had an engineering degree), he was from an affluent family (his father is an attorney). As such, he escaped the notice of those that should have known better than to let him in.
Unfortunately, despite all of the privilege that Atta knew, he chose to be a death-cult nut, and "scantily clad" America was helpless before him and his maggot death-cult nut cohorts.
Saddest of all is the fact that the geniuses that founded a country where people of a practical infinity of different beliefs, religions, political bents, sexual proclivities, etc... never for a moment imagined that the future progeny of this, the greatest nation ever established (or imagined) in all of human history, would be blighted by death-cult nuts and pathetic, worthless, anti-self-defense
SHEEPLE that would allow themselves to be flown to their deaths by people weilding BOXCUTTERS!!!Rather, they had imagined that people raised in liberty, people that would benefit from the bounty of wealth and prosperity that liberty and freedom bring; would hold it so dear, would treasure it so, that when faced with the potential loss of it...would fight with the strength of a lion to keep it.
They couldn't have imagined how pathetic we have become. They couldn't have imagined that we would become Eloi. And never in a million years would they have imagined that something as fundamental as the right to keep and bear arms in order to protect and preserve innocent life; would ever even be up for DEBATE!!!
If they had, I would bet my last dollar that they they would have despaired of life, and died on the spot before they could have ever risked all that they had by pledging their "Lives, Fortunes," and their "Sacred Honor".
Nah! They would have fought on without regard for the weaklings of the future. The human soul demands freedom. They had to fight.
But the question was:
Please forgive me while I laugh my ??? off.
Is there a single person in this country that doesn't remember the leftists bleating about how Saddam would in fact bring down the wrath of the Arab world (IIRC they weren't using the moronic expression "Arab street" in those days...but I digress) with his infamous pronoucement of "The Mother of all Battles"?
Nah! Iraq hasn't attempted in the last 13 years to make good on that threat. NO! Iraq is more like a cute little kitty-cat. Sure, it will growl, it will scratch, and it may even bite, but in the end, Iraq is just all fwuffy-wuffy.
A guy like Saddam would never work toward encouraging death-cult nuts. He is a benevolent socialist dictator. And any fool knows that benevolent socialist dictators can do no wrong! Besides, a few million people living in absolute terror of their benevolent dictator is simply a reasonably good start toward the worker's paradise that socialism brings.
You mean, you treat other claims as having been accepted even by Iraq's allies (France, Germany, Russia) prior to the initiation of the conflict? People seem to forget that there was really never a question of Iraq having WMD, only in whether Iraq was going to voluntarily give them up or not. If we haven't found them, it's because (1) it's a big frigging desert out there or (2) as is becoming more widely thought, those trucks we saw headed to Syria before hostilities began were carrying some nasty cargo.
Is there a single person in this country that doesn't remember the leftists bleating about how Saddam would in fact bring down the wrath of the Arab world (IIRC they weren't using the moronic expression "Arab street" in those days...but I digress) with his infamous pronoucement of "The Mother of all Battles"?
So you and Dubya both think this is over?
If we haven't found them, it's because (1) it's a big frigging desert out there or (2) as is becoming more widely thought, those trucks we saw headed to Syria before hostilities began were carrying some nasty cargo.
Got to admire someone who stays on message...
db
So you and Dubya both think this is over?
If we haven't found them, it's because (1) it's a big frigging desert out there or (2) as is becoming more widely thought, those trucks we saw headed to Syria before hostilities began were carrying some nasty cargo.
Got to admire someone who stays on message...
db
"People seem to forget that there was really never a question of Iraq having WMD..."
There was never a question that a bunch of countries stated that Iraq wasn't cooperating with the U.N., or that Saddam had a variety of suspicious programs that could be hiding WoMD, or that Saddam hadn't accounted for the alleged destruction of some of his WoMDs. Nobody had hard evidence that Iraq had WoMDs. Moving from allegations to reality, it's safe to say that Iraq did not cooperate with the U.N. and that it hadn't accounted for its WoMDs. I don't have a problem saying that non-compliance with UN SC resolutions is justification for war. But Bush misled people, and that's inexcusable.
Duncan, the evidence I've heard that Saddam was helping terrorists is that one (several?) terrorists were "harbored" in baghdad for a while. Forgive me if I'm underwhelmed. Various agencies in the U.S. were suspicious about a few of the 9/11 hijackers, yet did nothing. That same standard of inaction, when seen today in other countries, is likely to evoke the wrath of Bush & Co.
The administration simply can't ethically say Iraq has WoMD or plans to use them when it doesn't have primary evidence. Then there's the uranium smuggling faux pas. Every mention of WoMD by the administration should have been couched with "may have" and "might use in the future." Poker is fine in ordinary diplomacy. It's not fine when determining justification for war.
Now the administration is hyping Iraq's links to terror. That may be its best move, but it puts it in the horrible position of risking a repeat of the WoMD fiasco - from news reports, I gather that the hijackers had more ties to Saudi Arabia than to Iraq. This doesn't look good for the veracity of the administration.
There was never a question that a bunch of countries stated that Iraq wasn't cooperating with the U.N., or that Saddam had a variety of suspicious programs that could be hiding WoMD, or that Saddam hadn't accounted for the alleged destruction of some of his WoMDs. Nobody had hard evidence that Iraq had WoMDs. Moving from allegations to reality, it's safe to say that Iraq did not cooperate with the U.N. and that it hadn't accounted for its WoMDs. I don't have a problem saying that non-compliance with UN SC resolutions is justification for war. But Bush misled people, and that's inexcusable.
Duncan, the evidence I've heard that Saddam was helping terrorists is that one (several?) terrorists were "harbored" in baghdad for a while. Forgive me if I'm underwhelmed. Various agencies in the U.S. were suspicious about a few of the 9/11 hijackers, yet did nothing. That same standard of inaction, when seen today in other countries, is likely to evoke the wrath of Bush & Co.
The administration simply can't ethically say Iraq has WoMD or plans to use them when it doesn't have primary evidence. Then there's the uranium smuggling faux pas. Every mention of WoMD by the administration should have been couched with "may have" and "might use in the future." Poker is fine in ordinary diplomacy. It's not fine when determining justification for war.
Now the administration is hyping Iraq's links to terror. That may be its best move, but it puts it in the horrible position of risking a repeat of the WoMD fiasco - from news reports, I gather that the hijackers had more ties to Saudi Arabia than to Iraq. This doesn't look good for the veracity of the administration.
If you're referencing the "16 evil words" related to British intelligence, Bush was 100% correct in what he stated. The fact that the British got it wrong (more accurately, the French pulled one on them) doesn't negate the fact that Bush was factually correct in his statements. And if you are saying that Bush's claim that Iraq had WMDs was misleading, the best intel anyone had showed that Iraq had WMDs in the past and Iraq by its own admission could not account for massive portions of it beyond a simple statement "oh, we destroyed it" yet could provide no evidence of such a destruction. That assertion wouldn't hold up in court, nor did it hold up in the UN. So, the assertion that they retained the WMDs was again supported by the best evidence at the time. So, saying that Bush "misled" (i.e. intentionally lied) is a false statement itself.
The fact that the British got it wrong (more accurately, the French pulled one on them) doesn't negate the fact that Bush was factually correct in his statements.
The administration knew the documents were bogus, but W chose to cite them anyway.
That's (pick 1):
Lying
Incompetence
"Factually Correct", my Bum.
db
The administration knew the documents were bogus, but W chose to cite them anyway.
That's (pick 1):
Lying
Incompetence
"Factually Correct", my Bum.
db
Duncan Idaho
member
Try something besides a non sequitur as a response next time.
"And if you are saying that Bush's claim that Iraq had WMDs was misleading, the best intel anyone had showed that Iraq had WMDs in the past and Iraq by its own admission could not account for massive portions of it beyond a simple statement "oh, we destroyed it" yet could provide no evidence of such a destruction. That assertion wouldn't hold up in court, nor did it hold up in the UN."
It's not a matter of an assertion holding up at the UN. It's a matter of whether the assertion can be refuted. Is it impossible that Iraq destroyed its WMDs? Unlikely? Maybe.
Say you have two rifles. You've cheated a little on your taxes, have a few speeding tickets; you've even assaulted some people on occasion, and a decade back you shot a few people. Now the feds suspect you kept your guns, and you claim you sold them. You have a history of lying and being a bad person, but does that mean you should go to jail for being a felon in possession of firearms (assume for the sake of argument that it's just to deprive felons of firearms, and that miraculously this person isn't on probation)?
Saddam was supposed to destroy his WMD verifiably. He didn't for over a decade, violating numerous UN SC resolutions in the process. But that doesn't mean he still has the WoMDs. Even assuming the worst, that he sold them to terrorists years ago, if he has none now, does the fact that he had them in the past and sold them to terrorists mean it's okay for Bush & Co. to announce the Iraq still hasn't disarmed, that VX will be raining down from Iraqi rockets launched from barges or cargo ships any day now, and that if we don't go along with him we're helping the terrorists?
If you're the president and you're trying to convince the american people to go to war, you can't lie, you can't assert things that aren't proven. If the facts don't support war, you can go look for more facts, but the second you twist reports, words, or anything else to help the case and convince Congress to support you, you've lost your integrity. And as President, that is unacceptable.
It's not a matter of an assertion holding up at the UN. It's a matter of whether the assertion can be refuted. Is it impossible that Iraq destroyed its WMDs? Unlikely? Maybe.
Say you have two rifles. You've cheated a little on your taxes, have a few speeding tickets; you've even assaulted some people on occasion, and a decade back you shot a few people. Now the feds suspect you kept your guns, and you claim you sold them. You have a history of lying and being a bad person, but does that mean you should go to jail for being a felon in possession of firearms (assume for the sake of argument that it's just to deprive felons of firearms, and that miraculously this person isn't on probation)?
Saddam was supposed to destroy his WMD verifiably. He didn't for over a decade, violating numerous UN SC resolutions in the process. But that doesn't mean he still has the WoMDs. Even assuming the worst, that he sold them to terrorists years ago, if he has none now, does the fact that he had them in the past and sold them to terrorists mean it's okay for Bush & Co. to announce the Iraq still hasn't disarmed, that VX will be raining down from Iraqi rockets launched from barges or cargo ships any day now, and that if we don't go along with him we're helping the terrorists?
If you're the president and you're trying to convince the american people to go to war, you can't lie, you can't assert things that aren't proven. If the facts don't support war, you can go look for more facts, but the second you twist reports, words, or anything else to help the case and convince Congress to support you, you've lost your integrity. And as President, that is unacceptable.
Kendra Pacelli
Member
When those documents were brought to administration, it was stated that they had asked numerous times if the information was correct. Numerous times it was stated that they were. It was not found out until right up until the State of the Union Address. Bush chose to keep it in. Maybe the wrong decision, however, he apologized for it. Bush was given the wrong information. I feel that he did his best in trying to provide us reason for the attacks on Iraq. If that is the worse Bush is going to do, then hell, who are we to judge. I am for this war in Iraq. I know, have seen, and heard documentation on how Sadaam treated men, women, and children in his country. WMD? Yeah, he had them, and like it was stated prior in this thread, big deserts....and a good way in hiding them. War may be over fellas, but our men are still dying everyday. I don't think there needs to be an excuse now. I say kick some butt, rebuild the country, and get the hairy heck out of there. Did I forget to mention Kill Sadaam? That too.
It was not found out until right up until the State of the Union Address.
No.
The administration knew in February 2002 that the documents were a forgery.
Does this matter? I suggest that it does: the USA invaded Iraq because, we were told, they were a direct threat to us.
All the rationalizations about saving the poor Iraqis from SH are after the fact and, while maybe true, are only front page because W lied about the threat.
db
No.
The administration knew in February 2002 that the documents were a forgery.
Does this matter? I suggest that it does: the USA invaded Iraq because, we were told, they were a direct threat to us.
All the rationalizations about saving the poor Iraqis from SH are after the fact and, while maybe true, are only front page because W lied about the threat.
db
- Status