Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 43
  1.    #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by DHAnderson
    How could the "Whole world knew that Iraq had WMDs" when it was nearly impossible to have 100% certainty of of that fact? in addition the fact that none have been found to date seems to make the CIA agent correct.
    Of course not Anderson, the idea that 100% of the worldwide intellegence community knew or thought there were WMDs in Iraq is silly.

    The contrary is closer to the truth. Those around the world that did think Iraq had WMDs did so because the heard it from **** Cheney. Including Tony Blair.

    And if you remember, the international inspectors that were there putting an official report together on that specific topic, were warned to leave by the President shortly before bombs started dropping.
  2. #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Of course not Anderson, the idea that 100% of the worldwide intellegence community knew or thought there were WMDs in Iraq is silly.

    The contrary is closer to the truth. Those around the world that did think Iraq had WMDs did so because the heard it from **** Cheney. Including Tony Blair.
    For an list of quotes from all those silly peps from the Reps, Dems, France, UN, Hamas, etc... from this time, click here:

    http://discuss.treocentral.com/showp...4&postcount=42
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 04/22/2006 at 10:14 PM.
  3.    #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    For an list of quotes from all those silly peps from the Reps, Dems, France, UN, Hamas, etc... from this time, click here:

    http://discuss.treocentral.com/showp...4&postcount=42
    Unless the president takes his intel from France, Hamas, and Hillary Clinton, I dont see how any of the links in that post affect the conversation .
  4. #24  
    Uhm....yes, because that is the nature of intel.....because many of the Senators had access to the raw intel data and supported the same claims (like those on the Senate Intel Committees). Because part of intel is comparing intel from various countries and making the best guess conclusion from pieces of info from multi sources. Here is one I came across yesterday:
    Article about another example of classified docs being leaked. This was leaked docs talking against case for Saddam's weapons, but did not specify if this was a single report or recognize any other intel to the contrary at the time.

    In October 2002, Denmark’s Prime Minister Anders Gogh Rasmussen told the Parliament that, along with the US, they were convinced that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction.
    http://www.editorsweblog.org/print_n...after_publ.php
    If Russia, England, France, Germany, Israel, Saudi, Denmark, Italy, all were saying they had intel that strongly suggested that Saddam either had WMDs, did not fully dispose of his WMDs, or was in the process of actively obtaining them...a pattern starts to emerge.
  5.    #25  
    The fact is Hobbes, the President asked the CIA to produce Evidence of WMDs so that he could justify the Invasion that he had already planned since Wolfowitz and Cheney approached him as Governor of Texas.

    The plan was to give the evidence to Powell to take to the United Nations. (the nerve gas tape)

    When Tennent came back with the intel, reports from inside the room said the president was irritated and said "That's it?", "That is all you have?".

    He gave it to Powell and sent him to the UN and began the Invasion without even awaiting the outcome. It's reported that Powell was 100% "out of the loop", and finally resigned from the administration.
  6. #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    The fact is Hobbes, the President asked the CIA to produce Evidence of WMDs so that he could justify the Invasion that he had already planned since Wolfowitz and Cheney approached him as Governor of Texas.
    And your proof Dan Rather?
    Freedom of some speech in the US, through someone in the UK.
  7.    #27  
    lol, your hardon for Dan Rather is so funny
    • My proof that there werent any WMDs?
    • My proof that Wolfowitz and Cheney approached Governer Bush about Invading Iraq back in the late 90s?
    • My proof that the best prewar WMD evidence we showed to the UN was an MP3 of 2 soldiers talking about nerve gas?
    • My proof that the President's Terrorism Zhar(who was in the room) said in his book that the President was angry that the only intel we had was 2 soldiers on an MP3 file?
    • My proof that the President Invaded Iraq before the UN had issued an answer?
  8. #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    The fact is Hobbes, the President asked the CIA to produce Evidence of WMDs so that he could justify the Invasion that he had already planned since Wolfowitz and Cheney approached him as Governor of Texas.
    I'll try this again, your proof to the above stupidity?
    Freedom of some speech in the US, through someone in the UK.
  9.    #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by geatches
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze
    The fact is Hobbes, the President asked the CIA to produce Evidence of WMDs so that he could justify the Invasion that he had already planned since Wolfowitz and Cheney approached him as Governor of Texas.
    I'll try this again, your proof to the above stupidity?
    I am guessing you are not asking me to prove that bush asked for intel from the CIA, so you must mean this from Bush's own Secretary of the Treasury.

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...ill-iraq_x.htm

    This is exactly what the CIA agent said, and Bush's Terrorism Zhar.

    Oh, and also. There is no Santa Clause, the moms and dads do it.
  10. #30  
    I know this is tough for you, much harder than debating your friends on MySpace, but I'll try one more time...

    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    so that he could justify the Invasion that he had already planned since Wolfowitz and Cheney approached him as Governor of Texas.
    your proof to the above stupidity?
    Freedom of some speech in the US, through someone in the UK.
  11.    #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by geatches
    I know this is tough for you, much harder than debating your friends on MySpace, but I'll try one more time...your proof to the above stupidity?
    Lol, i just checked to make sure the link is working, so i can say, i have NO idea what you are talking about. Here, I will paste it in.

    Quote Originally Posted by USAToday
    O'Neill: Iraq planning came before 9/11
    By Dave Moniz and Peronet Despeignes,USA TODAY
    CRAWFORD, Texas — Paul O'Neill, President Bush's Treasury secretary in the first two years of his presidency, says the Bush administration was planning to invade Iraq long before the Sept. 11 attacks and used questionable intelligence to justify the war.


    O'Neill discusses plans to invade Iraq, pulled together in 2001, during a 60 Minutes show which airs Sunday.
    AP file

    In wide-ranging interviews with the CBS program 60 Minutes and Time magazine, O'Neill said Bush and a number of top advisers began planning to get rid of Saddam Hussein soon after the 2000 election. As early as January 2001, they began looking for ways to justify an invasion, O'Neill said.

    "From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein is a bad person and that he needed to go," O'Neill told 60 Minutes. "From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime."

    In the interviews, O'Neill was critical of Bush's leadership skills. He said Bush is too secretive and has saddled the economy with crippling long-term debt.

    Bush fired O'Neill in December 2002 after clashing with the Treasury secretary over economic issues, including Bush's $1.7 trillion in tax cuts. O'Neill is the principal source for a new book about the Bush administration, The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House and the Education of Paul O'Neill by former Wall Street Journal reporter Ron Suskind.

    In the book, Suskind used materials provided by O'Neill to show that Bush administration officials targeted Saddam immediately after the election. Interviewed in the Jan. 19 edition of Time, O'Neill said the White House overstated the threat posed by Iraq.

    "In the 23 months I was there, I never saw anything that I would characterize as evidence of weapons of mass destruction. ... I never saw anything in the intelligence that I would characterize as real evidence."

    The Bush administration declined to comment on the substance of O'Neill's statements. Spokesman Ken Lisaius said Sunday: "The White House is not in the business of doing book reviews. This is an attempt to justify the former secretary's own opinions instead of looking at the record of results being achieved for the American people."

    Suskind, also interviewed on 60 Minutes, said the Bush administration had already begun planning for an invasion of Iraq in January 2001 — eight months before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington. The planning, Suskind said, involved discussions of war crimes tribunals, peacekeeping troops and questions about how to divide Iraq's oil wealth.

    It is rare for top administration officials to criticize their bosses, even after leaving office. Thomas Mann, a government scholar at the Brookings Institution, a liberal-leaning think tank, likened the episode to criticism of President Reagan's budget process by his budget director, David Stockman, in 1981. Stockman later wrote a book detailing his criticism.

    "O'Neill is a straight shooter but perhaps a little naive," Mann said. "He thought Cabinet meetings were places for serious policy discussions, and this president doesn't engage in those."

    Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said O'Neill's comments show that the administration deceived the public about its reasons for going to war in Iraq. "It would mean they were dead-set on going to war alone since almost the day they took office and deliberately lied to the American people, Congress and the world," Kerry said.

    In Suskind's book, O'Neill described the president leading Cabinet meetings "like a blind man in a room full of deaf people."

    O'Neill joined the administration after a successful career in the private sector and having served as an adviser to Presidents Johnson, Nixon and Ford. He was known as a no-nonsense executive with a penchant for candor — described as refreshing by some and inept by others.

    He made several remarks as Treasury secretary that proved embarrassing to the administration, including a comment that financial aid to Brazil during its last currency crisis would be a waste of taxpayer money and likely to end up in "Swiss bank accounts."
  12. #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Lol, i just checked to make sure the link is working, so i can say, i have NO idea what you are talking about. Here, I will paste it in.
    I didn't read anything about a grand conspiracy hatched in Texas while Bush was governor as I asked you to prove several times. Once again, you embarrassed yourself. You sir are silly.
    Freedom of some speech in the US, through someone in the UK.
  13.    #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by geatches
    I didn't read anything about a grand conspiracy hatched in Texas while Bush was governor as I asked you to prove several times. Once again, you embarrassed yourself. You sir are silly.
    Huh? I said, Grand conspiracy?

    So your objection is that he began trying to justify an invasion in 2000 and not in 1999? Lol. Does it really matter? Or is this just another example of your need to direct attention away from the substance of the argument?

    "A SECRET blueprint for US global domination reveals that President Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure 'regime change' even before he took power in January 2001. The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a 'global Pax Americana' was drawn up for **** Cheney (now vice-president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC)"
    -- The Sunday Herald, Sept. 15, 2002
    "Two years before the September 11 attacks, presidential candidate George W. Bush was already talking privately about the political benefits of attacking Iraq, according to his former ghost writer, who held many conversations with then-Texas Governor Bush in preparation for a planned autobiography. 'He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999,' said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. 'It was on his mind. He said to me: 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.'. . . "
    -- Russ Baker, GNN, Oct. 28, 2004
  14. #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Huh? I said, Grand conspiracy?

    So your objection is that he began trying to justify an invasion in 2000 and not in 1999? Lol. Does it really matter? Or is this just another example of your need to direct attention away from the substance of the argument?
    Did you know how to read a newspaper in 1999?? Of course Bush talked about removing Saddam. So did Clinton.

    This was no secret plan. This was discussed and debated in public and in Congress. Congress voted on and supported the objective of removing Saddam. Clinton signed it. John Kerry was one of the bigger advocates of confronting Saddam.
  15. #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Huh? I said, Grand conspiracy?

    So your objection is that he began trying to justify an invasion in 2000 and not in 1999? Lol. Does it really matter? Or is this just another example of your need to direct attention away from the substance of the argument?



    Russ Baker, GNN? You quote a blog? I'm losing IQ points just communicating with you.
    Freedom of some speech in the US, through someone in the UK.
  16. #36  
    I FULLY AGREE WITH BLAZE!!!!! Well, at least to the extend that I have proof plans were in the works even before 9/11 to attack Iraq!!! But it does go a little further back than even Bush's Admin as a Governer....in fact it goes back 12 YEARS and across two other administrations to find when we really started developing our plans to attack Iraq.

    Warning to Blaze.....these two posts probably contain too much reading with too many facts, so if not interest and don't read them and don't complain it is too much info as you have been warned of the consequences of clicking on the following links:


    Now, after considering the info in the last two links, what is the only main difference in the situation in 1998 and in 200x to make the Dems change their minds with such a united 180?

    Did Saddam have a change of heart and welcome unfettered inspections to verify he had gotten rid of his WMDs and their programs? Actually they were allowed back in, but he pulled all the same tricks he did on Clinton.....which, given the strict language of this resolution, made it an even bigger joke than the situation that Clinton described during his administration.

    Could it be that we were attacked by terrorist on our own soil? Would that make the Dems feel that Saddam was less of a threat now vs before 9/11?

    The only other major difference is there was a Rep pres instead of a Dem one (after a very bitter loss during the election). Would they really change their view on nearly every single national security issue with Iraq just because of that?

    This may be one of the life mysteries that we may never know.

    Simple pop quiz on two sources above:

    1) Now how long before GWB came to office and how long before 9/11 did planning for taking out Saddam begin?

    2) Who proposed, voted for, and passed the "Iraq Liberation Act" introduced into Congress SEPTEMBER 29, 1998, passed with overwhelming support, and under what administration?

    3) On what date did Bush receive authority by Congress (and skipping Senate because of the overwhelming vote with the doc without changing a single word)?

    4) On what date did the UN Unanimously authorize the use of "Extreme Measures" without the need of another UN resolution and would they have done that if they themselves didn't have some sort of intel to verify the claims that they thought was true at the time they voted?
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 04/29/2006 at 11:34 PM.
  17.    #37  
    Hobbes, I am sure your posts, and links to your other posts, are all very interesting. I really mean no offense when i dont read them all.

    I think we are all in agreement here (except possibly geatches). Whether you believe he started planning in 1999, 2000, 1992. The president was planning to invade Iraq long before 9/11.

    As far as your lenghty list of Democrats that also thought Invading Iraq was a great idea... There is only one person ultimately responsible for the decision to go to war, and that is the president of the united states.
    Last edited by theBlaze74; 04/30/2006 at 11:18 AM.
  18. #38  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Hobbes, I am sure your posts, and links to your other posts, are all very interesting. I really mean no offense when i dont read them all.

    I think we are all in agreement here (except possibly geatches). Whether you believe he started planning in 1999, 2000, 1992. The president was planning to invade Iraq long before 9/11.

    As far as your lenghty list of Democrats that also thought Invading Iraq was a great idea... There is only one person ultimately responsible for the decision to go to war, and that is the president of the united states.
    How much of your information do you get through blogs? This is Russ Baker, GNN! What a joke.
    Freedom of some speech in the US, through someone in the UK.
  19.    #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by geatches
    How much of your information do you get through blogs? This is Russ Baker, GNN! What a joke.
    I think you already mentioned that, and I asked how it was relevant, especially since there was a page full of other sources also pointing out that George Bush was planning to invade Iraq long before 9/11.

    As usual, you are questioning motives, slinging insults, and calling in to question integrity and even intellegence in order to direct attention away from the substance of the issue at hand.

    In this case, i can see why.
  20. #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Hobbes, I am sure your posts, and links to your other posts, are all very interesting. I really mean no offense when i dont read them all.

    I think we are all in agreement here (except possibly geatches). Whether you believe he started planning in 1999, 2000, 1992. The president was planning to invade Iraq long before 9/11.
    Again, If you ask hard and complicated and complex questions but are not interested in answers that truly address them (with cites and sources), then why ask?

    Since you did not read any of the information in response to your question, you probably don't know that I agree with you that with the directions, proclamations, advice, and intel from the two previous admins, it was prudent to have just such a plan. Also if Bush had Presidential aspirations, which he no doubt had, while as a Governor, it also stands to reason to know your personal stance and plans for current admin (Clinton) policies, like the Iraq Liberation Act signed under Bill Clinton. So, yes I agree with you that Bush probably did look into this issue and think it would have been irresponsible to not have done so. I am sure he did the same thing with many other international and internal issues as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    As far as your lenghty list of Democrats that also thought Invading Iraq was a great idea... There is only one person ultimately responsible for the decision to go to war, and that is the president of the united states.
    Again....I agree, but congress does have a major roll in this, hence the weight of the quotes from the time. Did they or did they not express the same opinion of the Pres and vote to support him and give him power to preceed? If both Rep and Dem had been against it and advised against it, then the lump of the blame would fall in the Pres lap. But Congress nearly unanimously agreed with it, stated their belief and the reasons for it. The responsibility of their statements to help influence the decision at the time to go into Iraq cannot be dismissed.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 04/30/2006 at 03:33 PM.
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions