Page 10 of 43 FirstFirst ... 5678910111213141520 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 200 of 845
  1. #181  
    Quote Originally Posted by ZBoater
    They would try to impeach for alleged incompetence of letting it happen. I never said these people made sense.
    You cant impeach a president for alleged incompetence:

    Article 2, Section. 4.
    The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

    Being incompetent is not a crime (it may be a tort in negligence theory).

    Quote Originally Posted by ZBoater
    US policy NOW is to attack threats before they attack us.
    So how was Iraq and Sadaam 'about' to attack us? If there was some imminent WMD attack orchestrated by Iraq then how come we cant find one single chemical weapon cache

    Quote Originally Posted by ZBoater
    I am not saying anything about circumstances, conditions, etc. "See it and take it out" is just an expression which you shouldn't take out of context or misunderstand. The clarify for you, there is a lot that happens between "seeing it" and "taking it out".
    I can only look at what you say in the context of this forum. If you didnt intend to be contradictory, thats cool. I am not intending to misunderstand, quite the contrary.

    As far as 'seeing and taking it out'....the first step is seeing.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZBoater
    As I said, the world is not black and white. Muslim extremists already see us as a threat and are already "acting". The world is not a nice place. "Speak softly, and carry a big stick..." goes the saying, to which I add "and be prepared to hit someone over the head with it from time to time..."
    I have no problem with the use of force...but the objective and goals have to be clear and transparent in order for the U.S. and its foreign policy to be respected.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZBoater
    And when has unilateral action EVER EVER EVERN been the FIRST attempt of the US? So the decade of sanctions and inspections in Iraq was what? This is a topic for a whole other debate. The question (in this thread at least) was whether Bush LIED to get us to go to war, which is the most absurd proposition.
    I agree that the word LIE is a bit harsh. However, if someone were to say MISLED, then I think an argument could be made.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  2. #182  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    You cant impeach a president for alleged incompetence:

    Article 2, Section. 4.
    The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

    Being incompetent is not a crime (it may be a tort in negligence theory).
    If they can impeach a president for lying.....

    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    So how was Iraq and Sadaam 'about' to attack us? If there was some imminent WMD attack orchestrated by Iraq then how come we cant find one single chemical weapon cache
    You know, hindsight is 20/20. Its easy to Monday Morning quarterback what Bush did, but knowing what EVERYONE knew then, it would have been irresponsible NOT to act.

    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    I have no problem with the use of force...but the objective and goals have to be clear and transparent in order for the U.S. and its foreign policy to be respected.
    "World respect" is highly overrated. It is clear how easily Saddam bribed people in countries to undermine the sanctions, to some people no matter what we do we will always be in the wrong, and the only acceptable outcome to some is the complete destruction of the US and everything it stands for. Respect is good for getting a car loan. For living free and safe in this planet we live in at this time in history, I'd rather have the big stick...

    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    I agree that the word LIE is a bit harsh. However, if someone were to say MISLED, then I think an argument could be made.
    To mislead is to "to lead in a wrong direction or into a mistaken action or belief often by deliberate deceit". Even if you leave of the "deliberate deceit" part, you would have to argue that removing Saddam was the wrong direction or a mistaken action. Me, personally, think it was the right thing to do despite the lack of WMDs. The world is a better place with that creep in jail....
    Cingular Treo 650
    Click here to see what's loaded on my Treo 650
    Do you like my dog? Visit his website!!!
  3. #183  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    So how was Iraq and Sadaam 'about' to attack us? If there was some imminent WMD attack orchestrated by Iraq then how come we cant find one single chemical weapon cache
    A question for you: If you were the President, and you heard from (1) your own intel sources that an attack was planned and Iraq had WMDs; (2) other respected allied countries' similar intel; and (3) from Russin PM Putin that Russia intel was convinced an Iraqi attack on the US with WMDs was imminent,

    -what would you have done? attacked, waited for more intel despite the threats of an imminent attack, or taken other action?
    Palm V-->Visor Deluxe-->Visor Prism-->Visorphone-->Treo 180-->Treo 600-->Treo 650 on Sprint-->Treo 700p-->Centro-->Diamond-->Pre-->HTC EVO 4g???!
  4. #184  
    Quote Originally Posted by ZBoater
    If they can impeach a president for lying.....
    I should have wrote this for you in my last reply cause I knew you wouldnt be able to resist putting it.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZBoater
    "World respect" is highly overrated. It is clear how easily Saddam bribed people in countries to undermine the sanctions, to some people no matter what we do we will always be in the wrong, and the only acceptable outcome to some is the complete destruction of the US and everything it stands for. Respect is good for getting a car loan. For living free and safe in this planet we live in at this time in history, I'd rather have the big stick...
    It may be overrated but its still important. I think there are times when having respect will get a lot more done than wielding the big stick (i.e. diplomacy...granted it didnt appear to be working with Sadaam).

    Quote Originally Posted by ZBoater
    To mislead is to "to lead in a wrong direction or into a mistaken action or belief often by deliberate deceit". Even if you leave of the "deliberate deceit" part, you would have to argue that removing Saddam was the wrong direction or a mistaken action.
    Actually that is not true according to your definition above...let me break it down:

    To mislead is "to lead
    -in a wrong direction or
    -into a mistaken action or belief
    -often by deliberate deceit".

    So, I could argue that President Bush mislead us by leading us into a mistaken belief. So, I wouldnt "have to argue that removing Saddam was the wrong direction or a mistaken action.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZBoater
    Me, personally, think it was the right thing to do despite the lack of WMDs. The world is a better place with that creep in jail....
    I am ok with this statement except the reason why we do something is just as important as what we accomplish...otherwise you start down the path of the 'ends justify the means.'
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  5. #185  
    Well, I think we are finding some common ground, but we are still a ways apart, which is OK. . It is a misconception that WMD was the only reason we went to war with Iraq. The fact that this has been repeated a million times in the press does not make it so. The best indicator of the reasons we went to war is the resolution Congress passed in 2002 authorizing the use of force. Yes, WMD's figure very prominently in there, but so the the violations of UN resolutions, violations of the cease-fire agreement after the first Iraq war, repression of its people, the attempt of the first President Bush's life, the constant firing upon coalition aircraft enforcing the UN-mandated no-fly zones, the presence of al-Qaeda in Iraq, and the deceit and games played with the inspectors.

    So, Saddam WAS a threat, as decided not just by Bush, but by Congress, the Europeans, and the UN. President Bush led this country into a war that liberated millions of people, brought down a brutal dictator and murderer, and history will judge on whether we are safer or not, but I think we are. We are better of fighting them over there than over here. So he led. He has stated repeatedly than even knowing that Saddam didn't have WMD stockpiles (although he did have the capacity and ability to reconstitute them at any point, and USE THEM AGAIN like he had in the past), he still believes he did the right thing. I agree with him.
    Cingular Treo 650
    Click here to see what's loaded on my Treo 650
    Do you like my dog? Visit his website!!!
  6. #186  
    Quote Originally Posted by heberman
    A question for you: If you were the President, and you heard from (1) your own intel sources that an attack was planned and Iraq had WMDs; (2) other respected allied countries' similar intel; and (3) from Russin PM Putin that Russia intel was convinced an Iraqi attack on the US with WMDs was imminent,

    -what would you have done? attacked, waited for more intel despite the threats of an imminent attack, or taken other action?
    Let me first state this up front: I am not afraid to lay down the big wood at anytime if we NEED to.

    Now in the scenario that you laid out...#3 is where I would be concerned. Was our Intel convinced an Iraqi attack on the US with WMD's was imminent? If our intel was not convinced, then I am reluctant to put our men on the ground in harms way. What evidence shows that Iraq was planning a WMD attack on the U.S.? How?

    Why go to war when I can just do strategic strike on where the WMD's are at (assuming of course my intel tells me where they are at.)?
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  7. #187  
    I guess you all are not aware of a new memo which came out this past week in the Sunday Times. It comes from a July 23 2002 meeting of Tony Blair and his inner circle of ministers incl foreign secretary Jack Straw and defense secretary Geoff Hoon. The memo suggests that Bush and Blair had agreed to regime change way back in July 2002 and that the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy that led to the U.S.-led invasion.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...0822_1,00.html

    I think if you want to answer the question posed in this thread, investigating what Blair and Bush and associated advisors were saying here is a good start. The white house has so far declined to respond to a letter from 89 congressmen asking if the memo was true.

    http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/worldviews/

    here is the transcript of the memo:
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...650822,00.html
  8. #188  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    ...The memo suggests that Bush and Blair had agreed to regime change way back in July 2002 and that the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy that led to the U.S.-led invasion.
    So I take it Putin and the UN read the same memo and got on board with all this deception? Hmmmmm....
    Cingular Treo 650
    Click here to see what's loaded on my Treo 650
    Do you like my dog? Visit his website!!!
  9. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #189  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    I think if you want to answer the question posed in this thread, investigating what Blair and Bush and associated advisors were saying here is a good start. The white house has so far declined to respond to a letter from 89 congressmen asking if the memo was true.

    http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/worldviews/

    here is the transcript of the memo:
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...650822,00.html
    Just alittle correction here the letter as it stands now is backed by 122 congressmen/women + 540,000 american citizens.
  10. #190  
    Quote Originally Posted by ZBoater
    Well, I think we are finding some common ground, but we are still a ways apart, which is OK. .
    I agree with you AGAIN Debate is great.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZBoater
    It is a misconception that WMD was the only reason we went to war with Iraq. The fact that this has been repeated a million times in the press does not make it so.
    Remember who was making those claims....President Bush. Of course it gets repeated in the news...all through the presidential campaign he stated that Sadaam had WMD and had to be taken out.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZBoater
    The best indicator of the reasons we went to war is the resolution Congress passed in 2002 authorizing the use of force.
    This assumes that the Congress makes its own decisions. Remember the Dem in CA (Dont know her name) who was opposed to the war...she had death threats, politically she was blackballed...Congress acquiesses to the President on foreign policy when it shouldnt. It appears to be political suicide to question the patriotism of this country and some of the decisions its leaders make. (This is a whole other thread. )

    Quote Originally Posted by ZBoater
    Yes, WMD's figure very prominently in there, but so the the violations of UN resolutions, violations of the cease-fire agreement after the first Iraq war, repression of its people, the attempt of the first President Bush's life, the constant firing upon coalition aircraft enforcing the UN-mandated no-fly zones, the presence of al-Qaeda in Iraq, and the deceit and games played with the inspectors.
    Most of these reasons werent even given by President Bush when he made his case.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZBoater
    So, Saddam WAS a threat, as decided not just by Bush, but by Congress, the Europeans, and the UN..
    They may have agreed that he was a threat but all those groups did not support our occupation in Iraq (especially after the fact that we havent found the WMD).

    Quote Originally Posted by ZBoater
    President Bush led this country into a war that liberated millions of people, brought down a brutal dictator and murderer, and history will judge on whether we are safer or not, but I think we are.
    You may be right...no one is really arguing that Sadaam was a good guy.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZBoater
    We are better of fighting them over there than over here.
    I couldnt agree more So why not use strategic strikes to take out WMD stockpiles/enemy targets?

    Quote Originally Posted by ZBoater
    So he led.
    He 'led' alright but with what kind of plan?

    Quote Originally Posted by ZBoater
    He has stated repeatedly than even knowing that Saddam didn't have WMD stockpiles (although he did have the capacity and ability to reconstitute them at any point, and USE THEM AGAIN like he had in the past), he still believes he did the right thing. I agree with him.
    I have no problem with you agreeing with him but I worry about the costs (monetarily and in human lives) with no real plan to exit (ok...something has been formed now but when we were 'sold' on this war, we didnt have a good plan). Support for the war has been dwindling...why? Probably because we werent given realistic expectations when the case for war was made.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  11. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #191  
    Quote Originally Posted by ZBoater
    So I take it Putin and the UN read the same memo and got on board with all this deception? Hmmmmm....
    You need to stop trumpeting this BS. The UN was never on board, they went off the intel the US gave them. They wanted more time to inspect Iraq before force was used. Hence the reason why the UN did not invade Iraq with the US nor did it give it's blessing.

    Did you read any bit of the time line I gave above if not here it is again. I suggest you read through it.
  12. #192  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    You need to stop trumpeting this BS. The UN was never on board, they went off the intel the US gave them...
    So, the UN did not have independent information regarding Saddam's program?

    Huh.

    And Putin and the Russians? What about them? You conveniently ignore them. Did they use US intelligence too?

    You say to stop trumpeting BS. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
    Cingular Treo 650
    Click here to see what's loaded on my Treo 650
    Do you like my dog? Visit his website!!!
  13. #193  
    Quote Originally Posted by ZBoater
    So I take it Putin and the UN read the same memo and got on board with all this deception? Hmmmmm....
    Putin and the UN? I am not sure where you are getting at with that.

    Are you trying to link together some unbelieveable conspiracy and then make us defend it?

    As far as the memo is concerned, it simply refers to dealings between Bush and Blair.
  14. #194  
    What I am saying is that blaming Bush and Blair for some nefarious conspiracy to trump up intelligence is ridiculous when the Russians and the UN where saying the same thing. Plus add to that the fact that the whole debate is pointless, but that never stopped me before....
    Cingular Treo 650
    Click here to see what's loaded on my Treo 650
    Do you like my dog? Visit his website!!!
  15. #195  
    Quote Originally Posted by ZBoater
    What I am saying is that blaming Bush and Blair for some nefarious conspiracy to trump up intelligence is ridiculous when the Russians and the UN where saying the same thing.
    Its only ridiculous if they werent "IN" on it. JK

    Quote Originally Posted by ZBoater
    Plus add to that the fact that the whole debate is pointless, but that never stopped me before....
    There is no pointless debate... Meaningless maybe but always with a point.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  16. #196  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    ...Most of these reasons werent even given by President Bush when he made his case.
    Yes, they were. That the news outlets only choose to focus on the more salacious details is one thing. If you read the transcripts of ALL he said, himself, and his spokespeople, the case was broader. But WMDs make the headlines because it sells more papers/airtime than daily fruitless attacks on our pilots.

    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    They may have agreed that he was a threat but all those groups did not support our occupation in Iraq (especially after the fact that we havent found the WMD).
    We are there. We toppled Saddam. We have a responsibility for Iraq to be successful, not just for the millions of innocent Iraqis, but for own interests as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    So why not use strategic strikes to take out WMD stockpiles/enemy targets?
    We did! The Israelis bombed the nuke plants, and we bombed the infamous milk factory. But truth is boots on the ground is the ONLY way to FOR SURE eliminate the threat. Heck, just last week they found a bunker the size of three football fields with A/C and storage!!!! And that was what? 2 years after toppling Saddam???

    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    He 'led' alright but with what kind of plan?
    Ahhhhhh, well. Mistakes were made. Disbanding the Iraqi army was a major fopaw. Some of them are 20/20 hindsight, some were preventable, I think. I think our military is excellent at killing another military, but nation building is a whole nother thing.....

    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    I have no problem with you agreeing with him but I worry about the costs (monetarily and in human lives) with no real plan to exit (ok...something has been formed now but when we were 'sold' on this war, we didnt have a good plan). Support for the war has been dwindling...why? Probably because we werent given realistic expectations when the case for war was made.
    I agree with you on this. It is impossible to accurately predict the cost of a war like this, but going back and looking at some of the talking heads saying that $2 billion, tops, was going to be the cost, its laughable. I think all along we've known we were not going to occupy Iraq indefinitely, so we were going to leave at some point (which makes the disbanding of the Iraqi army such a DUH! move), and yes, it has been expensive, but necessary. No one celebrates the death of 1,700 american soldiers and wounding of 12K +, but we can not sit idly by and let gathering threats build, not after 9/11. 9/11 changed the equation, and our military is doing what they do best - protecting us and keeping us safe.

    I wish they could all come home tomorrow and that they would never ever have to be deployed and put in harms way again. But I live on Planet Earth, and things just don't work that way here....
    Cingular Treo 650
    Click here to see what's loaded on my Treo 650
    Do you like my dog? Visit his website!!!
  17. #197  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    ...There is no pointless debate... Meaningless maybe but always with a point.
    Bwhahahaha. Point taken.
    Cingular Treo 650
    Click here to see what's loaded on my Treo 650
    Do you like my dog? Visit his website!!!
  18. #198  
    Quote Originally Posted by ZBoater
    What I am saying is that blaming Bush and Blair for some nefarious conspiracy to trump up intelligence is ridiculous when the Russians and the UN where saying the same thing. Plus add to that the fact that the whole debate is pointless, but that never stopped me before....
    The russians and the UN were not saying the "same thing". The russians and the UN were against the Iraq invasion. The Downing memo discusses the need for the Iraq invasion and advance preparations for it.
  19. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #199  
    Quote Originally Posted by ZBoater
    So, the UN did not have independent information regarding Saddam's program?

    Huh.

    And Putin and the Russians? What about them? You conveniently ignore them. Did they use US intelligence too?

    You say to stop trumpeting BS. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
    No is what I am saying is that the UN's intelligence differed from the US's. But the reason they put these plans in motion was on behalf of the insistance of the US that he (Saddam) was seeking "yellowcake" from Niger, mobile weapons labs, this little vile of agent could wipe out a city the size of (insert name here). So on and so on.

    Your statement about al queada being in Iraq is also false. Saddam did not like this group of terrorist, he wanted a secular Iraq and he viewed as a rival and he tried his best to keep them out of his country.

    You also state that "WMD was not the only reason we went to war". Could have fooled me, that was all the American people heard, "we don't want to wait for the smoking gun to be in the shape of a mushroom cloud" repeated many times by the minions of this admin. "Saddam has WMD and continues build more". You know why they kept saying weapons of mass destruction? Because to regime change by force is illegal. They had to 'fix' up an excuse to make it legal. Plus on top of it all, the american people would not get behind such an action if Saddam was NOT an emminent threat. So they had to make him an emminent threat.

    Why was Cheney's Energy task force so secret? Could it be that they discussed what foreign oil companies would be the best suitors for Iraq's Oil fields?

    Why did some of the other people not get behind the war? Could it be that their intel differed from US? Why did the UN not back the war? Could it be their intel differed form the US?

    Sure it is a noble notion to have democracy spread around the ME but you cannot instill democracy by force, that has to come from the people within the given country. Again this is not the main reason we went to war. I would even venture to say it wasn't even a reason at all till no WMD was found.

    How much misleading and lying can you take from one guy and still trust him? And yes he is a LIAR. Remember during the debates "Need some wood?" remember that line when Kerry said bush was part owner of a timber company and that is how he files his taxes? Well it turns out Bush does own an S corporation that............is a timber company. <---------------- 1 example.
  20. #200  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    ...Your statement about al queada being in Iraq is also false. Saddam did not like this group of terrorist, he wanted a secular Iraq and he viewed as a rival and he tried his best to keep them out of his country.
    Its not my statement, it comes straight from the Congressional resolution authorizing the use of force. But what do they know.

    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    You also state that "WMD was not the only reason we went to war". Could have fooled me, that was all the American people heard,
    Again, what makes news is not necesarily what is. I simply read the resolution authorizing the use of force, and saw all these "other" reasons there. If you get all your info from CNN, then you risk losing out.

    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Why was Cheney's Energy task force so secret? Could it be that they discussed what foreign oil companies would be the best suitors for Iraq's Oil fields?
    A bit paranoid there, aren't we?

    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Why did some of the other people not get behind the war? Could it be that their intel differed from US? Why did the UN not back the war? Could it be their intel differed form the US?
    Could it be because Saddam bought off the French and the Germans? Could it be because the Russians were owed BILLIONS by Saddam? Could it be because the UN couldn't fight itself out of a teacup????

    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    How much misleading and lying can you take from one guy and still trust him? And yes he is a LIAR. ...
    Me, and the majority of the voting public, can take 4 more years.

    And you seem a little angry calling the President a LIAR. But you are entitled to your OPINION, as far away as fact as it can be....
    Cingular Treo 650
    Click here to see what's loaded on my Treo 650
    Do you like my dog? Visit his website!!!

Posting Permissions