Page 18 of 43 FirstFirst ... 8131415161718192021222328 ... LastLast
Results 341 to 360 of 845
  1. #341  
    Cmon barrie, where is the cite. This is an amazing accusation. As far as I can tell he visited Iraq and Saddam December 19th and 20th 1983 and visited Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz on March 24th, 1984. The gassing of the Kurds happened March of 1998. That would be AFTER Rumsfeld visited Iraq. I wouldn't beat a dead horse, but misinformation appears common with your posts. Please prove me wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    Cite that article regarding Rumsfield visiting Iraq. Appears he visited prior to the gassing, which once again would debunk your stories of lies.
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    both you guys should just look deep into your souls and confront the fact that this is plain and simply -- a LIE !!

    and please lay off the gasing of the Kurds -- Rumsfeld personally went to talk with Saddamm after that happened to reassure him of our continued support (and to tell him to ignore the proforma criticism spoken at the time from Washington.)
  2. #342  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    FACT: There were AG terrorist training camps in Iraq before the US invasion. Paint it with rose colored glasses if you like, say well it was in Northern Iraq in the no-fly zone (which we know Saddam adhered to ), tell yourself that the terrorist really did not like Saddam, what ever you want to make your self feel better, but it does not change the fact.
    Oh, so what you're saying is the Kurds, who have enjoyed self-autonomous rule since the end of the last Iraq war had al Qaeda terrorist training camps in their territories?


    I know you would like to have given economic and political santions another 10 or 15 years after all look how much was accomplished in the first 10 years of sanctions.
    How about just leaving the U.N. team in there instead of telling them to get out?
  3. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #343  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Oh, so what you're saying is the Kurds, who have enjoyed self-autonomous rule since the end of the last Iraq war had al Qaeda terrorist training camps in their territories?



    How about just leaving the U.N. team in there instead of telling them to get out?
    Yes, the training camps were in Iraq.

    Why leave the UN there when they had 10 years to complete the job already with no success. They were never able to say Saddam destroyed all WMDs.
  4. #344  
    Quote Originally Posted by BILL CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, 1998
    If he refuses or continues to evade his obligations through more tactics of delay and deception, he and he alone will be to blame for the consequences. … Now, let’s imagine the future. What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction…? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he’ll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who’s really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too.
    Quote Originally Posted by BILL CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, 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. We want to seriously reduce his
    capacity to threaten his neighbors.
    WOW! Is that incredible!?
  5. #345  
    Here is an interesting article. What we have to remember is what we knew at the time of the decision was made. Whether a good or bad decision, that determines if it was an honest one or not. Here are some highlights of info coming in about Saddam and AQ, again whether the Intel now proves to be false or is substained is not the question, but what what was known at the time:


    <SNIP>

    On February 17, 1998, President Clinton, speaking at the Pentagon, warned of the "reckless acts of outlaw nations and an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals." These "predators of the twenty-first century," he said, these enemies of America, "will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq."

    Later that spring, the Clinton Justice Department prepared an indictment of Osama bin Laden. The relevant passage, prominently placed in the fourth paragraph, reads:

    Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq.

    Patrick Fitzgerald, a U.S. attorney involved in the preparation of the indictment, testified before the 9/11 Commission. He said the intelligence behind that assertion came from Jamal al Fadl, a former high-ranking al Qaeda terrorist who before the 9/11 attacks gave the U.S intelligence community its first intimate look at al Qaeda. According to Fitzgerald, al Fadl told his interrogators that bin Laden associate Mamdouh Mahmud Salim (Abu Hajer al Iraqi) "tried to reach a sort of agreement where they wouldn't work against each other--sort of the enemy of my enemy is my friend--and that there were indications that within Sudan when al Qaeda was there,

    which al Qaeda left in the summer of '96, or the spring of '96, there were efforts to work on jointly acquiring weapons."

    Several months later, after al Qaeda bombed two American embassies in East Africa, numerous Clinton officials cited an Iraq-al Qaeda connection as the basis for retaliatory U.S. strikes against the al Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.

    On August 24, 1998, the Clinton administration made available a "senior intelligence official" who cited "strong ties between the plant and Iraq." The following day, Thomas Pickering, undersecretary of state for political affairs and one of a handful of Clinton officials involved in the decision to strike al Shifa, briefed foreign reporters at the National Press Club. He was asked directly whether he knew "of any connection between the so-called pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum and the Iraqi government in regard to production of precursors of VX" nerve gas.

    Yeah, I would like to consult my notes just to be sure that what I have to say is stated clearly and correctly. We see evidence that we think is quite clear on contacts between Sudan and Iraq. In fact, al Shifa officials, early in the company's history, we believe were in touch with Iraqi individuals associated with Iraq's VX program.

    Five days after that, U.N. ambassador Bill Richardson appeared on CNN and pointed to "direct evidence of ties between Osama bin Laden" and Sudan's Military Industrial Corporation. "You combine that with Sudan support for terrorism, their connections with Iraq on VX, and you combine that, also, with the chemical precursor issue, and Sudan's leadership support for Osama bin Laden, and you've got a pretty clear-cut case."

    Sandy Berger, then Clinton's national security adviser and now a top adviser to the Kerry campaign, made the connection in an October 16, 1998, op-ed in the Washington Times. "To not have acted against this facility would have been the height of irresponsibility," he argued. The Clinton administration had "information linking bin Laden to the Sudanese regime and to the al Shifa plant."

    Berger explained that al Shifa was a dual-use facility. "We had physical evidence indicating that al Shifa was the site of chemical weapons activity," Berger wrote. "Other products were made at al Shifa. But we have seen such dual-use plants before--in Iraq. And, indeed, we have information that Iraq has assisted chemical weapons activity in Sudan."

    Richard Clarke, a former counterterrorism official under both Clinton and Bush, confirmed this in an interview with the Washington Post on January 23, 1999. Clarke said the U.S. government was "sure" Iraq was behind the VX precursor produced at the factory. The story continued, "Clarke said U.S. intelligence does not know how much of the substance was produced at al Shifa or what happened to it. But he said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to al Shifa's current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts, and the National Islamic Front in Sudan."

    More recently, former Clinton defense secretary William Cohen affirmed the Baghdad-Khartoum connection in testimony before the September 11 Commission on March 23, 2004. Cohen told the panel that an executive from al Shifa had "traveled to Baghdad to meet with the father of the VX program."

    Many of these same officials now disclaim any knowledge of an Iraq-al Qaeda relationship..........

    ------------------

    But now the New York Times--a newspaper heretofore dismissive of the Iraq-al Qaeda connection--has revealed the contents of an Iraqi Intelligence document that discusses the Iraq-bin Laden "relationship" and plans for bin Laden to work with Iraq against the ruling family in Saudi Arabia. The document states that "cooperation between the two organizations should be allowed to develop freely through discussion and agreement." The Iraqi document, which refers to the period of the first Clinton term, has been "authenticated by the U.S. government," according to the front-page story in Friday's Times.

    <SNIP>

    FULL STORY: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...4/274fwxli.asp
    No matter what the Left want to claim against Bush. No matter what the Right want to claim for Bush. The intel is still in question, yet to be proven or disproven.

    With all politics and bias asside, the 2 big questions

    1) was it a viable option as a threat at the time the decision was made?
    2) If Bush claims of Saddam - AQ link is a lie, then is Clinton's?
  6. #346  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Yes, the training camps were in Iraq.
    An atea of Iraq NOT in control of the Bathist Regime. (not evrn the Bush admin will beat this horse any more, why do you?)

    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Why leave the UN there when they had 10 years to complete the job already with no success. They were never able to say Saddam destroyed all WMDs.
    You're right of course. Why leave U.N. weapon inspectors when you can just bomb the crap out of the country, invade, find NO WMD, then poorly occupy that country for the next n years.
  7. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #347  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    An atea of Iraq NOT in control of the Bathist Regime. (not evrn the Bush admin will beat this horse any more, why do you?)

    Probably because most have accepted it as fact, why not you?



    You're right of course. Why leave U.N. weapon inspectors when you can just bomb the crap out of the country, invade, find NO WMD, then poorly occupy that country for the next n years.
    The UN inspectors failed, due to the Saddam regime from completing the task in 10 years. How long would you give?
  8. #348  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    The UN inspectors failed, due to the Saddam regime from completing the task in 10 years. How long would you give?
    I would argue that the U.N. inspectors were very close to declaring Iraq free of any WMD programs AND given the approaching re-evaluation of the U.N's economic restrictions, Hussein was more likely become cooperative at this phase, looking like he got something for allowing the insections.

    The Neo-Cons knew this as well, that's why they rushed into invasion/occupation with little care that they had no plan.
  9. #349  
    Have they ever had plans ? Remember Nam ?
  10. #350  
    Quote Originally Posted by dlbrummels
    Have they ever had plans ? Remember Nam ?

    Exactly what the Powell Doctrine was based upon. Too bad they ignored him and it.
  11. #351  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Exactly what the Powell Doctrine was based upon. Too bad they ignored him and it.
    Colin Powell -
    Source: USA Today

    Still, Powell said that while he has always been a "reluctant warrior" he supported Bush on going to war the month after his U.N. speech. "When the president decided that it was not tolerable for this regime to remain in violation of all those U.N. resolutions I am right there with him with the use of force," Powell said.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  12. #352  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    Colin Powell -
    Never said Powell wasn't loyal, but hhe did advise the Pres by the guidelines he created of course. That was ignored.
  13. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #353  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    I would argue that the U.N. inspectors were very close to declaring Iraq free of any WMD programs AND given the approaching re-evaluation of the U.N's economic restrictions, Hussein was more likely become cooperative at this phase, looking like he got something for allowing the insections.

    The Neo-Cons knew this as well, that's why they rushed into invasion/occupation with little care that they had no plan.
    You must have an inside to the UN inspectors. I have not seen the reports that indicate they were close to saying no WMDs. I am sure there are plenty who will say it now, but where were they a couple of years ago? I would venture a guess you feel that the food for oil program was a huge success also.
  14. #354  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Never said Powell wasn't loyal, but hhe did advise the Pres by the guidelines he created of course. That was ignored.
    Either he supported the use of force or he didn't. Please cite a source where he says he did not support the use of force. If you are going to use him as an example, you could at least do us all the favor of providing something substantial to support your assertion.

    It's not terribly relevant anyway. The President is the one elected to make those decisions. Based on the information made available by our obviously conflicted intelligence agencies, he made the correct choice.

    You can Monday morning quarterback all you want. Bush had to decide based on what he was being told at the time. From the same article I cited:
    But, Powell said, "the intelligence system did not work well."

    "There were some people in the intelligence community who knew at the time that some of those sources were not good, and shouldn't be relied upon, and they didn't speak up," Powell said.

    "That devastated me," he said.
    Why must war opponents revise history in order to make their point? Are they so unsure of themselves? Or do they just hate the current administration so much that they will believe anything that undermines it?

    Anyone can criticize Bush for anything - but bear in mind that a weakened American President (no matter who he is) emboldens our enemies. If the criticism is unfair - as is the revisionist rhetoric over WMD, for example - our position in the world is weakened gratuitously.

    For example, in retrospect I believe it is clear that a politically weakened Clinton administration was substantially less able to respond to Al Qaeda attacks during the 1990's, when an effective response might have made a difference. It is fair to criticize Clinton's opponents for weakening him and thus the U.S. position in the world.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  15. #355  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    You must have an inside to the UN inspectors. I have not seen the reports that indicate they were close to saying no WMDs. I am sure there are plenty who will say it now, but where were they a couple of years ago?
    Um, yea. Scott Ritter.

    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    I would venture a guess you feel that the food for oil program was a huge success also.
    snarky. So your logic is just the oil for food issues were worthy of invasion?
  16. #356  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    Either he supported the use of force or he didn't. Please cite a source where he says he did not support the use of force. If you are going to use him as an example, you could at least do us all the favor of providing something substantial to support your assertion.

    It's not terribly relevant anyway. The President is the one elected to make those decisions. Based on the information made available by our obviously conflicted intelligence agencies, he made the correct choice.

    You can Monday morning quarterback all you want. Bush had to decide based on what he was being told at the time. From the same article I cited:Why must war opponents revise history in order to make their point? Are they so unsure of themselves? Or do they just hate the current administration so much that they will believe anything that undermines it?

    Anyone can criticize Bush for anything - but bear in mind that a weakened American President (no matter who he is) emboldens our enemies. If the criticism is unfair - as is the revisionist rhetoric over WMD, for example - our position in the world is weakened gratuitously.

    For example, in retrospect I believe it is clear that a politically weakened Clinton administration was substantially less able to respond to Al Qaeda attacks during the 1990's, when an effective response might have made a difference. It is fair to criticize Clinton's opponents for weakening him and thus the U.S. position in the world.

    I am not saying Powell did or did not support the use of force. I'm saying his advice to the president was to follow the Powell Doctrine (you do know what this is don't you?) which the Neo-Cons poo-poo'd because they new their house of lies for reasons to invade would come down on them at any moment.
  17. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #357  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Um, yea. Scott Ritter.


    snarky. So your logic is just the oil for food issues were worthy of invasion?
    Never said that, it was one of the great UN programs that did so much to ensure the world that Saddam was in compliance. Very similar to the no-fly zones he ignored, the UN weapons inspections that he skirted, the inspectors he kicked out, the buildings he kept locked, and the list goes on and on. You seem to be ok with all of the deceits, outright lies, and infractions of the Saddam regime. I think Saddam had plenty of time to come clean on the WMD programs, I think the UN gave him every oppurtunity over 10 years and evidently so did the majority of the leaders of this country, both republican as well as democrat.
  18. #358  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Um, yea. Scott Ritter.
    You're kidding, right??? Ritter has been thoroughly discredited. Prior to the invasion he was being paid by companies with ties to Hussein's government for consulting services. You trust this guy?

    Seek help now.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  19. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #359  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    You're kidding, right??? Ritter has been thoroughly discredited. Prior to the invasion he was being paid by companies with ties to Hussein's government for consulting services. You trust this guy?

    Seek help now.
    Oh, Scott Ritter, I thought he said John Ritter.
  20. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #360  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    You're kidding, right??? Ritter has been thoroughly discredited. Prior to the invasion he was being paid by companies with ties to Hussein's government for consulting services. You trust this guy?

    Seek help now.
    Cite. I need more info.

Posting Permissions