Page 2 of 43 FirstFirst 123456712 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 845
  1. #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by dcsipe
    What is this obsession with "Bush lies"?? Everyone loves to blame the president because he is the perfect scape-goat. He was given false information. Saddam did nothing to keep anyone from thinking he didn't have WMD. If Saddam did have them, and Bush did nothing, he would be crucified for doing nothing. He was proactive, and oh well, no WMD. But a ruthless dictator was taken out of office. Yeah, that's just a horrible thing now isn't it?

    Instead of complaining and whining like a loser about the president, why don't you take some time and look at who you and the idiots around you have sent to the house and senate. Oh yeah, that's right! We live in a democracy, NOT a dictatorship or an empire! The president isn't making all of the decisions on his own! Wow. Isn't it CRAZY when you take the time to understand the process in which decisions are made in our government?
    Ok he was misinformed of the WMD in Iraq.. But why doesn't he go after Iran, China, and N. Korea when they obviously have WMD? Wait I forgot no oil located at them places...
  2. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by BugzLife
    i think it is a powerful clip but is it bush fault for receiving wrong information from the intelligence community?
    I would read this if this is what you think:

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,158228,00.html

    Downing Street Memo Mostly Ignored in U.S.
    Wednesday, June 01, 2005
    By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos
    FoxNews

    WASHINGTON — A British government memo that critics say proves the Bush administration manipulated evidence about weapons of mass destruction in order to carry out a plan to overthrow Saddam Hussein (search) has received little attention in the mainstream media, frustrating opponents of the Iraq war.

    -snip-

    The memo suggests that British intelligence analysts were concerned that the Bush administration was marching to war on wobbly evidence that Saddam posed a serious threat to the world.

    -snip-

    "But the case was thin," reads the memo on Straw's impressions. "Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."

    -snip-

    "Bush wanted to remove Saddam Hussein, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD," the memo reads. "But the intelligence and the facts were being fixed around the policy," according to Dearlove's impressions
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There is much more there at the link to read. To me this pretty much says the facts were adjusted to fit the policy of removing Saddam, without much regard to what the real facts said. This also states to me that Bush had already decided to goto war with Iraq even before he had all the facts, a knee-jerk reaction if you will, or is it something else?
  3. #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by Hizd4Life
    Ok he was misinformed of the WMD in Iraq.. But why doesn't he go after Iran, China, and N. Korea when they obviously have WMD? Wait I forgot no oil located at them places...
    Sure, let's go after all of them at the same time! Forget finishing up one thing at a time, let's activate our entire military force and go after Iran, China and North Korea! Yay, WWIII!
    --> Me fail english? That's unpossible!! <--
  4. #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    I would read this if this is what you think:

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,158228,00.html

    Downing Street Memo Mostly Ignored in U.S.
    Wednesday, June 01, 2005
    By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos
    FoxNews

    WASHINGTON — A British government memo that critics say proves the Bush administration manipulated evidence about weapons of mass destruction in order to carry out a plan to overthrow Saddam Hussein (search) has received little attention in the mainstream media, frustrating opponents of the Iraq war.
    Yes, of course. Let's go off of a British government memo, because they are part of the US's inter-office mail, right?
    --> Me fail english? That's unpossible!! <--
  5. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by dcsipe
    Yes, of course. Let's go off of a British government memo, because they are part of the US's inter-office mail, right?
    Refute the evidence posted before you. This an "actual minutes" recording of a meeting between PM Blair and his senior national security team. Refute the facts. I think you won't be able too. Also lot's of people that were in the U.S. government before have said the same thing on numerous occasions.
  6. #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by dcsipe
    Sure, let's go after all of them at the same time! Forget finishing up one thing at a time, let's activate our entire military force and go after Iran, China and North Korea! Yay, WWIII!
    What I was trying to say that Bush and Bush Senior had a vandetta against Saddam. They just used that excuse to go after Saddam.
  7. #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by Hizd4Life
    Ok he was misinformed of the WMD in Iraq.. But why doesn't he go after Iran, China, and N. Korea when they obviously have WMD? Wait I forgot no oil located at them places...
    You Bush nay-sayers don't get the message...
    History lesson: diplomacy has been tried for over 10 years in Iraq. The UN had their chance, Iraq had their chance. Iraq didn't get the message, the UN didn't do anything about it, so the US took the challenge and followed through with the original plan. Since no WMDs have been found, it Iraq's own fault that they were attacked...they never made a convincing case in their defense. It's like they wanted to be attacked....

    Now that diplomatic process has started with Iran and N Korea (what's China got to do with it?) Note that Libya snaped to attention pretty quickly, they have oil. The liberal media sure downplayed that story.
  8. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by dcsipe
    Sure, let's go after all of them at the same time! Forget finishing up one thing at a time, let's activate our entire military force and go after Iran, China and North Korea! Yay, WWIII!
    I don't think that is the point. I think the point is why we didn't go after these other countries when they CLEARLY presented more risk than Iraq. I think reason we are in Iraq is Peak Oil and a projection of American power within' the region.
  9. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by Hizd4Life
    What I was trying to say that Bush and Bush Senior had a vandetta against Saddam. They just used that excuse to go after Saddam.
    Could be but I think it goes much deeper than this. Search for "Peak Oil" and "Project for A New American Century".
  10. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by ekuzco
    You Bush nay-sayers don't get the message...
    History lesson: diplomacy has been tried for over 10 years in Iraq. The UN had their chance, Iraq had their chance. Iraq didn't get the message, the UN didn't do anything about it, so the US took the challenge and followed through with the original plan. Since no WMDs have been found, it Iraq's own fault that they were attacked...they never made a convincing case in their defense. It's like they wanted to be attacked....

    Now that diplomatic process has started with Iran and N Korea (what's China got to do with it?) Note that Libya snaped to attention pretty quickly, they have oil. The liberal media sure downplayed that story.
    Liberal Media, waaaaa. Do you realize that Saddam had said he would allow inspectors in and the UN said it would take about 3-4 months to determine if in fact he did have WMD. Why the rush Bush? Maybe, he was afraid that if the inspectors did in fact discover that Saddam had no WMDs that Bush's case for war would evaporate? Just some thoughts for you to chew on.
  11. #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by dcsipe
    Yes, of course. Let's go off of a British government memo, because they are part of the US's inter-office mail, right?
    Sure, why face facts? Far easier to revert to primitive personal attacks like Clairegrrl and others, if you have no arguments to support your beliefs.

    Don't forget that the British Government is the only significant ally the US troops have in Iraq, it seems fair to say that the views of their top secret service guys, foreign ministers, and others are of interest in this case. Since apparently many missed those points, here some of them again:

    "But the case was thin," reads the memo on Straw's impressions. "Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."
    The memo also paraphrased former head of the British Secret Intelligence Services, Richard Dearlove, fresh from meetings in the United States. The memo said Dearlove believed "military action was now seen as inevitable."
    "Bush wanted to remove Saddam Hussein, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD," the memo reads. "But the intelligence and the facts were being fixed around the policy," according to Dearlove's impressions.
    ...
    White House spokesman Scott McClellan has said there is "no need" to respond to the memos, the authenticity of which has not been denied.


    So for the Brits it was clear that the "case [for WMD] was thin" and "the facts were being fixed around the policy" - Compare that to the statements made in the link at the beginning of this thread... Nobody can believe the Brits knew how weak the case for WMDs in fact was, while the Bush administration thought it was solid. They fooled the US.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  12. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #32  
    This thread was hot for a bit. Where did everyone go?
  13. #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    This thread was hot for a bit. Where did everyone go?
    They must have gave up... Thanks for the info NRG. To bad I'm a Gator..
  14. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Sure, why face facts? Far easier to revert to primitive personal attacks like Clairegrrl and others, if you have no arguments to support your beliefs.
    I like this response. Except for the response directed to Claire.



    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    So for the Brits it was clear that the "case [for WMD] was thin" and "the facts were being fixed around the policy" - Compare that to the statements made in the link at the beginning of this thread... Nobody can believe the Brits knew how weak the case for WMDs in fact was, while the Bush administration thought it was solid. They fooled the US.
    You might want to clean this paragraph up a bit for simple folks like me.
  15. #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by ekuzco
    You Bush nay-sayers don't get the message...
    History lesson: diplomacy has been tried for over 10 years in Iraq. The UN had their chance, Iraq had their chance.
    It seems to be you who didn't get the message: Saddam DID get rid of the WMD, BEFORE the war, due to UN/international pressure and inspections.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  16. #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Liberal Media, waaaaa. Do you realize that Saddam had said he would allow inspectors in and the UN said it would take about 3-4 months to determine if in fact he did have WMD. Why the rush Bush? Maybe, he was afraid that if the inspectors did in fact discover that Saddam had no WMDs that Bush's case for war would evaporate? Just some thoughts for you to chew on.
    He has had over 10 YEARS to comply...what difference was 3-4 months going to make?

    Put that in your gym shorts.
    Whose side are you on anyways...US or Iraq? Bush or Saddam?
  17. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by Hizd4Life
    They must have gave up... Thanks for the info NRG. To bad I'm a Gator..
    No Prob. Good luck this pigskin season, well up till our game when we play you folks.
  18. #38  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    It seems to be you who didn't get the message: Saddam DID get rid of the WMD, BEFORE the war, due to UN/international pressure and inspections.
    Then why didn't he tell anyone? Why did all his supporters/army just give up and run away when Bagdad was attacked? If he really did get rid of them, why didn't he do a better job at defending his actions? Why didn't he speak up? If he did, I know it would have been all over MSNBC, BBC, ABC, etc. Funny ABC goes after stories that aren't very well backed (true or not), why didn't they defend Saddam more?
  19. #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    You might want to clean this paragraph up a bit for simple folks like me.
    Ok, because it is such a nice case:

    - The British secret service and the government knew how weak the case for WMDs really was (see official British memo above)
    - If the Brits knew how weak the case was, the US knew, too.
    - The Bush government didn't care, they pretended they have solid evidence, they know for sure, etc. that Saddam has WMD and that he is a threat to the US (see link to quotes in first post of this thread).
    - From the above it becomes clear that the Bush administration fooled the people in the US.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  20. #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by nudist
    you wish! I am enjoying watching the republican party distroy itself. too bad it is taking America down with it.

    why not attack the information I present instead of attack me??

    oh.. because you can't!

    every one of your silly comments directed at me personally just makes my posts more credible. haven't you figured that out yet? everyone can see you have no answer for the repeated lies Bush tells in the first post in this thread.

    Bush's approval rating is at an all time LOW, congress' approval at an all time low. good work, GOP!
    actually, no....just the same tired story. Seriously, now many times are you going to post this anyway.......
Page 2 of 43 FirstFirst 123456712 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions