posted on October 7, 2004 09:21:56 AM new
logansdad - And I am aware of what the UN wanted in 2002....more time for the weapons inspections...The UN did not favor an INVASION in 2002 either, but that did not stop Bush JR with his plan.
No it didn't stop him. Because as he's stated MANY times he won't let France or any other country decide what actions we will take. That should be VERY clear to you by now. He's NOT and Internationalist like kerry is who won't make a move until AFTER we're attacked again...and unless he gets permission from the UN.
And again, remember saddam WASN'T letting the inspectors have total free range...he continued halting their inspections [PLEASE HEAR THIS] UNTIL WE SENT OUR WAR SHIPS HIS WAY. ...then he said he'd cooperate. They sat there for quite a while...as saddam was offered his two 'last chances' of oh-so-many-last-chances.
So it is OK to do what the UN wanted in 1991, but not what the UN wanted in 2004? You can't have it both ways.
I'm not trying to have it both ways. I don't think we should even be in the UN...they're a worthless group comprising leaders from many terrorist countries...socialist countries...communist countries. You've got it right...I don't want them having a 'say' over what we do. So, NO, I'm not agreeing with them one time and not another as you are ASSUMING. I thought we should have gone after saddam in 1991...and ever since then. We finally got a President with guts to take action...now it's happened. YEAH!!!
If Iraq and Saddam was the threat everyone claimed he was in 1991, why not take him out anyway despite what the UN resolution mandated? Weren't YOU the one that posted why Bush1 said he didn't? Read what he said. And then recall that for 13 MORE years we continued to see him as a threat...and continued with his game playing.
I am sure the US could have developed a plan to do this despite what the UN resolution mandated.
You're sure???? But of course you didn't bother to mention just HOW. especially since you're SO sure. See it's always the complaints but never solutions offered from the dems. They have no solutions.
I even heard an interview with Colonel Schwartzkopf wished they would have taken Saddam out in 1991 when the had the chance. And I'd have agree with that. But the fact is that was 13 years ago....and we're in the 'here and now' [2003 - when we invaded]
So....what do you think kerry's going to do should he [heaven forbid] get elected?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I will never submit America's national security to an international test. The use of troops to defend America must never be subject to a veto by countries like France. The President's job is not to take an international poll -- the President's job is to defend America." --President George W. Bush
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Re-elect President Bush
posted on October 7, 2004 09:31:38 AM new
logansdad - What was this so-called "long term threat"?
I think I've stated that several times. What part aren't you getting about our intelligence has long thought saddam had womd; saddam wasn't complying with the UN agreement that ended the first Iraqi war; saddam was paying terrorists off; and he was seeking nuclear weapons [we now know, from NK]? He as the last THREE administrations said had already PROVEN he was nuts by what his previous actions showed.
Are you now flip flopping Linda? Before you kept saying Bush chose to invade because of the immenent threat (implying short term) now you are saying because of the long term threat..which is it?
No flip-flopping YOU'RE the one who doesn't get it.
Long term threat = since 1991.
And I did NOT say because there was an imminent threat. Neither did President Bush. But rather, BEFORE saddam became an imminent threat.
I still would like to know how much of a threat Iraq was to the US mainland when the didn't even have weapons that could reach the U.S.
Why does it have to be limited to only our main land? After 9-11 President Bush said he was going after them WHEREVER they were. saddam was funding terrorism, trying to re-build his NW program...and constituted a threat. Period.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I will never submit America's national security to an international test. The use of troops to defend America must never be subject to a veto by countries like France. The President's job is not to take an international poll -- the President's job is to defend America." --President George W. Bush
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Re-elect President Bush
posted on October 7, 2004 09:43:45 AM new
trai - Criticism, no its simply my assessment of everything Rumsfeld has said and done.
That's fair.
In my opinion he is the wrong man for the job as he simply refuses to understand what he's dealing with in the Middle East.
And who would kerry put in his position? What would that person do? Or doesn't it matter to you as long as it's not Rumsfeld? Like some are voting for kerry, not because they support what he stands for, but simply because he's not Bush.
Everything that could go wrong has gone wrong. Have we had problems? Yes. Have you ever known a war where there wasn't any problems. But I personally think that the kerry supporters here refuse to look at what's gone right. There's balance there....they are making progress....they did turn over the Iraqi power to the Iraqi's. They will be voting for their own leader this January.
Just another one of those people who will not listen to the ground commanders and run the war from his office. Well...I don't know where you get this information from the President Bush has repeatedly said the commanders will get everything they ask for. So far the only thing I've read about on the DoD.mil/ website is the commanders saying they don't WANT more American troops. They want to get more of the Iraqi's trained to defend their own country. Sending more of our own troops over will discourage that from happening, make them become more dependent on us rather than defending themselves, learning to deal with problem solving themselves. We're trying to wean them from depending on our troops. And France as done just about everything they can to keep the training of their troops from happening...putting up one road block after another. And that's who kerry always want to get 'permission' from before he wipes his as$.
Now what I think Kerry or Bush should do is gain control. This is important since the insurgents can run where they want.
They are currently doing that as I type. That's why we're seeing more and more reports of deaths and injuries recently.
If this means putting more troops in temporarily to gain control it should be done. Do you believe kerry's going to send MORE troops over there when most recently he's saying he's going to start withdrawing the as soon as he can? I don't. But there again...because he's changed his mind so often even on the subject of sending troops you can't count on what he's said the last time to actually be what he ends up doing. He's WAY to undependable.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I will never submit America's national security to an international test. The use of troops to defend America must never be subject to a veto by countries like France. The President's job is not to take an international poll -- the President's job is to defend America." --President George W. Bush
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Re-elect President Bush
posted on October 7, 2004 09:54:23 AM new
Linda
As to your other question.
Did you agree with kerry offering the fuel to Iran...which would help them BUILD their nuclear weapon capability?
This is what Kerry said in full.
KERRY: With respect to Iran, the British, French, and Germans were the ones who initiated an effort without the United States, regrettably, to begin to try to move to curb the nuclear possibilities in Iran. I believe we could have done better.
I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel, test them, see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes. If they weren't willing to work a deal, then we could have put sanctions together. The president did nothing.
Essentially by offering them a non-weapons grade fuel to power a nuclear reactor for peaceful purposes... ie electrical power... would have put to rest any argument if they genuinely wanted to use this for peaceful purposes.
There would have been no argument if they refused this and the rest of the world would have known for sure they were only interested in nuclear weapons. This would have been a great way to do this, the thinking behind it is sound.
No I am not in favor of Iran or North Korea having nuclear weapons but its a bit late for that.
posted on October 7, 2004 10:01:57 AM newWhy does it have to be limited to only our main land? After 9-11 President Bush said he was going after them WHEREVER they were. saddam was funding terrorism, trying to re-build his NW program...and constituted a threat. Period.
So you are favor of the US now going into Iran and Korea because they now have nuclear weapons and pose a threat. Russia has nuclear weapons, they could decide to launch them at the US at any moment. So that gives Bush the right to attack another country without provication? The United States is not the "policeman" for the world. There are issues that in the United States that should be addressed before trying to disarm the world from so-called threats.
Using Bush's logic, what is stopping any other country with nuclear weapons from starting a war with the US because they feel Bush may be a threat. Bush invaded Iraq without provication, our country may be next.
There are still terrorist cells in the US what has Bush done about getting rid of them here in our own country? There are terrorist cells in Europe. Is Bush set to inavde them to hunt them down and kill them?
There were other ways of trying to neutralize Saddam without having to go to war to make a point.
What part aren't you getting about our intelligence has long thought saddam had womd; saddam wasn't complying with the UN agreement that ended the first Iraqi war; saddam was paying terrorists off; and he was seeking nuclear weapons
The intelligence was not accurate and we kept getting conflicting information since 2001 about that how much of a threat Saddam actually was. Both Powell and Rice disagreed with Bush's statement. Most of our allies disagreed with our own intelligence.
Saddam was contained according to Powell. Powell said the sanctions that were set were working.
Thinking Saddam had WOMD and actually proving he had WOMD that could be launched are two different things. Seeking and actually possessing nuclear weapons are two different things.
Long term threat = since 1991.
No, long term is from this point going forward. If you are saying long term since 1991 then he was an immenent threat since it was an ongoing problem.
Did Saddam have a massive well trained Army? Did he have a superior Air force? Did he have a superior Navy? Did Saddam have high tech missles with long range capabilities that could reach the US?
All of Bush's actions were based on assumptions of what Saddam might have without actually having any proof to back up his claims.
In my opinion Korea is more of a threat than Saddam was two years ago.
There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
----------------------------------
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
On This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declares: "the area… that coalition forces control… happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
------------------------------
posted on October 7, 2004 10:13:51 AM new
trai - On your kerry quote. When he said it during the debate do you recall the President correcting him on both issues and reminding him that we already DO have sanctions on Iran? They've been there for years. [Bush stated since when] Bush also mentioned [jokingly] that you can't sanction them when they already are being sanctioned.
This is what I mean about kerry. He's served in the Senate for HOW LONG?? And he didn't know we [the US] have had sanctions against them for years? He's not qualified for such a major job as being President....it's like his mind has been on vacation for his 20 years in the Senate.
On the fuel, are you saying them that you would have approved of giving Iran this fuel ....like we did with N. Korea and found out they were lying to us and were producing NW all along? Look where trusting them [NK] to do as they say ended up....where we are right now.
With NK I could more understand it...because they have an extremely cold climate...but Iran? LOL...no way with them sitting on all that oil of their own...they need power from NW.
-------------------
And on this subject it is really sad that President Bush is criticized there too. Here we didn't have the world working with us, according to the dems, then when we do have them working with us ie: NK and Iran...we haven't done enough. No winning with some...no matter what road is taken.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I will never submit America's national security to an international test. The use of troops to defend America must never be subject to a veto by countries like France. The President's job is not to take an international poll -- the President's job is to defend America." --President George W. Bush
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Re-elect President Bush
posted on October 7, 2004 10:19:20 AM new
trai - I also meant to comment on this statement you made.
There would have been no argument if they refused this and the rest of the world would have known for sure they were only interested in nuclear weapons.
They have refused it....after kerry offered it as a way to 'work' this out. They said they didn't want it from us and that within 4 months they'd have their own.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I will never submit America's national security to an international test. The use of troops to defend America must never be subject to a veto by countries like France. The President's job is not to take an international poll -- the President's job is to defend America." --President George W. Bush
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Re-elect President Bush
posted on October 7, 2004 10:30:06 AM newOn the fuel, are you saying them that you would have approved of giving Iran this fuel
What i am saying is that by giving them that offer it would of shown everyone that they are not interested in peaceful nuclear power.
In other words it would have shown that they are untrustworthy.
Now I have to get some work done.
posted on October 7, 2004 10:35:24 AM new
Social Security Surplus
BUSH PLEDGES NOT TO TOUCH SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS... "We're going to keep the promise of Social Security and keep the government from raiding the Social Security surplus." [President Bush, 3/3/01]
...BUSH SPENDS SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS The New York Times reported that "the president's new budget uses Social Security surpluses to pay for other programs every year through 2013, ultimately diverting more than $1.4 trillion in Social Security funds to other purposes." [The New York Times, 2/6/02]
2. Patient's Right to Sue
GOVERNOR BUSH VETOES PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE... "Despite his campaign rhetoric in favor of a patients' bill of rights, Bush fought such a bill tooth and nail as Texas governor, vetoing a bill coauthored by Republican state Rep. John Smithee in 1995. He... constantly opposed a patient's right to sue an HMO over coverage denied that resulted in adverse health effects." [Salon, 2/7/01]
...CANDIDATE BUSH PRAISES TEXAS PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE... "We're one of the first states that said you can sue an HMO for denying you proper coverage... It's time for our nation to come together and do what's right for the people. And I think this is right for the people. You know, I support a national patients' bill of rights, Mr. Vice President. And I want all people covered. I don't want the law to supersede good law like we've got in Texas." [Governor Bush, 10/17/00]
...PRESIDENT BUSH'S ADMINISTRATION ARGUES AGAINST RIGHT TO SUE "To let two Texas consumers, Juan Davila and Ruby R. Calad, sue their managed-care companies for wrongful denials of medical benefits ‘would be to completely undermine' federal law regulating employee benefits, Assistant Solicitor General James A. Feldman said at oral argument March 23. Moreover, the administration's brief attacked the policy rationale for Texas's law, which is similar to statutes on the books in nine other states." [Washington Post, 4/5/04]
3. Tobacco Buyout
BUSH SUPPORTS CURRENT TOBACCO FARMERS' QUOTA SYSTEM... "They've got the quota system in place -- the allotment system -- and I don't think that needs to be changed." [President Bush, 5/04]
...BUSH ADMINISTRATION WILL SUPPORT FEDERAL BUYOUT OF TOBACCO QUOTAS "The administration is open to a buyout." [White House spokeswoman Jeanie Mamo, 6/18/04]
4. North Korea
BUSH WILL NOT OFFER NUCLEAR NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM... "We developed a bold approach under which, if the North addressed our long-standing concerns, the United States was prepared to take important steps that would have significantly improved the lives of the North Korean people. Now that North Korea's covert nuclear weapons program has come to light, we are unable to pursue this approach." [President's Statement, 11/15/02]
...BUSH ADMINISTRATION OFFERS NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM"Well, we will work to take steps to ease their political and economic isolation. So there would be -- what you would see would be some provisional or temporary proposals that would only lead to lasting benefit after North Korea dismantles its nuclear programs. So there would be some provisional or temporary efforts of that nature." [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 6/23/04]
5. Abortion
BUSH SUPPORTS A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE... "Bush said he...favors leaving up to a woman and her doctor the abortion question." [The Nation, 6/15/00, quoting the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, 5/78]
...BUSH OPPOSES A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE "I am pro-life." [Governor Bush, 10/3/00]
6. OPEC
BUSH PROMISES TO FORCE OPEC TO LOWER PRICES... "What I think the president ought to do [when gas prices spike] is he ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say we expect you to open your spigots...And the president of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price." [President Bush, 1/26/00]
...BUSH REFUSES TO LOBBY OPEC LEADERS With gas prices soaring in the United States at the beginning of 2004, the Miami Herald reported the president refused to "personally lobby oil cartel leaders to change their minds." [Miami Herald, 4/1/04]
7. Iraq Funding
BUSH SPOKESMAN DENIES NEED FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR THE REST OF 2004... "We do not anticipate requesting supplemental funding for '04" [White House Budget Director Joshua Bolton, 2/2/04]
...BUSH REQUESTS ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR IRAQ FOR 2004 "I am requesting that Congress establish a $25 billion contingency reserve fund for the coming fiscal year to meet all commitments to our troops." [President Bush, Statement by President, 5/5/04]
8. Condoleeza Rice Testimony
BUSH SPOKESMAN SAYS RICE WON'T TESTIFY AS 'A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE'... "Again, this is not her personal preference; this goes back to a matter of principle. There is a separation of powers issue involved here. Historically, White House staffers do not testify before legislative bodies. So it's a matter of principle, not a matter of preference." [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 3/9/04]
...BUSH ORDERS RICE TO TESTIFY: "Today I have informed the Commission on Terrorist Attacks Against the United States that my National Security Advisor, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, will provide public testimony." [President Bush, 3/30/04]
9. Science
BUSH PLEDGES TO ISSUE REGULATIONS BASED ON SCIENCE..."I think we ought to have high standards set by agencies that rely upon science, not by what may feel good or what sounds good." [then-Governor George W. Bush, 1/15/00]
...BUSH ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS IGNORE SCIENCE "60 leading scientists—including Nobel laureates, leading medical experts, former federal agency directors and university chairs and presidents—issued a statement calling for regulatory and legislative action to restore scientific integrity to federal policymaking. According to the scientists, the Bush administration has, among other abuses, suppressed and distorted scientific analysis from federal agencies, and taken actions that have undermined the quality of scientific advisory panels." [Union of Concerned Scientists, 2/18/04]
10. Ahmed Chalabi
BUSH INVITES CHALABI TO STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS...President Bush also met with Chalabi during his brief trip to Iraq last Thanksgiving [White House Documents 1/20/04, 11/27/03]
...BUSH MILITARY ASSISTS IN RAID OF CHALABI'S HOUSE "U.S. soldiers raided the home of America's one-time ally Ahmad Chalabi on Thursday and seized documents and computers." [Washington Post, 5/20/04]
11. Department of Homeland Security
BUSH OPPOSES THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY..."So, creating a Cabinet office doesn't solve the problem. You still will have agencies within the federal government that have to be coordinated. So the answer is that creating a Cabinet post doesn't solve anything." [White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, 3/19/02]
...BUSH SUPPORTS THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY "So tonight, I ask the Congress to join me in creating a single, permanent department with an overriding and urgent mission: securing the homeland of America and protecting the American people." [President Bush, Address to the Nation, 6/6/02]
12. Weapons of Mass Destruction
BUSH SAYS WE FOUND THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION..."We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories...for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them." [President Bush, Interview in Poland, 5/29/03]
...BUSH SAYS WE HAVEN'T FOUND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION "David Kay has found the capacity to produce weapons.And when David Kay goes in and says we haven't found stockpiles yet, and there's theories as to where the weapons went. They could have been destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq. They could be hidden. They could have been transported to another country, and we'll find out." [President Bush, Meet the Press, 2/7/04]
13. Free Trade
BUSH SUPPORTS FREE TRADE... "I believe strongly that if we promote trade, and when we promote trade, it will help workers on both sides of this issue." [President Bush in Peru, 3/23/02]
...BUSH SUPPORTS RESTRICTIONS ON TRADE "In a decision largely driven by his political advisers, President Bush set aside his free-trade principles last year and imposed heavy tariffs on imported steel to help out struggling mills in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, two states crucial for his reelection." [Washington Post, 9/19/03]
14. Osama Bin Laden
BUSH WANTS OSAMA DEAD OR ALIVE... "I want justice. And there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'" [President Bush, on Osama Bin Laden, 09/17/01]
...BUSH DOESN'T CARE ABOUT OSAMA "I don't know where he is.You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him."[President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02]
15. The Environment
BUSH SUPPORTS MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE... "[If elected], Governor Bush will work to...establish mandatory reduction targets for emissions of four main pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide." [Bush Environmental Plan, 9/29/00]
...BUSH OPPOSES MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE "I do not believe, however, that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a 'pollutant' under the Clean Air Act." [President Bush, Letter to Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), 3/13/03]
16. WMD Commission
BUSH RESISTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE... "The White House immediately turned aside the calls from Kay and many Democrats for an immediate outside investigation, seeking to head off any new wide-ranging election-year inquiry that might go beyond reports already being assembled by congressional committees and the Central Intelligence Agency." [NY Times, 1/29/04]
...BUSH SUPPORTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE "Today, by executive order, I am creating an independent commission, chaired by Governor and former Senator Chuck Robb, Judge Laurence Silberman, to look at American intelligence capabilities, especially our intelligence about weapons of mass destruction." [President Bush, 2/6/04]
17. Creation of the 9/11 Commission
BUSH OPPOSES CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION... "President Bush took a few minutes during his trip to Europe Thursday to voice his opposition to establishing a special commission to probe how the government dealt with terror warnings before Sept. 11." [CBS News, 5/23/02]
...BUSH SUPPORTS CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION "President Bush said today he now supports establishing an independent
posted on October 7, 2004 10:52:23 AM new
logansdad - So you are favor of the US now going into Iran and Korea because they now have nuclear weapons and pose a threat.
Was that a question or your assumption?
No, I favor doing exactly what we're doing right now. Joining together with other nations to work to discourage them from continuing along this part....just like the dems always say they want.
Russia has nuclear weapons, they could decide to launch them at the US at any moment.
You need to read some history, ol boy, if you don't understand the difference being Russia having nuclear weapons and them being in terrorists hands.
So that gives Bush the right to attack another country without provication?
What gave clinton the same right when he bombed Iraq? What right did he have then?
The United States is not the "policeman" for the world.
We always have been, especially when it comes to threats to other nations or nations leaders killing off their countrymen/women like saddam did. Like has been done in many parts of the world.
There are issues that in the United States that should be addressed before trying to disarm the world from so-called threats.
Like what? Domestic issues? If so, we won't need to worry about any domestic program IF we were to continue to be attacked like we were on 9-11. Our economy would collapse, we'd spend billions and billions rebuilding...plus all the lost lives and injuries. Better to fight them over there.
Using Bush's logic, what is stopping any other country with nuclear weapons from starting a war with the US because they feel Bush may be a threat.
Stopping them? May the fact they know there actions will be dealt with now. Many countries have long felt the US a threat....even before 9-11. Japan for one...
Bush invaded Iraq without provication, our country may be next.
Yes, we may get bombed again. But do you really believe with the growing spread of terrorism it wasn't going to continue anyway? If we'd done nothing after 9-11 do you think they would have left us alone? What do you think we did prior to 9-11 that cause them to attack us in the first place? Bush had only been in office 7+ months. How'd he piss them off that quickly, in your mind?
There are still terrorist cells in the US what has Bush done about getting rid of them here in our own country?
They've been arrested, some deported, others held. It's been on the news for the last two or three weeks about all the suspected terrorists they're arresting because of their concerns about the upcoming elections.
There are terrorist cells in Europe. Is Bush set to inavde them to hunt them down and kill them? A lot of countries are dealing with the terrorists in their own countries. There won't be a need since they are already dealing with them.
There were other ways of trying to neutralize Saddam without having to go to war to make a point.
Like????
The intelligence was not accurate and we kept getting conflicting information since 2001 about that how much of a threat Saddam actually was.
First you can thank kerry for his participation in that. After the World Trade Center bombings kerry voted AGAINST giving our intelligence agencies more funding. Remember that.
But on accurate info....it's what we had. Also keeping in mind that during the clinton administration they had relatively NO intelligence contacts in the ME...no infiltration of the suspected terrorists..no people on the ground. So, of course our intelligence wasn't as good as it could have been. BUT also remember that the top intelligence officers were STILL from the clinton administration. Not new people President Bush had appointed.
Both Powell and Rice disagreed with Bush's statement.
You haven't provided proof that Rice disagreed with him. You only posted a statement of her's where she was expressing the President's position. Because she did that is NOT proof she disagreed. And Powell has alway had differences of opinions with the administration...he's a more moderate/centralist to left leaning person. There to bring in different ways of looking at all the issues. Again I think you're using an old article...and after two years I do believe Powell supported taking action.
Most of our allies disagreed with our own intelligence. There were some who agreed with ours. You really must remember intelligence is NOT a science like math. Rather it's where all the known information is evalulated and decisions are formed. Everyone who sees the same info may see 'what it shows' differently.
Saddam was contained according to Powell. Powell said the sanctions that were set were working. Again back two years....not at the time some were trying to get the sanctions lifted.
Thinking Saddam had WOMD and actually proving he had WOMD that could be launched are two different things.
Because he used them in 1990-91 the world KNEW he had them. It was his responsibility to prove to the UN he either distroyed them or explain where they went. Why do you excuse the actions of saddam, but question every tiny detail about what your own countries intelligence had shown for 13 years?
Seeking and actually possessing nuclear weapons are two different things. But see it wasn't ONLY nuclear weapons that could have been harmful. Had he used or sold the chem/bio weapons...poof...tons of people dying.
Long term threat = since 1991.
No, long term is from this point going forward. If you are saying long term since 1991 then he was an immenent threat since it was an ongoing problem[/i]. I sure don't have a clue what you just said there. Saddam had been a threat from before 1991, but in 1991 he was supposed to follow the UN resolutions. In 2003 that threat was removed.
Did Saddam have a massive well trained Army? Did he have a superior Air force? Did he have a superior Navy? Did Saddam have high tech missles with long range capabilities that could reach the US?
Did he need those things to sell bio/chem weapons to terrorists? No. Nor to sell plans for re-building a NW program.
All of Bush's actions were based on assumptions of what Saddam might have without actually having any proof to back up his claims. Our intelligence is what we use, just as the previous administrations always have. As did the clinton administration had.
In my opinion Korea is more of a threat than Saddam was two years ago. Well...who do you blame for that? Jong Ill - leader of NK for lying about what he agreed to do under the uni-lateral agreement he reached with the clinton administration that Ill didn't live up too? I'd bet not....this too will most likely be President Bush's fault...because he wants the countries over there that WILL be affected should Jong Ill decide to piss off the world and actually USE his weapons.
bbl
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I will never submit America's national security to an international test. The use of troops to defend America must never be subject to a veto by countries like France. The President's job is not to take an international poll -- the President's job is to defend America." --President George W. Bush
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Re-elect President Bush
posted on October 7, 2004 10:58:11 AM new
trai - I understood clearly what you had said previously. But you can't make an offer and then change your mind. You have to offer it with the knowledge that if that offer is accepted, then that's what's going to happen.
Like - you can't make a phoney offer just to test them out.
And had they accepted this would then become an exact repeat of what happened in N. Korea. Behind our backs they could have done exactly what NK did.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I will never submit America's national security to an international test. The use of troops to defend America must never be subject to a veto by countries like France. The President's job is not to take an international poll -- the President's job is to defend America." --President George W. Bush
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Re-elect President Bush
posted on October 7, 2004 11:15:35 AM new
I find it awfully hard to argue when the report came out yesterday that there was no threat to the US, it is hard to argue with facts. When the matter is brought up by different posters about faulty intelligence prior to the invasion, yes there was faulty information, however even the CIA had stated that the evidence was inconclusive as far as WOMB go.
If you read the reports on the Cheney link that Kiara provided you will find that much of the information was "cherry picked" to make it sound like there was a threat. I also firmly believe that a lot of this was cooked books for the administrations own agenda. If people didn't play ball with Cheney they no longer worked for Cheney. This spread a lot of fear throughout the community.
Side note
It would be quite amusing to follow this scenario..... Saddam Hussein gets to hire a dream team of lawyers in the USA and then sues the US government for an illegal war and the overthrow of a legitimate government in Iraq. Strange thing is, he may have one hell of a good chance of winning. This is something to ponder.
Linda, you and I both know Iran would never accept the offer but it would still show the world what they are really up to.
posted on October 7, 2004 11:32:39 AM new
Anyone that reads this post and replies can clearly see the truth about the compulsive Bush supporters. The compulsive Bush/Cheney supporters clearly don't understand or simply try their best to cover up for their failed leaders (Bush/Cheney) lies and mistakes like the Iraq war and economy.
Over 1050 dead American troops. Over 7,000 wounded American troops with no end insight. Billions spent in Iraq with no end insight. Millions of Americans have lost good jobs. Millions more Americans in poverty. Millions of Americans without health insurance. Millions of Americans are working harder for less pay and benefits.
posted on October 7, 2004 11:53:00 AM newWas that a question or your assumption?
It was a question. But you answered it when you said:
No, I favor doing exactly what we're doing right now. Joining together with other nations to work to discourage them from continuing along this part....just like the dems always say they want.
Which in my opinion is how Kerry proposes to deal with situations.
You need to read some history, ol boy, if you don't understand the difference being Russia having nuclear weapons and them being in terrorists hands
No I am not saying Russia is a terrorist. Your original claim was any country that posses a threat. Under your claim Russia (the Soviet Union) was a threat during the Cold War, but you did not see Reagan invading Russia because he felt they were a threat. I do not like the attitude of Bush. He is setting a bad precedent. With him any country he does not like can be a threat to the US.
What gave Clinton the same right when he bombed Iraq? What right did he have then?
There is a difference. Clinton bombed Iraq in response to Saddam not allowing inspectors to their job. Clinton did not start a war with the intent of removing Saddam from power.
But do you really believe with the growing spread of terrorism it wasn't going to continue anyway? If we'd done nothing after 9-11 do you think they would have left us alone?
I have no problem with Bush invading AFGHANISTAN in response to 9/11. He was going after BIN LADEN and going after where he was supposed to be. If Bush went into Afghanistan with the amount of troops and fire power that he did with Iraq, we could have caught Bin Laden already. I am in total agreement with Bush invading Afganhistan but am totally against the war in Iraq. They are two different wars and in response to two different things.
There are terrorist cells in Europe. Is Bush set to invade them to hunt them down and kill them? A lot of countries are dealing with the terrorists in their own countries. There won't be a need since they are already dealing with them.
Easy to say. What if Bush does not like the other countries are dealing with terrorists, then what?
There were other ways of trying to neutralize Saddam without having to go to war to make a point.Like????
An assassination attempt...special forces
Why do you excuse the actions of Saddam, but question every tiny detail about what your own countries intelligence had shown for 13 years?
Because our intelligence was been faulty. The faulty intelligence work and coordination of the TOP GOVERNMENT AGENCIES whose job is get information failed the American people before and after 9/11. You keep putting so much faith in all this intelligence that has been gathered. Since January 2001, the majority of the intelligence has been proven wrong.
There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
----------------------------------
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
On This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declares: "the area… that coalition forces control… happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
------------------------------
posted on October 7, 2004 11:55:56 AM new
my point linda is that it is pretty lame for your poor assessments about Kerry's voting record when you won't come clean about what he voted for and what he voted against and what the republicans voted for and voted against. you also failed to acknowledge a protest vote, but you admit to using a protest vote in the last election. it is typical of your and your parties way of lying and distorting the truth.
posted on October 7, 2004 01:15:37 PM new
trai - What I am saying is that womd wasn't the only reason we removed saddam. Just like kerry and President Bush have said...they're going to hunt the terrorists down...wherever they are. But some must think that means leaving alone leaders like saddam who were funding terrorism in the ME.
----------------------
Rusty - The fact is kerry co-sponsored the amendment which would have taken away the tax cuts for the higher tax brackets. That was voted DOWN...he lost.
Then he voted against the $87 B after being quoted 'no senator would not vote to fund the troops'. Twist it however you'd like...that's exactly what happened. No denying it. Votes are public record and I have provided BOTH links that prove how kerry voted.
-------------
logansdad - This is my last post on this issue:
Which in my opinion is how Kerry proposes to deal with situations. Yes, I've pointed out several times that what kerry proposes he'll do is exactly what President Bush is already doing. BUT there's one MAJOR difference. President Bush won't talk forever and let attacks happen that would go unpunished...like dems do...like kerry would.
Your original claim was any country that posses a threat. Under your claim Russia (the Soviet Union) was a threat during the Cold War, but you did not see Reagan invading Russia because he felt they were a threat.
Yes, he will deal with any country that poses a threat. Didn't say he'd bomb each one though. And the soviet union was a totally different kind of threat. We took them down, basically, by building up our own military. Trying to keep up...they went broke - their economy crashed. [to state it simply]. But had some one [or many] been giving them funding, like those who support the terrorists it could have been a different ball game altogether. That's why we've had to seek out those who are funding terrorism, LIKE SADDAM, and put a stop to it. Take away their funding...they can't operate as easily.
Clinton bombed Iraq in response to Saddam not allowing inspectors to their job.
That's right. And the first time he sent air power over there...saddam said he'd comply BUT didn't. Then in Dec. 1998 when he still wasn't cooperating...clinton sent the bombs in for four days.
Clinton did not start a war with the intent of removing Saddam from power. No, clinton didn't want to be unpopular. But the Iraqi Liberation Act WAS SIGNED BY HIM. I believe it was passed in 1996 but it could have been 1998. Read it...it speaks to removing saddam from power AND Iraq regime change. President Bush...SEVEN (7) years later decided the game was over.
[i]I have no problem with Bush invading AFGHANISTAN in response to 9/11. He was going after BIN LADEN and going after where he was supposed to be. If Bush went into Afghanistan with the amount of troops and fire power that he did with Iraq, we could have caught Bin Laden already.
That's a guess on you're part...nothing more. You have absolutely no way of knowing that.
but am totally against the war in Iraq.
Well then think about this. Are you going to be supportive of what kerry has said he'll do? Going after the terrorists, no matter where they're hiding, and kill them? Because if he actually does what he has said he'll do....it will be exactly what we did in Iraq.
I said:There won't be a need since they are already dealing with them.
You said: Easy to say. What if Bush does not like the other countries are dealing with terrorists, then what?
What? We went into Afghansitan because the taliban wouldn't turn over binladen. We gave them all kinds of opportunity to do so and they didn't. So you agree that we should have done that. But with saddam, who was also supporting terrorism and the world has long thought he was a threat should be left alone. No one was there to deal with the terrorist support.....it was saddam who was doing it. Not at all the same as a country finding/dealing with thir own terrorists. Besides...European countries do have terrorists cells, yes, but their whole country isn't supporting terrorism like other ME countries are.
An assassination attempt...special forces. Illegal according to International law...
Because our intelligence was been faulty. The faulty intelligence work and coordination of the TOP GOVERNMENT AGENCIES whose job is get information failed the American people before and after 9/11.
We've ALL been frustrated by that. But thank kerry and other ultra-liberals for rarely supporting our intel. agencies nor being willing to fund them. They can't do the job if they don't have the funding.
You keep putting so much faith in all this intelligence that has been gathered. It's all we have logansdad. And if it's the word of someone like saddam saying I don't have it...after all he's done...against our intelligence...I'll choose our intelligence EVERY time. We must continue to give more funding so they call do a better job. But then that raises the deficit and the dems complain about that too.
kerry voted against bills that would have increased funding to these agencies...he's voted for bills that would decrease their funding. He's voted against several of the pieces of equipment our troops are now using in combat....and he's voted against funding our troops. Not a good person to put as CIC to protect this nation. Just look back to his voting history....he's mainly for social programs...but almost always against our military. And if we ever needed a strong military...it's now.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I will never submit America's national security to an international test. The use of troops to defend America must never be subject to a veto by countries like France. The President's job is not to take an international poll -- the President's job is to defend America." --President George W. Bush
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Re-elect President Bush
posted on October 7, 2004 01:40:14 PM new
I will say this one more time to the compulsive Bush/Cheney supporters so they don't miss it.
Over 1050 dead American troops. Over 7,000 wounded American troops with no end insight. Billions spent in Iraq with no end insight. Millions of Americans have lost good jobs. Millions more Americans in poverty. Millions of Americans without health insurance. Millions of Americans are working harder for less pay and benefits.
posted on October 7, 2004 01:46:05 PM newWell then think about this. Are you going to be supportive of what kerry has said he'll do? Going after the terrorists, no matter where they're hiding, and kill them? Because if he actually does what he has said he'll do....it will be exactly what we did in Iraq.
I answer that by using a quote from you "That's a guess on you're part...nothing more. You have absolutely no way of knowing that."
An assassination attempt...special forces. Illegal according to International law...
That hasn't stopped Bush from holding "enemy combatants". He changed what POW's were being called to avoid the Geneva Conventions.
kerry voted against bills that would have increased funding to these agencies...he's voted for bills that would decrease their funding. He's voted against several of the pieces of equipment our troops are now using in combat....and he's voted against funding our troops.
Get off your high horse about who didn't fund what. It has already been shown by factcheck.org that past Republicans voted against military funding increases and money to support military equipment. Bottom line is that if Bush felt the military did not have the proper funding to wage a war, he should have increased funding and made sure the soldiers had the right equipment. No instead Bush decided to go to war against a country that was not an immediate threat and worry about the consequences later only to blame the Democrats for a lack of funding.
Not a good person to put as CIC to protect this nation. Just look back to his voting history....he's mainly for social programs...but almost always against our military. And if we ever needed a strong military...it's now.
I suppose having a CIC that has ties to the family of terrorist is much better. Bush only supports big business, and especially those that will put a dime into the companies that he invested in. Bush only looks out for his own a** and can care less about the average American.
There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
----------------------------------
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
On This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declares: "the area… that coalition forces control… happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
------------------------------
Read what he said. And then recall that for 13 MORE years we continued to see him as a threat...and continued with his game playing.
