Operation Iraqi Liberation...

“Ummm... Hello? Is this thing on?”

“"Snafu, I was reading about him the other day. Nothing much, except they are saying that he isn't coughing up much info."
Treebeard
10:09:33 AM
04/08/04
ignore this user

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

Saddam to be Released!
"A report in the Washington Post has confirmed that Saddam will be released for his cooperation in helping to capture Osama. Furthermore, as part of the deal, Saddam will head up a new government in Afghanistan with Manuel Noreiga as his Minister of Good Times.

The story of Osama's capture will be published shortly, along with a true life story on Lifetime."
bearmagnet
10:22:33 AM
04/08/04
ignore this user

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

"From December 16, 1998

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq.
The president said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.
"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.
Operation Desert Fox, a strong, sustained series of attacks, will be carried out over several days by U.S. and British forces, Clinton said.
"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said.
"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.
Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors.

'Without delay, diplomacy or warning'

The Iraqi leader was given a final warning six weeks ago, Clinton said, when Baghdad promised to cooperate with U.N. inspectors at the last minute just as U.S. warplanes were headed its way.
"Along with Prime Minister (Tony) Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning," Clinton said.
The president said the report handed in Tuesday by Richard Butler, head of the United Nations Special Commission in charge of finding and destroying Iraqi weapons, was stark and sobering.
Iraq failed to cooperate with the inspectors and placed new restrictions on them, Clinton said. He said Iraqi officials also destroyed records and moved everything, even the furniture, out of suspected sites before inspectors were allowed in.
"Instead of inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors," Clinton said.
"In halting our airstrikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance -- not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed," the president explained.

Strikes necessary to stunt weapons programs

Clinton said he made the decision to strike Wednesday with the unanimous agreement of his security advisors.
Timing was important, said the president, because without a strong inspection system in place, Iraq could rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear programs in a matter of months, not years.
"If Saddam can cripple the weapons inspections system and get away with it, he would conclude the international community, led by the United States, has simply lost its will," said Clinton. "He would surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction."
Clinton also called Hussein a threat to his people and to the security of the world.

"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people," Clinton said.
Such a change in Baghdad would take time and effort, Clinton said, adding that his administration would work with Iraqi opposition forces.
Clinton also addressed the ongoing impeachment crisis in the White House.
"Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down," he said.
"But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so."

This part was the most striking to me personally…

"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people," Clinton said.
Such a change in Baghdad would take time and effort, Clinton said, adding that his administration would work with Iraqi opposition forces.”

So we have Clinton back in 1998 KNOWING what the solution was but not having the fortitude to carry through. Then in 2000 we got Dubya that goes after Iraq for the exact same reasons based on the exact same intell that Clinton did in ’98 but he DOES have the fortitude to follow through, thereby correcting Clinton’s failure. And Bush is the A-hole. Had Clinton done what needed to be done and done the same thing Bush 43 is doing the left would have celebrated and said he was cleaning up after Bush 41.

My next post will deal with Bush’s reasons for going in and with the absolute blind eye the left has turned from it’s own."
Nigal
10:23:21 AM
04/08/04
ignore this user

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

""And where do you draw the line between democratic values and what you term 'liberalism'?”

If a democrat has liberal tendencies and seek to further a liberal agenda I call them a liberal.

“Are all democrats liberals?”

No.

“Are all republicans conservatives?”

No.

“There may be tendencies that way, but is it really carved in stone?"

No. This is why I try to shy away from using the terms Republican and Democrats. For me it is conservatism vs. liberalism.

"And, furthermore, would we really be a democracy with liberty and justice for all if all those liberals were silenced?"

Who said anything about silencing them? Liberals have every single right conservatives have. They can say anything they like. I don’t want liberals silenced, I just don’t want them to be in any position of power or leadership."
Nigal
10:30:11 AM
04/08/04
ignore this user

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

"Again, we didn't commit ground troops to an all out war, which is what we have now.



I don’t want liberals silenced, I just don’t want them to be in any position of power or leadership."
Nigal


So, the democrats should have the same platform as the republicans? I don't quite get that...

...Has nothing good ever come form the "other side". No domestic programs? Not a one?"
Treebeard
10:43:38 AM
04/08/04
ignore this user

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

"Not according to LImbaugh, Tree.

Don't you get it?"
MarkO
10:45:00 AM
04/08/04
ignore this user

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

"Between the time of 9/11 and leading into the war we had many polotians giving their take on Iraq and what should be done. Here’s a small list of some of the things the liberals were saying. And we are talking liberals like…Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, Tom Lantos. Tom Harkin. Arlen Specter. Barbara Boxer. Robert Byrd. Wesley Clark, Jacques Chirac, Hillary Clinton, William Cohen, John Edwards, Al Gore, Dick Gephardt, Jim Jeffords, Ted Kennedy, Carl Levin, John Rockefeller, and Henry Waxman.


"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."

-- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others


"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities"

-- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement."

-- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability."

-- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we."

-- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs."

-- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security."

-- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out."

-- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal."

-- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."

-- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction."

-- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

-- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."

-- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction."

-- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

-- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed."

-- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

-- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation."

-- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War."

-- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."

-- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States."

-- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction."

-- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

-- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East."

-- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts."

-- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

Now, all these people were saying the same thing Bush 43 has said. Why are these guys apparently exempt from scrutiny? Why is everything laid at Bush’s feet? Why do we never hear these quotes from the left? And further more why, when the going got tough all these people suddenly turned and pointed the finger at Bush and Bush alone? Pandering. Plain and simple. These quotes were the right thing to say at the time in a post 9/11 environment but as soon as our boys started having to give their lives for the war they found the safest thing for them to do was to attack Bush. They blow in the wind which ever way it goes."
Nigal
10:50:53 AM
04/08/04
ignore this user

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

"“So, the democrats should have the same platform as the republicans?”

No. I wasn’t implying that. What I said was that I desired to not have liberals in positions of power.

“...Has nothing good ever come form the "other side". No domestic programs? Not a one?"

Yes. The non-divisive ones that do not try to further a liberal agenda or threaten liberties."
Nigal
10:51:39 AM
04/08/04
ignore this user

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

"Liberal agenda does not threaten liberty, Nigal.

Its the right-wing agenda that has threatened liberty.....Patriot Act, secret energy policy, lying about the true cost of Bush's Medicare "reform"........"
MarkO
10:59:39 AM
04/08/04
ignore this user

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

"What's a liberal agenda according to you, Nigal?"
Phaedrus
11:02:47 AM
04/08/04
ignore this user

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

"Then why did Bush choose to sell this war in the fashion that he did? Why did they change the reasons for going there so many times? Why did he tell us that an imminent attack on the U.S. could materialize in 45 minutes? Why did he link al quada with Saddam? Maybe there is more than meets the eye. The fact is, pretty much all politicians treat the American people as if we are idiots, party notwithstanding. I always felt that Saddam was under such scrutiny in the eyes of the world at the time that he couldn't drop a load without being under a microscope. The chance of him launching that imminent attack didn't seem as likely as Bush put it. So, the alienation of the countries that could have been part of a larger coalition was a mistake. There has been a lot of holes in his and Powells 'sell' to the American public. This tells me that there are things on the table that we don't know about. So, given this, when things come back on Bush, I am not surprised. I don't know why anyone would be. As far as giving them democracy, my feelings are still for taking care of business here at home and not ignoring domestic problems as I feel this administration has. Sorry if I am a bit callous about the needs of the Iraqis. We have needs here. Privatizing everything under the sun isn't what I would vote for as an answers to our needs. I could go into quite a few other ossues that I disagree with Bush on, but I don't want to stray too far. We could save that for yet another thread..."
Treebeard
11:07:58 AM
04/08/04
ignore this user

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

"In places like China or South Korea liberalization means more liberty, not less.

Regimes that have been far left or far right are more conservative, inflexible in their idealogy and resistant to change."
MarkO
11:13:51 AM
04/08/04
ignore this user

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

""Then why did Bush choose to sell this war in the fashion that he did? Why did they change the reasons for going there so many times?”

The “sell” was Saddam’s refusal to abide by the UN resolutions and the ceasefire agreement he signed. What came in between were the reasons for the administrations ergency for going now, rather than to continue to drag on without results as we had for the passed 12 years. I personally feel this crap should have been over looong before now.

“Why did he tell us that an imminent attack on the U.S. could materialize in 45 minutes?”

I’ve never heard this quote. The imminency of an attack of some kind was based on the intell we had at the time.

“Why did he link al quada with Saddam?”

History has shown us time and again that it is common for enemies to join together against us. Al Quada and Saddam were the top two. Why wouldn’t they work together?

“Maybe there is more than meets the eye.”

There always is. The general public will never be privy to all the facts, nor should we due to protecting our own intelligence and assets.

“So, the alienation of the countries that could have been part of a larger coalition was a mistake.”

I don’t feel so. We had the balls to enforce the rules set upon Iraq by their own actions. Because others did not is on them. Not us. Let’s face it, France wasn’t the one with the bullseye on their back. Niether was Germany. Plus they had financial ties they did not want to lose. The funniest thing in my mind is the fact that many of the former Soviet Block nations were the first ones to stand with us. Poland gets it.

“There has been a lot of holes in his and Powells 'sell' to the American public.”

In hindsight yes. We were going on what we believed to be true based on the intell we had. Each of these selling points seem small and not a reason for justification but when viewed as a whole they were overwhelming.

“So, given this, when things come back on Bush, I am not surprised. I don't know why anyone would be.”

But when provided a huge list of quotes made by the left based on the exact same intell Bush made his speeches and selling points on, Bush is the one coming out as being the A-hole. Do you see how this can appear hinky?"
Nigal
11:33:38 AM
04/08/04
ignore this user

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

"Seriously, Nigal, what are the elements of a liberal agenda in your eyes?"
Phaedrus
11:50:31 AM
04/08/04
ignore this user

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

"Al Quada and Saddam were the top two. Why wouldn’t they work together?

Because of fundamental religious differences.

We had the balls to enforce the rules set upon Iraq by their own actions. Because others did not is on them.

My way or the highway? I think we will always differ on this point, but that's ok, Nigal.


Do you see how this can appear hinky?"


the nature of the beast is that the one whose watch it happens under gets the sh_t tossed at him/her. Bush isn't the first one this happened to. Why should I feel any different towards his situation?

Also, don't overlook the fact that the nation is severelt divided right now. I'm not the only one questioning these things. There are lots of people out there that are looking for answers. They are not all libs either..."
Treebeard
11:54:14 AM
04/08/04
ignore this user

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

""But when provided a huge list of quotes made by the left based on the exact same intell Bush made his speeches and selling points on, Bush is the one coming out as being the A-hole. Do you see how this can appear hinky?"

Bush lied to those "leftists" and convinced them to go along with his agenda.

They trusted him.

Why should they catch hell when Bush was the one who lied, misled and prevaricated?

Bush is the commander in chief yet takes no responsibility for having misled the congress and the public.

Bush has passed the buck saying it was faulty intelligence."
MarkO
11:57:11 AM
04/08/04
ignore this user

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

"Time-out for terminology ---

hink-y (adj.)
Other Forms: v. hink, -ed
Etymology: Used in noir pulp fiction and the law enforcement community.

Suspicious, strange, unusual; acting in a manner as if having something to hide, or seemingly crooked."
Tilt
12:04:56 PM
04/08/04
ignore this user

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

"“Because of fundamental religious differences.”

"They are enjoined by fundamentalist Islam even though they are fo two separate movements."

If you're talkin' about Hussein, he is NOT a fundamentalist.

Mental, but not FUNdamental.”

“Uh oh!
That was not supposed to happen!

I think I just trashed the thread!

We ought to $h!tcan it anyway.....its pointless.”

“Let's not go to Camelot.

'Tis a silly place...”

“"I was referring to the politician’s need to try to please everyone and moderate because he IS moderate. Look at the diversity of his appointments of his cabinate"


Diversity???

Well, he does have corporatists of different race and ethnic background, but they are all corporatists......The Gimme Generation.”

“It's a known fact that Osama and Saddam hated each other, even for Arab "brothers". I very much doubt that would "pact together", even though Saddam gave money to Hammas suicide bombers. That connection, from everything I've heard, didn't work.

In regards to the "why dodn't we do somthing in 1998" point from Nigal -

Remember that 'round then, the Headache in eastern Europe was starting to cook and Somila either happened, or was going to happen. I think the last thing Clinton wanted to do was get involved in something that he couldn't personally do. I do agree with ya, I wished we quit #&%!$ footin' around abck than and throttled Saddam back then; we all know I stand on that, I digress....

My above statment should not be taken as a defense of Clinton; I think the man is scum on many levels. I just try to put myself back in that time, to remember what was going on and why policies were the way they were. Last thing we need nowadays, is anyone trying to revise history.”

“Gee Whizzzzz, Thomas!

LOL



I knew Clinton was a scumbag long before any of the other crap came to light... when he spoke at a fundraiser and said, "Some people say I raised income taxes too much. I think maybe I did."

That freakin' lowlife.

The one-term moderate Democrat we had in this district lost his seat voting for that tax plan. Then some worthless piece-o-crap local Republican dentist rode into congress with Gingrich.

And that b!tch Clinton said he might've raised taxes too much.

The first thing the dentist did was try to turn a local wildlife area over to real estate developers (and he's STILL trying to, ten years later!).”

“"It's a known fact that Osama and Saddam hated each other, even for Arab "brothers". I very much doubt that would "pact together", even though Saddam gave money to Hammas suicide bombers. That connection, from everything I've heard, didn't work.”

All I was sayin’ was that Osama was shmoozing up to Saddam leading up to the war and if I remember correctly didn’t they find one of the higher ups from Al Quada hiding out in Iraq who later turned up with a hole in his head? I’m not saying there was a concrete connection but it’s not as far out there as some may think.

“Remember that 'round then, the Headache in eastern Europe was starting to cook and Somalia either happened, or was going to happen. I think the last thing Clinton wanted to do was get involved in something that he couldn't personally do.”

Somalia was clear back in ‘93 and we were already there bombing Iraq in ‘98. We sent in more Tomahawks in ‘98 than we did in the entire first Gulf War. They were all softened up and it would have been a mop up at best. The Yugoslavian campaign didn’t start until ‘99 and that whole thing stunk to high heaven. People say Bush is a war criminal? Ha! It takes very little digging into the Yugo campaign to see there was something wrong there. And this was a NATO operation not a soul US campaign and even then we were only bombing less than 3 months.

In the end Clinton didn’t get jack squat done. Why? IMHO #1) By ‘99 he had already cut the military so deeply that we didn’t have the resources. #2) Clinton has hated the military longer than I’ve been alive and #3) no balls.”

“reason1 for going to war
as stated on two other threads:)
sanctions were soon to be released. US in bad position to profit
2. military base
3. oil for euros not profitable enough for US, (Saddam changed the currency traded for Iraqi oil to Euros) had to change it back by executive order in May 2003.”

“Nigal I’m certainly not trying to defend Clinton or anything like that it’s just that you can’t look at what Clinton and Bush did or didn’t do about Iraq without factoring in 9/11. If 9/11 never happens Bush never invades Iraq no matter how big his balls are, because the Congress would never have given him the authority. 9/11 is what made it all possible. Lets face it the bombing of the Cole and the embassies didn’t cause a fraction of the anger and fear in this country that 9/11 did. At the time Clinton was so mired in his own problems that anything he did the right would start screaming "wag the dog" they had no problem taking political advantage of the situation. Clinton would never have had the support of the Congress or the country for a full scale invasion of Iraq.”

“I agree must hike. 9/11 did raise the stakes a LOT. I never meantioned about the "wag the dog" factoring into Clinton's going into Yugoslavia because it simply can't be proven.”

“"sanctions were soon to be released. US in bad position to profit"

You ahve to abide by the UN sanctions before you can get them lifted. They would have never been lifted until he started playing ball. But with all the oil for food scams he was running the sanctions didn't personally hurt him in the least. It was his people that suffered.”

“Or most deliberately blind:

"Bush lied to those "leftists" and convinced them to go along with his agenda.

They trusted him.

Why should they catch hell when Bush was the one who lied, misled and prevaricated?

Bush is the commander in chief yet takes no responsibility for having misled the congress and the public.

Bush has passed the buck saying it was faulty intelligence."
MarkO
11:57:11 AM
04/08/04”

“ABC thinks differently:

Direct Links Detailed”

“Sticky sticky sticky...let's not cloud the waters with facts, Mkay?

I keed!”

“SMW, do you believe the testimony of these prisoners?”

“I'd think Bush and al-Sadr would get along better, seeing as how they both attained positions of power based purely on their family connections. They appear to have more similarities than differences.

I think it's their common tendency for bellicosity that gets them into trouble. How does one say 'Brang it on' in Arabic?”

“MR. RUSSERT: If your analysis is not correct, and we’re not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I don’t think it’s likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. I’ve talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House. The president and I have met with them, various groups and individuals, people who have devoted their lives from the outside to trying to change things inside Iraq. And like Kanan Makiya who’s a professor at Brandeis, but an Iraqi, he’s written great books about the subject, knows the country intimately, and is a part of the democratic opposition and resistance. The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that.

Now, if we get into a significant battle in Baghdad, I think it would be under circumstances in which the security forces around Saddam Hussein, the special Republican Guard, and the special security organization, several thousand strong, that in effect are the close-in defenders of the regime, they might, in fact, try to put up such a struggle. I think the regular army will not. My guess is even significant elements of the Republican Guard are likely as well to want to avoid conflict with the U.S. forces, and are likely to step aside.

Now, I can’t say with certainty that there will be no battle for Baghdad. We have to be prepared for that possibility. But, again, I don’t want to convey to the American people the idea that this is a cost-free operation. Nobody can say that. I do think there’s no doubt about the outcome. There’s no question about who is going to prevail if there is military action. And there’s no question but what it is going to be cheaper and less costly to do it now than it will be to wait a year or two years or three years until he’s developed even more deadly weapons, perhaps nuclear weapons. And the consequences then of having to deal with him would be far more costly than will be the circumstances today. Delay does not help.

MR. RUSSERT: The army’s top general said that we would have to have several hundred thousand troops there for several years in order to maintain stability.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: I disagree. We need, obviously, a large force and we’ve deployed a large force. To prevail, from a military standpoint, to achieve our objectives, we will need a significant presence there until such time as we can turn things over to the Iraqis themselves. But to suggest that we need several hundred thousand troops there after military operations cease, after the conflict ends, I don’t think is accurate. I think that’s an overstatement.

cheney meet the press”

“Are we tough enough?
Mona Charen
April9, 2004


As American and coalition soldiers are fired upon in Iraq, we may be seeing the radiating ripples of the Spanish election. If terror can succeed in Madrid, why not in Fallujah and Basra and Ramadi?

Iraq is obviously not among the more civilized nations on earth. Saddam's barbarism was extreme, but it and he arose from a culture of terror and fear. One can imagine Saddam watching TV in his jail cell and chortling over the mutilated bodies of our aid workers in Fallujah. "Now maybe you Americans see why I ruled with an iron fist?"

Of course, in truth, Saddam's rule only further brutalized a people already accustomed to tyranny.

President Bush has been forceful in his commitment to democratizing the Middle East. What remains up for debate is how long it will take before Iraq is ready for free elections. A simple respect for the rule of law must precede self-government. Among the fractious, suspicious, violent and emotional Iraqi people, such respect has not been much in evidence yet.

Rumors, for example, are Iraq's principle communications media. Among the legends that have circulated widely in the past year, reports Tom Squitieri of USA Today, include: 1) that toys distributed by U.S. soldiers to Iraqi children cause deadly diseases; 2) that Saddam is in a Colorado ski resort; 3) that the United States is holding back electricity to punish the Iraqi people; 4) that Israel is behind the U.S. invasion; and 5) that night vision goggles permit U.S. soldiers to see through the clothing of Iraqi women.

The U.S.-led coalition has already accomplished an enormous amount, including introducing a new currency, reopening schools (with revised textbooks), re-establishing power grids, arranging for adequate water supplies, presiding over the opening of more than 100 newspapers and numerous radio and television stations, helping to establish democratically elected local councils, training new police and a professional and non-terrorist army, and more. The task we have set ourselves is Herculean. And most Americans do not speak the language.

But the question of the moment is not whether we've done enough good, but whether we've been tough enough. We Americans hate being occupiers. We are liberators. But Iraq cannot be truly liberated until it has been transformed. And it cannot be transformed if the bad elements are not afraid of American soldiers. Those gleeful faces in Fallujah make the point: They think we are patsies.

Are we? Moqtada al-Sadr, the 30-ish cleric who only now has been issued an arrest warrant for a murder committed (supposedly on his order) a year ago, has been handled with kid gloves until now. His newspaper has printed the vilest incitement, accusing the United States for example, of using an Apache helicopter to bomb 50 police recruits on Feb. 10 in front of an Iraqi police station. In truth, the attack was actually the work of terrorists.

Why would the U.S. bomb Iraqis attempting to cooperate with the coalition in building a new police force? It doesn't matter that it defies common sense. The rumor mill churns on. Al-Sadr has used his newspaper, Al Hawza, to urge "terrorism" against American forces. And what has been the result? Several stern warnings. Only when Sadr's "Mahdi Army," a mob of criminals, former Baathists (ironic since Saddam executed Sadr's father) and Islamists, began firing at Americans did the civil administrator shut Al Hawza down.

Perhaps they stayed their hand because they knew closing a newspaper would provoke criticism stateside. And it did. Editorials across the nation, from The New York Times to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, to the Detroit News to The San Francisco Chronicle scolded the administration for hypocrisy.

"Shutting down a newspaper," explained the Hartford Courant's editorial, "even an anti-American publication, doesn't teach democracy."

Well, hold on a minute. Baghdad is not Boston. You can't teach democracy until you first have order. And you cannot have order if people like Al-Sadr think they can bully you.

Why did we let ourselves in for all of this? As James Burnham used to say, "Where there's no alternative, there's no problem." The work of transforming the Middle East is going to be messy and difficult. But there is no alternative. To permit the region to simmer in ignorance, tyranny and fantasies of revenge is to incubate terrorism.”

“Oy......Mona Charen!

Stickman, I can feel the love, baby!”

“I find it really disappointing that the US, Bush Admin..etc.., are just now relizing that we do not have enough troops in action. More troops were needed in the first place; that would have made sure that these troops would be home with there famlies during this Holiday period. If we had gone in "proper", Bush would not have to scramble and hurry a situation that is not ready right now. This will be Bush's second blunder.....”

“that's right!

JIHAD FROM THE LEFT!

JJIHAD FROM THE RIGHT!

FROM ABOVE!!

FROM THE PAST!

FROM THE FUTURE! !

JIHAD FROM SPACE!

JIHAD FROM BEHIND ! ! !




BY GAWWWWWD! IT'S A JIIIHAAAAAAAAD!








jihad bush .....a message from desperate liberals everywhere...”

“laqtis, that's because the Dubya administration are cheap, chiselin', skin-flint buncha pikers.

They have done this phoney war in typical Republican fashion.......on the cheap.

And it will cost more in the long run because of their tight-ass, tight-wad nature.”

“Pretty much standard for that crowd. They #&%!$ up and someone else is expected to pay the price... in blood AND 'treasure'.”

“Search for "War Is A Racket" and get a 1933 view of war as a racket from USMC General Smedley Butler(retired).


I wonder if Dubya's grandpappy made a pile of money off The Great War.”

“i think bush's g-dad was hitler...”

“HE wasn't Hitler, but good old Prescott Bush made a TON of money off of the Nazi Party.

http://www.tarpley.net/bush2.htm”

“....until he got busted for trading with the enemy.

I'd think a family like that would have had their entire fortune taken away and the principles put in prison for life.”

“If ya can't discredit the man, discredit his family is what I always say...”

“Yee Haw ! ! !

Jihad Prescott Bush!!!


Dubya comes from a long line of thieves.”

“Bush is so stupid, he's been planning this war since he took office, and he still can't get it right.

Bush is a complete moron, period.”

“We don't need more troops. We don't need to win the war. Sure, democracy would have been nice, but it's not surprising things are looking like a future theocracy. What the U.S. needs to do is prevent all-out bedlam until the handover this summer, and garrison our troops safely. Let the Iraqis fight a civil war if they must. Our goal was to have our forces in the heart of the ME, and that we have achieved. Mission accomplished: U.S. force in the region to leverage other countries.”

“I could live with that Mutt. As long as they quit killin’ each other and us. My big fear is that with how politically ignorant and backwards these folks seem to be, I wonder if they will view ANY government that comes in there as a USA puppet government?”

“Mutt, do you actually believe that, with that plan, no future attacks upon Americans will be made. That the anger generated over there towards America will just subside or be re-directed to other local factions?”

“How can the US garrison it's troops safely, when everybody in the area wants to take pots shots at them? I think that IF that was the plan, it's not a good one. One thing I do find dissappointing, is that researched criticism of this Adiminstration is dismissed as gibberish. If I am not mistaken, I believe that the right has been b!tching about Clinton for what, 12 years now? And with 9/11, yer still b!tching about Clinton, no? You see, my point is that, as I've stated many times before, have it both ways.

I am real glad that we were all able to come together, united if you will, and have moved forward from the 2000 election......(tounge firmly in cheek....)

I'm seeing a trend of where disinterest of the subject, leads way to an area of odd common folk. Interesting, to say the least....

BTW - I didn't bring up Bush and the Nazi's, Strat called Bush's reilitive Nazi's, I was just trying to lead a little creditbility to the young man's post. I like to help out where/when needed :)”

“"You see, my point is that, as I've stated many times before, have it both ways........."

That's "times before, YOU CAN'T have it both ways........."”

“"How can the US garrison it's troops safely, when everybody in the area wants to take pots shots at them? I think that IF that was the plan, it's not a good one.”

Are you saying that because these Aholes are shooting at us it’s part of Bush’s plan or that Bush is somehow responsable for this?

“One thing I do find dissappointing, is that researched criticism of this Adiminstration is dismissed as gibberish.”

I have no problem with facts but witch hunts do tend to be dismissed rather quickly especially when there is a whole slew of demagoguery and fear mongering attached to it. As a conservative I expect and demand a higher level of honesty from my conservative leaders than even the left demands. Just being a conservative doesn’t get you a pass with me. I have no problem with facts, it’s spin that I dismiss as gibberish.

“If I am not mistaken, I believe that the right has been b!tching about Clinton for what, 12 years now? And with 9/11, yer still b!tching about Clinton, no? You see, my point is that, as I've stated many times before, have it both ways.”

No, I’ve only been bltching about Clinton for 11 years and I will continue to do so until we stop paying the price for his failures as a president.

“I am real glad that we were all able to come together, united if you will, and have moved forward from the 2000 election......(tounge firmly in cheek....)”

LOL! Yes, the liberals have been very understanding and quite accommodating sense the 2000 election. Their hate for Bush is evident of this.”

“Stickman, I can feel the love, baby!"
MarkO
01:24:28 PM
04/11/04

???”

“Let me ask this then:

As Strat pointed out, there has never been such a haterd of a President before. While I would agrue that Nixion might have been more of a dispised man, let's say he's right. The question - Why Bush? Why now? (to rag oon him and why rag on him now?). Why do the Dems want to witch hunt? Half of the people in this country can't all be people of hate.”

“"As Strat pointed out, there has never been such a haterd of a President before. While I would agrue that Nixion might have been more of a dispised man, let's say he's right."

You'll have to take this up with him as he's the one who said it, not me. Strat hardly speaks for all conservatives.

"The question - Why Bush?"

He's the conservative in charge and the liberals still feel they were swindled out of a presidential term.


"Why now? (to rag oon him and why rag on him now?)."

Where the heck have you been the last 3+ years? The left has taken every single opportunity to swipe at him and have even tried inventing some in the process.

"Why do the Dems want to witch hunt?"

It is their only menas at a grab for the presidency. They can't win on their platform so all that's left is to try and discredit Bush. If you throw enough shlt at someone, even if it doesn't stick they are going to stick after so long.

"Half of the people in this country can't all be people of hate."

I'd hardly say it's half.
We have the presidency, both the House and the Senate, and the governorships of like 7 key states. You don’t achieve that kind of success with a 50% voting block. I feel the simple truth is this, liberalism fails and the American people aren’t so dumb as to be able to see this.”

“???"
StickmanWalking
10:05:40 AM


? ? ?”

“How come over 50% of the voters in this country voted against him in 2000 if the numbers are slanted the way you say they are?”

“Slanted?

Like Italics?”

“Over 50%? Still disgruntled ey? It was in responce to his making it sound as if the voters are that even. And Q, I forgot to add that I don't think all liberals hate anyone. It's the majority of the people they elect that hate.”

“Nigal, you are full of crap!


The use of the word "hate" is wearing thin.”

“So, everyone who voted against Bush in 2000 is disgruntled? Not your most astute observation, my friend!”

“I'm going by what polls rely as basically a dead heat race at teh moment. Again, I say, if Bush was this "great President", I doubt the Dems would even have a toehold on the upcoming race. I get the feeling that, and I'm not trying to "make your platform for you", your dissappointment with Kerry is greater than your dissappointment with Bush. I can't say I wouldn't blame you. I would have liked to have seen someone else in this race (and no, I'm not talking about Clark, just my thoughts on "anyone but Kerry, Geppie, Liebers, Kuchinich, Sharpton, Edwards and Moesly-Brown :0 ), but that is besides the point.

It's almost worth it to just give Bush another four years, so that we can have the Admin bogged down in hearings and court cases unit they find something to try and impeach him on. Boy! wouldn't the fire get going on THIS board. Whooppiiee!!

this whole thing is just plan silly. Everyone needs a hike.

See ya.”

“"So, everyone who voted against Bush in 2000 is disgruntled? Not your most astute observation, my friend!"

Once again, and for the last time, you have shown that if you can not raise a valid point you must fall back on putting words in my mouth. If I won’t say the exact thing that will allow you to unload on me you simply twist my words to get the assertion you are looking for. I asked if you, YOU, were still disgruntled, not everyone who voted against him. I may take a cheap easy shot but at least I will allow your words to speak for themselves.

Good day Treebeard.”

“You know what, Nigal? Perhaps if you checked your own phrasing, you may see why someone reads your posts a certain way. So, back off on the high and mighty crap already...

Good day, yourself!”

“Mutt, do you actually believe that, with that plan, no future attacks upon Americans will be made. That the anger generated over there towards America will just subside or be re-directed to other local factions?

It depends. The shiites are making a point: that the U.S. can't double-cross them (as we started to do in March) and either deal with the sunnis or make the shiites a minority player in the government, without the country falling into chaos. Every major Iraqi player wants the coalition troops out of Iraq, and the U.S. just wants the Iraqis to control Iraq and let the U.S. base forces there. There's plenty of room for compromising and deal making. So, the answer to your question is: perhaps.”