Bush's Speech

““That's simly not the case Buck. Since the change of administration there was a push for intelligence on Saddam. - Y2

Y2, this is a rather humorous statement! Are you suggesting the Clinton Administration was apathetic and/or ignorant of Saddam's WMDs? Why would Clinton and his cronies come out so strongly against Saddam if they didn't REALLY have intelligence on him?

Y2, please explain why Clinton's National Security Advisor would say this, "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998. And why would Madeline Albright, Clinton's Secretary of State say, ""Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998 Why would KEY members of Clinton's team say these things if they didn't REALLY think to be true. She said Saddam was America's "GREATEST SECURITY THREAT WE FACE"!!! And you merely dismiss this? You're so partisan it's almost sickening. Can't you see this? You know that Nancy Pelosi chick? Here's what she said DURING CLINTON'S TERM! "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

Y2, check this interview out with Bill Clinton AFTER his Presidency and AFTER the Iraq invastion. Please comment.

-------------------------------
During a visit to Portugal this past October, Bill Clinton told Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso that he was convinced they had the WMD up until the fall of Saddam Hussein.

"When Clinton was here recently he told me he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime," he [Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso] said in an interview with Portuguese cable news channel SIC Noticias. "

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

So you may claim that just makes me a Bush hater - but that's not true. - Y2

Is so. You're a Bush-hater, it's obvious. You're a dime-a-dozen cookie-cutter Bush-hater because facts mean nothing to you. That's okay, I like you just the same, I don't let politics get in the way of friendship, but it's rather obvious. I'm giving you pre-Bush quotes and post-Bush quotes from liberals who thought the same as Bush, even direct quotes from President Clinton before and after the invasion, yet still to you only Bush lied. You can't change or convince a Bush-hater otherwise, they just hate the guy regardless.”

“It's called honesty Geobeet. The truth shall set you free.”

“I guess it will be another three and a half years before I'm set free then.”

“Anybody remember Kerry's position on this?

He was all for attacking Saddam as far back as 1998.

Anybody know when he changed his mind?

It was when Howard Dean starting winning in the Democratic primaries. Not even before his run, but in the middle of it.”

“And I agree Sarge, he should have been kicked out after the first gulf war. That was the time to do it - with the support of the whole world - Y2

Gee, Y2, you're a bloodthirsty liberal. You wanted to go against the purpose of the original war, which was to merely OUST Saddam from Kuwait, but after the war mission was accomplished you wanted to continue on and kill kill kill? Shoot 'em up? It was a turkey shoot. Remember those highways lined with destroyed fleeing Iraq tanks and jeeps and soldiers? Yet you wanted to continue on in a blood-crazed frenzy and kill thousands more and then kill a Head of State after he was already forced out of Kuwait? I see how you are... kick 'em when they're down and then kick 'em harder still and let the blood run deep, even if it wasn't the mission of the war in the first place.

Tell me this, Y2 (I suspect you won't answer, but that's okay). After you KILLED Saddam in the first war and wiped out his remaining military, what would YOU have done with the resulting vaccuum this would have created? Let chaos reign? Let terrorists roam freely? Let there be a civil war? Or would you have been prepared to go in and "occupy" the chaotic nation with no government? Liberals... oh man. Always having a "should've done this, shouldn't done that... we're all doomed... everything sucks..."”

“Sarge dances 'round the subject
He spins like a spinnin' top
He got a crazy partner Buck
Ya oughta see him reel and rock
Long as he got a PC
The music won't never stop


Excuse me boys, I'm gonna go pull my hair out!!”

“Sarge - you're opinion of me matters little outside of your own little world. In fact I think you'll find you're becoming more and more of an isiloated minority in you own country - in the way you buy everything you are told hook line and sinker. Maybe you need to start questioning a little more and stop looking for the reds under the bed.

1991 - Right time to topple Saddam. He had invaded another country. The world was united against him, more troops were on the ground, other nations were prepared to pick up most of the cost of the war and would have provided more of the cost of rebuilding Iraq. Also there was a far lower chance of an insurgecy, as most of the Islamic world felt threatened by Saddam.

Instead sanctions were imposed. Often an imperfect solution - but at the time American didn't want to pay the price of rebuildiing Iraq from the ground up.

12 years later Bush II decides that America's long-term interest is served best by ridding the world of Saddam.

Things had moved on since 1991. 9/11, and a growing restlessness in Saudi Arabia are huge factors. Also the rise of China - an alternative and unquesioning market for countries like SA to sell oil to.

The word "Freedom", was endlessly repeated, and the simple minded folk bought this. Freedom, well that's a great idea - but it's not what the war was about.

Now don't get me wrong. Oil is important - and America and the rest of the world can't be held to ransom by Iraq or fundamentalists toppling the house of Saud. This may help solve the problem and even bring a solution to the palestinian problem, and if it all works out prevents a gathering storm in the middle east. A storm which could threaten America's future as a superpower.

Imagine a world where the key oil supplies in the world are controlled by a fundamentalist regime in SA, one in Iran, and Saddam in Iraq. China will buy their oil, so America doesn't hold the same influence through its buying power and the mighty dollar as it once did.
America could not let this happen.

Freedom is a good thing, and hopefuully democracy will flower in the Middle east - it has to happen as the alternative is unthinkable. You fail in Iraq and leave it in the hands of the religious radicals, and Saudi Arabia will soon fall too - then you face a far more bloody conflict to keep the west from grinding to a halt. Without sufficient oil the whole country and economy stops functioning.

You may talk of alternatives - but you have Venezuella in the hands of an almost communist leader. You have a potentially unstable and corrupt - though improving -Nigeria, and you have Russia - do you really want America's future in the hands of Putin? Canada had oil, but it's basically mixed in with sand and costs a huge amount to refine.

So there is some justification for going to war - though it could have waited a year or two, and more and more pressure applied to Saddam. War was not the only option and certainly WMDs and the terrorist threat were not the key reasons for it - that's how Bush lied.”

“MarkO, quick question for you, and it has nothing regarding the policy of the Iraq War.

Do you think the Clinton Administration thought Saddam had WMDs, or where they lying?

Do you think, up until the war, that many liberal Democrats in Congress, even those on the Intelligence Committee, thought Saddam had WMDs or were they lying?

I'm seriously curious, because I wonder how much bias and partisanship can actually blind people to facts and quotes and historical documentation? I see you as intelligent, so I'm curious if you thought Clinton and all the Dems were "lying"?”

“1991 - Right time to topple Saddam. He had invaded another country. The world was united against him, more troops were on the ground, other nations were prepared to pick up most of the cost of the war and would have provided more of the cost of rebuilding Iraq. Also there was a far lower chance of an insurgecy, as most of the Islamic world felt threatened by Saddam. - Y2

Y2, this is simply not true. The mission of the war was to oust Saddam out of Kuwait, not to militarily invade Iraq and destroy his government. Where do you get your information, geez. The world was NOT united in invading Iraq the first time, not even the surrounding Arabs wanted that. They just wanted him out of Kuwait and in a weakened state, perhaps ripe for an inside coup.”

“Well you may have a point Buck - but they were already most of the way to Bagdhad. it could easily have been done were there the political will to complete the mission.”

“Y2 - All that rant'n and a rav'n and you completely ignored the fact that you are a lazy selfish #&%!$. You completely ignored the rapings, the torturing, the murders.

Out of sight, out of mind.”

“Sarge - you really don't listen. You're opinion of me means nothing. N O T H I N G!”

“I heard that.

I threw it in knowing you would ignore it.

Now, let's continue.

You completely ignored the rapings, the torturing, the murders.

Once again ... you ignore.

Out of sight, out of mind.

Sick!”

“Y2 - All that rant'n and a rav'n and you completely ignored the fact that you are a lazy selfish #&%!$.

I think he's popped his last balloon.”

“I think it's time for a big naked group hug.”

“Well you may have a point Buck...

For the record, I don't just have one point. This Buck is a 12-pointer.”

“I think it's time everybody stops changing the subject.”

“Not at all. But there's precious few examples of foreign policy on this scale having anything to do with morality.

Countries do this stuff, and have done through history, to protect thier own national interest. Nothing more nothing less.

Why did America not enter WW2 until December 1941. Why did it not take on Germany until the Nazi's declared war on them. Why did America want Britian to surrender to Germany in 1940 - of course first sending it's fleet to Canada.
Why was nothing done to stop the genocide in Cambodia, in Rwanda in Russian under Stalin, in China for the past 50 years?

I'd love for countries to intervene more. I realize humanitarian crisis are not easy to solve - look at the debacle in Somalia - though it was undertaken with good intentions.
But little if anything is ever done for a good cause - to stop killings and torture - that's often just incidental.
last edited: 6/30/05 2:19:07 PM”

“YES SERGEANT!

Okay guys, sarge sez stop changing the subject.

The subject is: "Y2 - All that rant'n and a rav'n and you completely ignored the fact that you are a lazy selfish #&%!$."

Have you got that soldier?”

“I told them sarge. We'll whip the b@st@rds into shape!”

“Assuming you're right Y2, why do you care what their motivations are if the right thing is done and people are saved?”

“The truth shall set you free.”
Sarge
1:45:59 PM
6/30/05

that was a great line from the movie "Conspiracy Theory"

brainwashing, secert agents..just like TT”

“Buck, I can't say for sure what those people believed, only what they said in public.

What members of congress said in 2002 has for more relevance since they actually gave Bush "permission" to go to war as he pleased.

I suspect that in the '90s some of those legislators had their doubts but didn't want to buck the trend and be denounced as "soft on Saddam".

As it turned out, Hussein was a fairly toothless tiger even ten years ago.

Buck, think about denoucing me as a partisan hack after what I said about all the members of congress rolling over for Bush.

I'm dissapointed in the Democrats too.

In 1991 I too wondered why they didn't finish the job, for the reasons y2 stated......troops on the ground, etc.

At that time I was in the same position as many Natl Guard guys are now.

I was in a New England mountain infantry battalion, 38 with three small(4 months, 4 & 7)boys and a real life.

That battalion has been deployed for this mess.......maybe twice.

I'm not sure if it's Iraq or Afganistan.

If Poppy Bush had "gone all the way" my group might have been fresh meat for the grinder, who knows?

Even though I was in line for possible deployment, I thought stopping when they did made little sense.......a libbie like me......go figure.

I am glad that I never had to use my training or leave my boys fatherless.”

“Y2, you are correct that there is a certain degree of self-interest in our choices of intervention. What is happening in Sudan is a perfect example and nations should not sit idle while such atrocities are occuring. But I think it would be a tough argument to take if one were to say, "we can't help everyone all the time, so we should not help anyone at any time".”

“No oil in Sudan.

Geo, this is serious!!!
(don't get the Sgt. pissed off, he'll have us all pushin')”

“Sarge - becuase it's a huge risk. It's incredibly ballsy, but I think he was given bad advice from those around him who he trusted most. i think he would have been better served by biding his time, while increasing the pressure on Saddam through more precision stikes, troops on the borders. I think there was something of a rush to war which has led to a mess now. I don't think he was prepared for the level of the insurgency. It's hard to imagine that two years ago he still pictured the billions being spent and the troops still dying in significant, if not huge, numbers.

I think the scheme was undertaken with positive intentions, but the American people were not told the whole truth about why, and that concerns me. There's still a chance for it to work. There have been positive developments. Moves towards democracy in Lebanon, Eygpt, Lybia and the increasing pressure in Syria are all good things - as are some changes in Saudi and the Freedoms afforded to the Iraqi people.
But it's just hugely risky - and it's debateable whether these positive steps had to involve an invasion of Iraq. Sure it's the front of the war on terror as Bush claimed, but this is a Bush-made front. He's made America the enemy to far more people that a bunch of religious extremists forced out by the rest of the world into a cave in Afganistan.

It may work out well, but I still think there's too much that could go wrong when you play for stakes like these. In supposedly seeing the bigger picture the wrong route may have been taken in securing America's future safety and prosperity.”

“Yeah I agree Buck. I think more should be done. I guess we just differ on the importance Bush placed on the suffering of the Iraqi people.
I'm sure that was only one of a host of other reasons for going to war.
I also have doubts as to whether you can impose freedom on any country.
Freedom comes from the will of the people to defend it. If that isn't there, then any freedoms given them will be temporary.
Look at Russia for example, there's been little to no oposition to Putin grasping more and more control. He would not be able to do this in the US. (Or would certainly have to be much more subtle about it ;o) )”

“What members of congress said in 2002 has for more relevance since they actually gave Bush "permission" to go to war as he pleased. - MarkO

If you were arguing about the war in Iraq, this statement would be true. But in terms of whether Bush "lied" or not, I don't think it is true. I'm just concerned with all the allegations that "Bush lied", not whether the war was the right thing or not.

Gracias for your response. As for getting Saddam the first time 'round, that wasn't the purpose of the Gulf War. I often hear people say "we should've finished the job the first time", but we DID finish the job the first time according to the agreed upon war objectives of ousting Saddam from Kuwait. It would've been a whole nudder jar of pickles to continue slaughtering the fleeing Iraqi army even as they retreated back in Iraq, as well as putting ourselves in a similiar position that we have now. It might have been a good thing to do back then, but it wasn't an objective. Saddam's "army" was no prob for us back then and it wasn't the second time around either, it's getting the dang country to have the balls to take control of it's own destiny after delivering it to them on a silver platter.”

““What members of congress said in 2002 has for more relevance since they actually gave Bush "permission" to go to war as he pleased. - MarkO

If you were arguing about the war in Iraq, this statement would be true.
Buck

Are you saying that statement is false?”

“Buck - I totally agree with you on the freedom - and it's debateable whether that will happen in Iraq. It could well slide back into another dictatorship or fundamentalist regime if care is not taken.

Many in Russia spent thier lives being told what to do and what to think. It's tricky to shake off that desire for strong leadership. I guess it's something that those in the West have trouble relating to.”

“".....it's getting the dang country to have the balls to take control of it's own destiny after delivering it to them on a silver platter." - Buck

That could go in any number of directions.
It could take years.
That is why this whole adventure was such a foolish risk from the git go.
Having said that, it's already happening and it must be seen through.
Are our leader going to get it right?
I hope so.”

“Yeah I agree Buck. I think more should be done. I guess we just differ on the importance Bush placed on the suffering of the Iraqi people.

Y2, again I'm not arguing anything about the merits of the war, whether it was a good thing or not, I'm only arguing whether Bush "lied" and comparing his stance on WMDs with the stance of liberal Democrats at the same time. Who knows, maybe going into Iraq wasn't worth it, maybe it was, but calling him a liar whether WMDs existed or not based on the universal current thought is ridiculous and partisan and biased and has no credibility in any discussion (except with other Bush-haters) other than to make one think, "oh, here's yet another Bush-hater filled with rhetoric." That's all.”

“If you were arguing about the war in Iraq, this statement would be true.
Buck

Are you saying that statement is false?” - MarkO

MarkO, I'm not saying your statement is false in the context of discussing the merits of the Iraq War, but it isn't relevant in determining whether Bush was lying about the existence of WMDs or not. If they're quoted as saying WMDs existed and Saddam was a threat, even before Bush was Prez, and after he was Prez, obviously they weren't being coerced by a conservative President when Clinton was in power.”

“Sure

I think those legislators were being coerced by conservative trends, much like in '64.

The neo-cons took over the House in '94, pushing their agenda.
One point of which was to label Clinton an "appeaser" for trying to negotiate with Kim Jong Il over nuclear matters.

Regardless, there was no war in Iraq the '90s.
Of course there was the "no-fly" bombing.
It is past.
Gripin' about it is a distraction.”

“Y2 - I have to go, but the premises of so many of your statements are so wrong.

quick examples:

i think he would have been better served by biding his time, while increasing the pressure on Saddam through more precision stikes, troops on the borders. I think there was something of a rush to war which has led to a mess now.

Pushing slower would have led to more American deaths. We took over that regime quicker than anybody had imagined, with far less deaths, and even further less destruction, including all of the ones up to today.

"I think the scheme was undertaken with positive intentions, but the American people were not told the whole truth about why, and that concerns me."

They were told all of the justifications for the war. They weren't told all of the benefits. Those are 2 different things.

He's made America the enemy to far more people that a bunch of religious extremists forced out by the rest of the world into a cave in Afganistan.

Letting them come to us is the point. We made no more enemies, despite the spin. There are more non-citizens signing up to fight for America than ever before, and signing up to become citizens. The spin the media gives from across the globe is just that. For the most part, we are still loved by those that seek freedom. I don't care if we're not loved my terrorist extremists. I don't care if we're not loved by communist sympatisers. Do you?

There is more, but I have to go.

At ease MarkO.

Y2 - Don't forget about the raping, the torturing, the murders committed by Saddam. Who cares WHY we took him out, as long as we did. If you disagree, tell that to the Iraqi families. Be sure to stand a few feet from them when you do.”

“Buck - i think the key point in where we differ is that I think not being open and honest with the American people over the biggest decision a President can make, and overplaying the threat posed by Iraq, constitutes a lie.
They needed to sell this war and they were successful in doing so. To congress and to the people.
Reading his statements before the war Bush was very very careful in how he framed his words. Other members of the Administration were less so.
The image created was that if Iraq wasn't invaded, Saddam would be handing a nuke, or anthrax to Osama and he would be dropping it off on 5th Avenue, or Main Street, Heartlandville. I think this wasn't the case and they knew that.”

“That could go in any number of directions.
It could take years.
That is why this whole adventure was such a foolish risk from the git go.
Having said that, it's already happening and it must be seen through.
Are our leader going to get it right?
I hope so.”
MarkO

Last week Anthony Cordesman, who is a Muddled East expert, came back from a trip to Iraq in which he tried to assess the ability of the Iraqis to fight on their own.

First, Cordesman believes that the war is necessary, so he operates from that point of view.

But he departs sharply from the administration in how it is being executed and whether it is on target. He was very critical of the effort to get aid to the people, and he painted a picture that the methods of training and operational and equipment support to the Iraqi military and police is woefully inadequate. He says it will take another two years at least until the Iraqis can shoulder the burden alone.

He was very critical of the way the invasion was conducted without planning for what to do when the invasion succeeded.

He believes that at best the war is very risky, that if everything goes right there is a risk we might not succeed.

He did not single out any one person for criticism, but directed it in general ways. He was very precise in that.

So yes, there we are, and no, I don't think cutting and running is a viable option.

At the same time, I think it's very unusual that the head of a think tank has to articulate the status of the war for a president who is unable to come to grips with reality.

If Cordesman is correct, and if doing everything right still leaves us with a 50-50 chance of success, where does that leave us with the current administration?”

“Transcript of Cordesman's press conference: http://www.csis.org/features/050629_iraq_security.pdf”

“The image created was that if Iraq wasn't invaded, Saddam would be handing a nuke, or anthrax to Osama and he would be dropping it off on 5th Avenue, or Main Street, Heartlandville. I think this wasn't the case and they knew that.” - Y2

Y2, I disagree, I think they really thought this way based on the intelligence data, from our intelligence and from intelligence agencies from other countries. Even Clinton's Madeline Albright thought Iraq was THE gravest threat to America. Was she a liar? You never answer those questions, you always act as if those people and their thinking never existed. Why do you do that? Is it because they were Democrats so they get a free pass on the issue? I can only assume it's out of a purposeful agenda of yours. Y2, whether YOU believe it or not, many people did believe Saddam was a serious threat. Saddam DID work with terrorists (he specifically funded PLO suicide terrorists), he DID have WMDs and he did USE WMDs and he was continuously playing games with UN Resolutions. Of course many people sincerely believed he was a serious threat. Just because you don't doesn't make everyone else a liar.

Did you think Madeline Albright was a liar on the WMD issue?
Did you think Bill Clinton was a liar on the WMD issue, both before and after the invasion when he said Saddam had WMDs? (I can't believe I have to keep asking this... a simple yes/no answer would suffice). Give the Dems a pass on their WMD stances, but Bush takes the same stance and *snap*, he's a liar. I see how you are.”

“It's good to know they've finally got a plan together for victory!”

“Sweet dreams, chilluns!!”