| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"maff" |
| Date: |
18 Nov 2005 01:05:59 AM |
| Object: |
OT: Clinton: The big mistake of the Iraq war |
Clinton: The big mistake of the Iraq war
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article327773.ece
Ex-President leads the critics
By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
Published: 18 November 2005
The dam has burst. Former president Bill Clinton's verdict that the war
in Iraq was "a big mistake" is echoing around the world.
The unease, the misgivings, and downright opposition can be contained
no longer. From Senate Republicans, to one of the most influential
Democratic lawmakers on Capitol Hill yesterday, the message has been
the same. The Iraq war has been a disaster, and the sooner American
troops leave the better. The alarm was sounded on Capitol Hill on
Tuesday when Senate Republicans and Democrats joined forces to demand
the White House explain every three months how it intends to "complete
the mission" in Iraq.
Clinton
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/c382e02d8fd74242
.
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Clinton: The big mistake of the Iraq war |
24 Nov 2005 06:06:23 PM |
|
|
"Bob" <wf3h@comcast.net> wrote
Our service men have blown up buildings, right? And you
said that makes them terrorists, you Frenchy-loving pinko.
ROFLMAO!! really? i said that...
Yes. Here, I'll quote you:
"blowing up buildings in a country not your own
surreptitiously is certainly terrorism."
Here's a convenient definition for "surreptitiously." When you're
done reading it, you can type out a little essay on the "Stealth"
bomber.... and why you think it has only been used on targets
inside America:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=surreptitiously
That, or you can pretend you're a man and stand by your words.
But you can't do that. Can you, Frenchy?
.
|
|
|
| User: "shane" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Clinton: The big mistake of the Iraq war |
24 Nov 2005 08:42:45 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"Bob" <wf3h@comcast.net> wrote
Our service men have blown up buildings, right? And you
said that makes them terrorists, you Frenchy-loving pinko.
ROFLMAO!! really? i said that...
Yes. Here, I'll quote you:
"blowing up buildings in a country not your own
surreptitiously is certainly terrorism."
Here's a convenient definition for "surreptitiously." When you're
done reading it, you can type out a little essay on the "Stealth"
bomber.... and why you think it has only been used on targets
inside America:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=surreptitiously
That, or you can pretend you're a man and stand by your words.
But you can't do that. Can you, Frenchy?
Ahh, a quote mine. Lets get some context;
An online news source posts an article of which this is a partial
paraphrase;
-------------
| Late in the year, Iraqi diplomat Jabir Salim defects and
| tells Czech officials that before leaving Iraq he had been
| given $150,000 in cash to finance a plot to blow up
| Radio Free Europe's headquarters.
-------------
JTEM responds with the following comments;
-------------
This isn't "Terrorism."
Saddam evidently saw anti-Saddam radio broadcasts as
a threat to his rule, and sought to eliminate the threat.
Technically, it's something of a "Surgical strike."
-------------
To which Bob subsequently responds;
-------------
why not? blowing up buildings in a country not your own
surreptitiously is certainly terrorism.
-------------
So as can be clearly seen, Bob is not talking specifically of U.S.
soldiers in a war, but of secret agents operating in, and against, a
non-belligerent country.
All this was fairly plain in reading back through the thread.
HTH
Shane
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Clinton: The big mistake of the Iraq war |
24 Nov 2005 09:38:15 PM |
|
|
"shane" <remarcsdNOSPAM@ozemail.com.au> wrote
-------------
| Late in the year, Iraqi diplomat Jabir Salim defects and
| tells Czech officials that before leaving Iraq he had been
| given $150,000 in cash to finance a plot to blow up
| Radio Free Europe's headquarters.
-------------
Ahh, a quote mine. Let me supply a little context.
I responded to the above with the REAL STORY, instead
of the carefully edited propagada that the anti-Americans
favor:
| Radio Free Europe, headquartered in Prague, begins
| transmitting anti-Saddam programs into Iraq.
So Bill Clinton was ***** at Saddam, and started
beam anti-Saddam propaganda to Iraq.
To nobody's surprise, Saddam didn't like this. He saw
this as a threat to his regime. And, somewhat surprising,
he responded to this threat by trying to blow up the
radio station making the broadcasts:
| Radio Free Europe, headquartered in Prague, begins
| transmitting anti-Saddam programs into Iraq. Late in
| the year, Iraqi diplomat Jabir Salim defects and tells
| Czech officials that before leaving Iraq he had been
| given $150,000 in cash to finance a plot to blow up
| Radio Free Europe's headquarters.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?id=1521846767-2305
Now, is this terrorism? No.
Saddam was trying to eliminate a threat by the only
means he had available to him.
Was it an act of war on Saddam's part? No. If he had
gone through with it, sure, it wouldn't be unreasonable
to call it an act of war. But the attack never took place.
Technically, it's something of a "Surgical strike."
Depending on the type of bomb, and where it was planted,
it would be far more "surgical" than using the smartest
"smart bomb."
We -- the U.S. -- meant for the radio broadcasts to be a
threat to Saddam's government, and Saddam saw the
broadcasts as a threat and sought to eliminate them.
That's not terrorism.
-------------
why not? blowing up buildings in a country not your own
surreptitiously is certainly terrorism.
-------------
So as can be clearly seen, Bob is not talking specifically of U.S.
soldiers in a war,
So as can be clearly seen, Bob the terrorist loving Frenchy defined
terrorism in such a way as to INCLUDE American military
operations in Iraq & elsewhere.
Now run & tell Allah that I called you on your *****.
Traitor.
.
|
|
|
| User: "shane" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Clinton: The big mistake of the Iraq war |
24 Nov 2005 09:43:25 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"shane" <remarcsdNOSPAM@ozemail.com.au> wrote
-------------
| Late in the year, Iraqi diplomat Jabir Salim defects and
| tells Czech officials that before leaving Iraq he had been
| given $150,000 in cash to finance a plot to blow up
| Radio Free Europe's headquarters.
-------------
Ahh, a quote mine. Let me supply a little context.
I responded to the above with the REAL STORY, instead
of the carefully edited propagada that the anti-Americans
favor:
| Radio Free Europe, headquartered in Prague, begins
| transmitting anti-Saddam programs into Iraq.
So Bill Clinton was ***** at Saddam, and started
beam anti-Saddam propaganda to Iraq.
To nobody's surprise, Saddam didn't like this. He saw
this as a threat to his regime. And, somewhat surprising,
he responded to this threat by trying to blow up the
radio station making the broadcasts:
| Radio Free Europe, headquartered in Prague, begins
| transmitting anti-Saddam programs into Iraq. Late in
| the year, Iraqi diplomat Jabir Salim defects and tells
| Czech officials that before leaving Iraq he had been
| given $150,000 in cash to finance a plot to blow up
| Radio Free Europe's headquarters.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?id=1521846767-2305
Now, is this terrorism? No.
Saddam was trying to eliminate a threat by the only
means he had available to him.
Was it an act of war on Saddam's part? No. If he had
gone through with it, sure, it wouldn't be unreasonable
to call it an act of war. But the attack never took place.
Technically, it's something of a "Surgical strike."
Depending on the type of bomb, and where it was planted,
it would be far more "surgical" than using the smartest
"smart bomb."
We -- the U.S. -- meant for the radio broadcasts to be a
threat to Saddam's government, and Saddam saw the
broadcasts as a threat and sought to eliminate them.
That's not terrorism.
-------------
why not? blowing up buildings in a country not your own
surreptitiously is certainly terrorism.
-------------
So as can be clearly seen, Bob is not talking specifically of U.S.
soldiers in a war,
So as can be clearly seen, Bob the terrorist loving Frenchy defined
terrorism in such a way as to INCLUDE American military
operations in Iraq & elsewhere.
Now run & tell Allah that I called you on your *****.
Traitor.
To whom?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Clinton: The big mistake of the Iraq war |
25 Nov 2005 08:51:16 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 22:38:15 -0500, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"shane" <remarcsdNOSPAM@ozemail.com.au> wrote
-------------
| Late in the year, Iraqi diplomat Jabir Salim defects and
| tells Czech officials that before leaving Iraq he had been
| given $150,000 in cash to finance a plot to blow up
| Radio Free Europe's headquarters.
-------------
Ahh, a quote mine. Let me supply a little context.
uh, no. to you, saddam's intelligence agents blowing up RFE is not
terrorism. to you, an M1A1 main battle tank firing a round into a
building IS terrorism.
strange definition you have.
I responded to the above with the REAL STORY, instead
of the carefully edited propagada that the anti-Americans
favor:
| Radio Free Europe, headquartered in Prague, begins
| transmitting anti-Saddam programs into Iraq.
So Bill Clinton was ***** at Saddam, and started
beam anti-Saddam propaganda to Iraq.
To nobody's surprise, Saddam didn't like this. He saw
this as a threat to his regime. And, somewhat surprising,
he responded to this threat by trying to blow up the
radio station making the broadcasts:
hey idiot. if he HAD succeeded after using intelligence agents rather
than sending the iraqi army into the czech republic, who would have
know it was him? that's what SURREPITIOUS means...
| Radio Free Europe, headquartered in Prague, begins
| transmitting anti-Saddam programs into Iraq. Late in
| the year, Iraqi diplomat Jabir Salim defects and tells
| Czech officials that before leaving Iraq he had been
| given $150,000 in cash to finance a plot to blow up
| Radio Free Europe's headquarters.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?id=1521846767-2305
Now, is this terrorism? No.
Saddam was trying to eliminate a threat by the only
means he had available to him.
ROFLMAO!! so if TERRORISM is the ONLY means he has then it's NOT
terrorism??!!
jesus, what an idiot.
Was it an act of war on Saddam's part? No. If he had
gone through with it, sure, it wouldn't be unreasonable
to call it an act of war. But the attack never took place.
<chuckle> uh, yeah, the guy he hired to do it defected.
guess that means hussein wasn't planning a terrorist attack. kind of
like the shoebomber on board that plane wasn't a terrorist because his
attack didn't work...
We -- the U.S. -- meant for the radio broadcasts to be a
threat to Saddam's government, and Saddam saw the
broadcasts as a threat and sought to eliminate them.
That's not terrorism.
his logic is that if you only have a knife and kill someone then it's
not wrong because it wasn't a gun.
-------------
why not? blowing up buildings in a country not your own
surreptitiously is certainly terrorism.
-------------
So as can be clearly seen, Bob is not talking specifically of U.S.
soldiers in a war,
So as can be clearly seen, Bob the terrorist loving Frenchy defined
terrorism in such a way as to INCLUDE American military
operations in Iraq & elsewhere.
really? what part of an M1A1 main battle tank is surreptitious?
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Clinton: The big mistake of the Iraq war |
26 Nov 2005 01:41:45 AM |
|
|
"Bob" <wf3h@comcast.net> wrote
uh, no. to you, saddam's intelligence agents blowing up RFE is not
terrorism.
When are you claiming that Radio Free Europe was blown up?
What's that, you American-hating camel humper? It never happened?
I know.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Bushbots prove Bush is a lying scumbag |
24 Nov 2005 09:46:01 PM |
|
|
"shane" <remarcsdNOSPAM@ozemail.com.au> wrote
An online news source posts an article of which this is a partial
paraphrase;
-------------
| Late in the year, Iraqi diplomat Jabir Salim defects and
| tells Czech officials that before leaving Iraq he had been
| given $150,000 in cash to finance a plot to blow up
| Radio Free Europe's headquarters.
-------------
Wow.
So why did the Bush administration change this to the leader
of the 9/11 hijackers ("Atta") meeting the head of Saddam's
secret police, in Prague, early in 2001?
You -- as a French loving, Allah worshipping, American
hating pig fucker -- are proving that the Bush junta invented
their case for war out of whole cloth.
They took "Saddam wanted to blow up the radio station
transmitting anti-Saddam propaganda to Iraq back in 1998"
and turned it into "Saddam was in the planning for 9/11
early in 2001."
That's a lie.
Bush LIED.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Bushbots prove Bush is a lying scumbag |
25 Nov 2005 08:15:50 AM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
That's a lie.
Bush LIED.
And 9/11 never happened. Right?
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Bushbots prove Bush is a lying scumbag |
26 Nov 2005 08:41:58 PM |
|
|
"Robert J. Kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote
And 9/11 never happened. Right?
What you think this has to do with 9/11 is anyone's guess.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "shane" |
|
| Title: Re: Bushbots prove Bush is a lying scumbag |
24 Nov 2005 09:51:44 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"shane" <remarcsdNOSPAM@ozemail.com.au> wrote
An online news source posts an article of which this is a partial
paraphrase;
-------------
| Late in the year, Iraqi diplomat Jabir Salim defects and
| tells Czech officials that before leaving Iraq he had been
| given $150,000 in cash to finance a plot to blow up
| Radio Free Europe's headquarters.
-------------
Wow.
So why did the Bush administration change this to the leader
of the 9/11 hijackers ("Atta") meeting the head of Saddam's
secret police, in Prague, early in 2001?
I neither know nor care, I do care about the use of quotemines and
pointed out that you used one.
You -- as a French loving, Allah worshipping, American
hating pig fucker -- are proving that the Bush junta invented
their case for war out of whole cloth.
"R i g h t" he says, backing away slowly so the spittle doesn't get on
my nice clean shirt
They took "Saddam wanted to blow up the radio station
transmitting anti-Saddam propaganda to Iraq back in 1998"
and turned it into "Saddam was in the planning for 9/11
early in 2001."
That's a lie.
Bush LIED.
No?, a politician lied? well colour me flabbergasted.
I fail to see why you are getting so passionate about this particular
quotemine issue, you made an accusation against Bob based on his words
in this thread, and posted a snippet of the thread to justify the
accusation. I merely pointed out that the accusation was not justified
on the evidence you presented, and in fact your evidence was a
quotemine. I did not say your accusation was wrong, I just pointed out
it was unsupported by the evidence you pointed to. By all means feel
free to support your claim with evidence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Bushbots prove Bush is a lying scumbag |
26 Nov 2005 12:33:57 AM |
|
|
"shane" <remarcsdNOSPAM@ozemail.com.au> wrote
So why did the Bush administration change this to the leader
of the 9/11 hijackers ("Atta") meeting the head of Saddam's
secret police, in Prague, early in 2001?
I neither know nor care, I do care about the use of quotemines
and pointed out that you used one.
The only thing you care about is twisting the truth just enough to
defend stupidity.
Fact is, nothing happened in 1998. There was no attack. Nothing.
Why this event is significant at all, the only reason we're even
talking about it is because of the way that Bush and his
administration distorted it -- lied -- in order to justify a war that
had been planned for years. Yes, "Years." Even before 2000.
So the Bush mafia took this little "historical footnote" and used
it as the basis -- the inspiration -- for one of their fairytales. Iraq
became Prague...The Iraqi ambassador became the ring leader
of the 9/11 hijackers... Saddam became the head of Saddam's
secret police... and Prague became New York & Washington.
This isn't a slip up. Nobody got confused, made an honest
mistake because, you know, "The World Trade Center sounds
so much like Radio Free Europe that it's hard to tell them
apart."
You're not just denouncing terrorism that never took place,
you're willingly throwing yourself in all the bile that comes
with it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "shane" |
|
| Title: Re: Bushbots prove Bush is a lying scumbag |
26 Nov 2005 03:13:11 AM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"shane" <remarcsdNOSPAM@ozemail.com.au> wrote
So why did the Bush administration change this to the leader
of the 9/11 hijackers ("Atta") meeting the head of Saddam's
secret police, in Prague, early in 2001?
I neither know nor care, I do care about the use of quotemines
and pointed out that you used one.
The only thing you care about is twisting the truth just enough to
defend stupidity.
And you would know this how?
A dishonest attack on anothers opinion is still dishonest, whatever your
or my judgement of the relative worth of the opinion being attacked.
YMMV, but I suspect you will be in the minority.
--
shane
And the truth shall set you free.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Bushbots prove Bush is a lying scumbag |
26 Nov 2005 02:45:03 AM |
|
|
"shane" <remarcsdNOSPAM@ozemail.com.au> wrote
And you would know this how?
As I pointed out: Nothing happened in 1998.
You're blowing *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "shane" |
|
| Title: Re: Bushbots prove Bush is a lying scumbag |
26 Nov 2005 07:06:54 AM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"shane" <remarcsdNOSPAM@ozemail.com.au> wrote
And you would know this how?
As I pointed out: Nothing happened in 1998.
You're blowing *****.
??? You know that the only thing I care about is "twisting the truth
just enough to defend stupidity" because nothing happened in 1998? You
are one very strange bird, and I am beginning to see why you have so
much trouble with what people post. I will restore a bit of context and
explain;
----------------
JTEM 1
So why did the Bush administration change this to the leader
of the 9/11 hijackers ("Atta") meeting the head of Saddam's
secret police, in Prague, early in 2001?
Shane 1
I neither know nor care, I do care about the use of quotemines
and pointed out that you used one.
JTEM 2
The only thing you care about is twisting the truth just enough to
defend stupidity.
Shane 2
And you would know this how?
JTEM 3
As I pointed out: Nothing happened in 1998.
You're blowing *****.
-----------------
Prior to what I have marked as JTEM 1, I had posted a defence of Bob to
an accusation you made against Bob. In that post I made the following
statement;
"I merely pointed out that the accusation was not justified
on the evidence you presented, and in fact your evidence was a
quotemine. I did not say your accusation was wrong, I just pointed out
it was unsupported by the evidence you pointed to. By all means feel
free to support your claim with evidence."
It is fairly clear that I was not getting involved in your dispute with
Bob, I was only interested in the manner of how you supported your
accusation.
You then responded with JTEM 1 quoted above, which indicated to me that
you wanted me to respond to the actual issue you were debating with Bob.
My response was Shane 1 in which I declined to get involved. I further
made my reasons for entering the fray clear. If I may be so bold as to
claim a high degree of knowledge of the reasons I do things.
Your response to that was JTEM 2, in which you imply you understand my
motivations better than I do myself.
In response Shane 2, I asked you how you knew what my motivations were.
Now I admit I did not use those exact words, but it was posted directly
under your statement that *corrected* my motivations.
You responded, JTEM 3, with the remarkable claim that you know my
motivations better than I do, because nothing happened in 1998.
IN CONCLUSION
Sometimes people say what they mean. - I try very hard to be one of
those people.
Sometimes people post their response directly under what they are
responding to. - Ditto
Shane.
Oh, and one more thing. Something happened in 1998, in fact I will be as
bold as to say that trillions of things happened in 1998.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Clinton: The big mistake of the Iraq war |
25 Nov 2005 08:47:03 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 13:42:45 +1100, shane
<remarcsdNOSPAM@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
JTEM wrote:
So as can be clearly seen, Bob is not talking specifically of U.S.
soldiers in a war, but of secret agents operating in, and against, a
non-belligerent country.
All this was fairly plain in reading back through the thread.
HTH
Shane
nicely done. thank you much.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Clinton: The big mistake of the Iraq war |
24 Nov 2005 07:43:01 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 19:06:23 -0500, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Bob" <wf3h@comcast.net> wrote
Our service men have blown up buildings, right? And you
said that makes them terrorists, you Frenchy-loving pinko.
ROFLMAO!! really? i said that...
Yes. Here, I'll quote you:
"blowing up buildings in a country not your own
surreptitiously is certainly terrorism."
Here's a convenient definition for "surreptitiously." When you're
done reading it, you can type out a little essay on the "Stealth"
bomber.... and why you think it has only been used on targets
inside America:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=surreptitiously
That, or you can pretend you're a man and stand by your words.
But you can't do that. Can you, Frenchy?
LOL there aint a conservative alive that has any idea what the
definition of a terrorist is.
They think it's like art - that they know one when they see one and
that knowledge changes in complete convienence as to whom they feel in
the mood to bully today.
Terrorist = communist = athiest = nazi = somebody who disagrees with
me and has the guts to stand up and say so = that ***** over the
hill
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Clinton: The big mistake of the Iraq war |
25 Nov 2005 08:46:08 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 19:06:23 -0500, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Bob" <wf3h@comcast.net> wrote
Our service men have blown up buildings, right? And you
said that makes them terrorists, you Frenchy-loving pinko.
ROFLMAO!! really? i said that...
Yes. Here, I'll quote you:
"blowing up buildings in a country not your own
surreptitiously is certainly terrorism."
Here's a convenient definition for "surreptitiously." When you're
done reading it, you can type out a little essay on the "Stealth"
bomber.... and why you think it has only been used on targets
inside America:
hey idiot. an M1A1 abrams main battle tank firing a HE round into a
building may be many things but it's NOT surreptitious.
oh. you didn't know that.
and no one doubts that, when the steatlth bomber attacks, it's an
american cruise missle that did the damage.
you're clueless...totally.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Clinton: The big mistake of the Iraq war |
24 Nov 2005 11:13:27 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 18:42:01 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
cobalt@newscene.com (Kate ) wrote in news:43b5b45d.481078359@news-
west.newscene.com:
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 04:17:06 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:slrndnvmf6.fjq.mightymartianca@nobody.here:
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 13:53:55 +0000 (UTC),
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:slrndntdaf.fjq.mightymartianca@nobody.here:
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 00:40:48 +0000 (UTC),
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:slrndnsl7i.fjq.mightymartianca@nobody.here:
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 21:38:50 +0000 (UTC),
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
"Jericho" <wasteofcarbon@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1132348264.945250.128930@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
There is alot of weight being placed behind the concept that
many democrats "voted for the war". Here's where you need to
check your facts. None of them voted for a war. What they
voted for was to give Alfred E Bush the power to go to war so
that he could use the idea of that power to force Hussein to
allow weapons inspectors in. They passed along limited
intelligence to trick Congress into allowing bush that power
(don't believe that Congress had the same intelligence as the
White House because that is a White House LIE). At the time
bush
declared war, weapons inspectors had been allowed in and had
been discovering nothing. Bush took it the final step and
declared war.
Any questions?
Yes, one question. Why do you ignore all the stuff that we
*did*
find after the invasion was completed?
Because that "stuff" wasn't what the US was saying it was
looking
for.
Oh, brother. How pedantic can you get?
Well, when one is invading a sovereign state, you'd think that one
wouldn't leave behind the appearance that one had walked in on
false
pretexts.
There were enough *true* pretexts that any false ones fade into
insignificance unless you're just looking for things to complain
about. Democrats have done nothing but look for things to complain
about for the last three years.
The major reason, up until everyone had to admit they didn't exist,
was WMDs.
Only to people who ignored all the other reasons.
Reasons that didn't get the approval of anyone else.
The Congress voted on the whole package of reasons, not just WMD. And
their feeble excuses about how they didn't get to see all the same
reports that Bush saw just won't hold water in the face of their
statements about Saddam from long before Bush even took office.
Oh I see - put a few other reasons in the bill along with the real
reason and you can pretend that eeeeeverything was agreed with as
seperate individual reasons to go to war.
That's pretty lame even for you.
Not to mention Bush was only given permission to 'threaten' Iraq.
Remember - he made a promise he wouldn't actually attack without
seperate permission. He lied.
And give up the tired lament that the congress got to see everything
that Bush had in reports. Lying makes you look all sour and Rove
like.
We all have reasons to go to war with anyone - even you.
Does that mean that the rest of the world should automatically agree?
France is not the rest of the world.
No it's not. The rest of the world and the rest of country other than
a few idiots didn't agree either.
Figures you would miss that. What do you do - spend all your time in
the bathroom hoping you won't hear the newspaper hit the porch?
One of your big problems and the biggest problem of the republicans is
they think they are the US
They were elected to represent the US, deary.
You aren't and you have to live with the rest of us dear. It's a
democracy, not republicans get all the rule and all the goodies.
They get to *govern* because they were elected to do so, Katie darlin.
That *is* democracy.
They only get to govern honey chile. That doesn't mean they get to
make an royal edict that their flip flop backup reasons were ever
agreed with. Not even Bush senior agreed with any of those reasons
or were you hiding in the bathroom when he was in charge too?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Clinton: The big mistake of the Iraq war |
24 Nov 2005 01:04:19 PM |
|
|
(Kate ) wrote in
news:438ff0d6.80412781@news-west.newscene.com:
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 18:42:01 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
(Kate ) wrote in news:43b5b45d.481078359@news-
west.newscene.com:
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 04:17:06 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
<...>
Only to people who ignored all the other reasons.
Reasons that didn't get the approval of anyone else.
The Congress voted on the whole package of reasons, not just WMD. And
their feeble excuses about how they didn't get to see all the same
reports that Bush saw just won't hold water in the face of their
statements about Saddam from long before Bush even took office.
Oh I see - put a few other reasons in the bill along with the real
reason and you can pretend that eeeeeverything was agreed with as
seperate individual reasons to go to war.
Kate, the bill was debated in the House and the Senate. Each clause was
open to that debate.
That's pretty lame even for you.
Talk about lameness, you're approaching quadriplegic.
Not to mention Bush was only given permission to 'threaten' Iraq.
Remember - he made a promise he wouldn't actually attack without
seperate permission. He lied.
That wasn't in the bill.
And give up the tired lament that the congress got to see everything
that Bush had in reports. Lying makes you look all sour and Rove
like.
It's not a lie, Kate. The NIE prepared for Congress had all the same
conclusions, with all the same caveats as what Bush was getting in the
PDB's. That has been confirmed by both of the Senate investigations
completed to date.
We all have reasons to go to war with anyone - even you.
Does that mean that the rest of the world should automatically
agree?
France is not the rest of the world.
No it's not. The rest of the world and the rest of country other than
a few idiots didn't agree either.
More than half the country are not idiots, Kate.
Figures you would miss that. What do you do - spend all your time in
the bathroom hoping you won't hear the newspaper hit the porch?
My computer is not in the bathroom, Katie dear.
One of your big problems and the biggest problem of the republicans
is they think they are the US
They were elected to represent the US, deary.
You aren't and you have to live with the rest of us dear. It's a
democracy, not republicans get all the rule and all the goodies.
They get to *govern* because they were elected to do so, Katie darlin.
That *is* democracy.
They only get to govern honey chile. That doesn't mean they get to
make an royal edict that their flip flop backup reasons were ever
agreed with.
Nobody ever said that you had to agree, Kate. You aren't a member of
Congress who voted for the resolution to use force in Iraq.
Not even Bush senior agreed with any of those reasons
or were you hiding in the bathroom when he was in charge too?
Bush "senior" wasn't President when the decision was made to invade
Iraq.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"I actually think what we learned during the inspection
made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than,
in fact, we thought it was even before the war." -- David Kay
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6075
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Noone Inparticular" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Clinton: The big mistake of the Iraq war |
18 Nov 2005 04:32:33 PM |
|
|
AC wrote:
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 21:38:50 +0000 (UTC),
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
"Jericho" <wasteofcarbon@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1132348264.945250.128930@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
There is alot of weight being placed behind the concept that many
democrats "voted for the war". Here's where you need to check your
facts. None of them voted for a war. What they voted for was to give
Alfred E Bush the power to go to war so that he could use the idea of
that power to force Hussein to allow weapons inspectors in. They
passed along limited intelligence to trick Congress into allowing bush
that power (don't believe that Congress had the same intelligence as
the White House because that is a White House LIE). At the time bush
declared war, weapons inspectors had been allowed in and had been
discovering nothing. Bush took it the final step and declared war.
Any questions?
Yes, one question. Why do you ignore all the stuff that we *did* find
after the invasion was completed?
Because that "stuff" wasn't what the US was saying it was looking for. It's
rather like get a search warrant to find a murder weapon, finding cocaine
instead and declaring "our search was a great success!"
Aaron
What does Fred mean by all the "stuff" that was found?
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Clinton: The big mistake of the Iraq war |
18 Nov 2005 05:10:11 PM |
|
|
On 18 Nov 2005 14:32:33 -0800,
Noone Inparticular <unreve89@hotmail.com> wrote:
AC wrote:
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 21:38:50 +0000 (UTC),
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
"Jericho" <wasteofcarbon@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1132348264.945250.128930@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
There is alot of weight being placed behind the concept that many
democrats "voted for the war". Here's where you need to check your
facts. None of them voted for a war. What they voted for was to give
Alfred E Bush the power to go to war so that he could use the idea of
that power to force Hussein to allow weapons inspectors in. They
passed along limited intelligence to trick Congress into allowing bush
that power (don't believe that Congress had the same intelligence as
the White House because that is a White House LIE). At the time bush
declared war, weapons inspectors had been allowed in and had been
discovering nothing. Bush took it the final step and declared war.
Any questions?
Yes, one question. Why do you ignore all the stuff that we *did* find
after the invasion was completed?
Because that "stuff" wasn't what the US was saying it was looking for. It's
rather like get a search warrant to find a murder weapon, finding cocaine
instead and declaring "our search was a great success!"
Aaron
What does Fred mean by all the "stuff" that was found?
I'm assuming he means the mass graves, torture chambers and the like. The
problem with that is that I don't think anybody save perhaps some of
Saddam's apologists ever denied that those were there somewhere.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Clinton: The big mistake of the Iraq war |
18 Nov 2005 09:37:09 PM |
|
|
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:slrndnsnqj.fjq.mightymartianca@nobody.here:
On 18 Nov 2005 14:32:33 -0800,
Noone Inparticular <unreve89@hotmail.com> wrote:
AC wrote:
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 21:38:50 +0000 (UTC),
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
"Jericho" <wasteofcarbon@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1132348264.945250.128930@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
There is alot of weight being placed behind the concept that many
democrats "voted for the war". Here's where you need to check
your facts. None of them voted for a war. What they voted for
was to give Alfred E Bush the power to go to war so that he could
use the idea of that power to force Hussein to allow weapons
inspectors in. They passed along limited intelligence to trick
Congress into allowing bush that power (don't believe that
Congress had the same intelligence as the White House because
that is a White House LIE). At the time bush declared war,
weapons inspectors had been allowed in and had been discovering
nothing. Bush took it the final step and declared war.
Any questions?
Yes, one question. Why do you ignore all the stuff that we *did*
find after the invasion was completed?
Because that "stuff" wasn't what the US was saying it was looking
for. It's rather like get a search warrant to find a murder weapon,
finding cocaine instead and declaring "our search was a great
success!"
Aaron
What does Fred mean by all the "stuff" that was found?
I'm assuming he means the mass graves, torture chambers and the like.
The problem with that is that I don't think anybody save perhaps some
of Saddam's apologists ever denied that those were there somewhere.
I mean the rather sizable amount of WMD-related stuff that David Kay
reported finding. Though you have a good point about the torture
chambers and mass graves too.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"I actually think what we learned during the inspection
made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than,
in fact, we thought it was even before the war." -- David Kay
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6075
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "RGrannus" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Clinton: The big mistake of the Iraq war |
18 Nov 2005 03:31:37 PM |
|
|
Jericho wrote:
There is alot of weight being placed behind the concept that many
democrats "voted for the war". Here's where you need to check your
facts. None of them voted for a war. [snip]
That's like Kerry's ***** line that he voted for the war before he
voted against it. They're just trying to weasle out of their
responsibility or have it both ways--as all politicians do. As for
Clinton, it's true he never got us into a mess as big as Iraq, but he
still pissed away $50 billion or so in the Balkans.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Clinton: The big mistake of the Iraq war |
18 Nov 2005 03:49:22 PM |
|
|
On 18 Nov 2005 13:31:37 -0800, "RGrannus" <RGrannus@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Jericho wrote:
There is alot of weight being placed behind the concept that many
democrats "voted for the war". Here's where you need to check your
facts. None of them voted for a war. [snip]
That's like Kerry's ***** line that he voted for the war before he
voted against it. They're just trying to weasle out of their
responsibility or have it both ways--as all politicians do. As for
Clinton, it's true he never got us into a mess as big as Iraq, but he
still pissed away $50 billion or so in the Balkans.
You're repeating a Republican lie: he and the others only had the
"intelligence" that Bush provided. They changed their minds after they
realised Bush was lying. IMO this took too long, but Congress and
Senate are supposed to believe what the President says - he is
supposed to be an honest, honourable man.
Nobody is weaselling, nobody is flip-flopping.
It is a reflection of the dishonesty of the President.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Clinton: The big mistake of the Iraq war |
18 Nov 2005 04:15:30 PM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in
news:oiisn19vqdv4h9p108fhmg2umi5dmi0qfa@4ax.com:
On 18 Nov 2005 13:31:37 -0800, "RGrannus" <RGrannus@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Jericho wrote:
There is alot of weight being placed behind the concept that many
democrats "voted for the war". Here's where you need to check your
facts. None of them voted for a war. [snip]
That's like Kerry's ***** line that he voted for the war before he
voted against it. They're just trying to weasle out of their
responsibility or have it both ways--as all politicians do. As for
Clinton, it's true he never got us into a mess as big as Iraq, but he
still pissed away $50 billion or so in the Balkans.
You're repeating a Republican lie: he and the others only had the
"intelligence" that Bush provided.
You're repeating the Democrats' lie: They all got their intel reports
directly from the CIA, and those reports were consistent throughout both
the Clinton administration and the Bush administration. They all had
decided long before Bush took office that Saddam was a threat.
But of course if you want to believe that Kerry and the rest of the
Democrats are silly gullible dupes, fine, go for it.
They changed their minds after they
realised Bush was lying. IMO this took too long, but Congress and
Senate are supposed to believe what the President says - he is
supposed to be an honest, honourable man.
Yeah, right, and they all said *that* during the 2000 election.
Sure they did.
Nobody is weaselling, nobody is flip-flopping.
It is a reflection of the dishonesty of the President.
It is a reflection of your own personal moral depravity that you would even
attempt this argument.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"I actually think what we learned during the inspection
made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than,
in fact, we thought it was even before the war." -- David Kay
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6075
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cyde Weys" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Clinton: The big mistake of the Iraq war |
18 Nov 2005 05:35:50 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
You're repeating the Democrats' lie: They all got their intel reports
directly from the CIA, and those reports were consistent throughout both
the Clinton administration and the Bush administration. They all had
decided long before Bush took office that Saddam was a threat.
But of course if you want to believe that Kerry and the rest of the
Democrats are silly gullible dupes, fine, go for it.
No, not just the Democrats, the American public in general. Bush's
latest attack campaign, "We had the same intel you did, so suck it,"
also extends to the American public in general. It's a terrible attack
tactic.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Clinton: The big mistake of the Iraq war |
18 Nov 2005 06:33:02 PM |
|
|
"Cyde Weys" <cydeweys@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1132356950.302113.132310@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
You're repeating the Democrats' lie: They all got their intel reports
directly from the CIA, and those reports were consistent throughout
both the Clinton administration and the Bush administration. They all
had decided long before Bush took office that Saddam was a threat.
But of course if you want to believe that Kerry and the rest of the
Democrats are silly gullible dupes, fine, go for it.
No, not just the Democrats, the American public in general. Bush's
latest attack campaign, "We had the same intel you did, so suck it,"
also extends to the American public in general. It's a terrible
attack tactic.
That's a mischaracterization of Bush's recent *defense* against the
Democrats' attack campaign. A better characterization is "hey, you want
to criticize our policy, fine, but don't call me a liar when you were
saying the same things about Saddam."
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"I actually think what we learned during the inspection
made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than,
in fact, we thought it was even before the war." -- David Kay
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6075
.
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Clinton: The big mistake of the Iraq war |
18 Nov 2005 11:13:27 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 00:33:02 +0000 (UTC),
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
"Cyde Weys" <cydeweys@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1132356950.302113.132310@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
You're repeating the Democrats' lie: They all got their intel reports
directly from the CIA, and those reports were consistent throughout
both the Clinton administration and the Bush administration. They all
had decided long before Bush took office that Saddam was a threat.
But of course if you want to believe that Kerry and the rest of the
Democrats are silly gullible dupes, fine, go for it.
No, not just the Democrats, the American public in general. Bush's
latest attack campaign, "We had the same intel you did, so suck it,"
also extends to the American public in general. It's a terrible
attack tactic.
That's a mischaracterization of Bush's recent *defense* against the
Democrats' attack campaign. A better characterization is "hey, you want
to criticize our policy, fine, but don't call me a liar when you were
saying the same things about Saddam."
The fact remains that the data was wrong, and so far as I'm concerned
members of Congress in both parties ought to be apologizing to the American
electorate for invading a sovereign state on what amounted to *****. The
President ought to publicly apologize without reservation, as should senior
Democrats who seemed just as willing to grab for the brass ring of
popularity. They are all as worthy of derision at this point. Kerry is
just as worthless as Bush, in my books.
I of course don't see how some demands of walking away from Iraq are
tenable. The US has already waded so far in that to walk away now would be
as immoral as invading on false pretext. The US has bought the farm, and it
deserves everything it gets. Maybe next time the electorate will encourage
Congress to hamstring military adventurists.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Hayes" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Clinton: The big mistake of the Iraq war |
19 Nov 2005 12:36:51 AM |
|
|
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:slrndntd3n.fjq.mightymartianca@nobody.here:
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 00:33:02 +0000 (UTC),
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
That's a mischaracterization of Bush's recent *defense* against the
Democrats' attack campaign. A better characterization is "hey, you
want to criticize our policy, fine, but don't call me a liar when you
were saying the same things about Saddam."
The fact remains that the data was wrong, and so far as I'm concerned
members of Congress in both parties ought to be apologizing to the
American electorate for invading a sovereign state on what amounted to
*****.
a) of course, you mean, the data WERE wrong, since "data" is a plural
noun, and
b) Congress did not get the same data. Fred keeps blathering on about
how they saw the same intelligence, but of course, this is simply wrong.
For instance, they had no access to the PDB (presidential daily
briefing), and probably they shouldn't have access to it, but the fact
remains, the White House gets way more intel than it shares. Moreover,
the CIA reports about the "centrifuge tubes", which were presented to
Congress as being definitive, were in fact very much equivocal -- but
CIA analyses disagreeing with the centrifuge story were deleted from
reports to Congress. And on and on.
See the noted right-wing jockey David Brock's organization's page:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200511080006
For relevant links.
-JAH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Clinton: The big mistake of the Iraq war |
19 Nov 2005 07:50:56 AM |
|
|
Josh Hayes <joshno@spamblarg.net> wrote in
news:Xns9712E609BF6DAjoshblargnet@216.168.3.44:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:slrndntd3n.fjq.mightymartianca@nobody.here:
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 00:33:02 +0000 (UTC),
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
That's a mischaracterization of Bush's recent *defense* against the
Democrats' attack campaign. A better characterization is "hey, you
want to criticize our policy, fine, but don't call me a liar when
you were saying the same things about Saddam."
The fact remains that the data was wrong, and so far as I'm concerned
members of Congress in both parties ought to be apologizing to the
American electorate for invading a sovereign state on what amounted
to *****.
a) of course, you mean, the data WERE wrong, since "data" is a plural
noun, and
b) Congress did not get the same data. Fred keeps blathering on about
how they saw the same intelligence, but of course, this is simply
wrong. For instance, they had no access to the PDB (presidential daily
briefing), and probably they shouldn't have access to it, but the fact
remains, the White House gets way more intel than it shares.
Senate committee reports say that the PDB was even more alarmist than
the NIE which the Congress *did* get.
Moreover,
the CIA reports about the "centrifuge tubes", which were presented to
Congress as being definitive, were in fact very much equivocal -- but
CIA analyses disagreeing with the centrifuge story were deleted from
reports to Congress. And on and on.
The CIA *itself* produced those reports for Congress. Bush's people had
nothing to do with removing anything from them. And so on.
See the noted right-wing jockey David Brock's organization's page:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200511080006
Mediamatters is *far* from a right-wing jockey's page.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"I actually think what we learned during the inspection
made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than,
in fact, we thought it was even before the war." -- David Kay
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6075
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
