Strange thing about Iraq

[seinfeldrules]

Much of Bush's justification for going into Iraq rested on the existence of WMD's in Iraq possession I'm sure you would agree.

We've been over that 30000 times. You cannot explain how the CIA, British Intelligence, and Russian Intelligence came to the same conclusions. Was Bush supposed to ignore the most advanced and powerful intelligence agencies in the world?

How do you reconcile his past actions and statement about the threat of WMD's in the hands of dictator with his current position on the subject?

I think it is because he needs to wait for the Iraq situation to calm down. After Iraq is under control we will be able to shift more and more attention to the situation in NK and Iran.

Do you mean at the time of the war started? Because Bush used those alleged ties as part of his justification for War

No. I mean after the war there have been documents showing Saddam giving hospital treatment and the like to known Al Qaeda members.

They had been conducting weapons inspections of Iraq well into 1998, before they decided to stop.

You mean before Iraq kicked them out.

Spend money on the UN, and help France and Russia out every once and a while.

If they dont help us out in a situation so critical as Iraq, why should we help them? We have helped France out of very serious situations over the past 60 years and this is how they show friendship? Come on, the US isnt the UN's little nurse that goes around and fixes up everyone's problem.

Okay? My point is that there was a sudden shift from maybe to definitely after 9/11. I just though it was odd.

John Kerry and Bill Clinton were saying Saddam definitely had WMD during the 90s.

 

[seinfeldrules]

On September the 11th, 2001, America felt its vulnerability -- even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth.

He never said Iraq specifically, he was using 9/11 to show that terrorists dont necessarily come from our back yard.

We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America.

True.

And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.

True.

Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.

True.

We've experienced the horror of September the 11th. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing, in fact, they would be eager, to use biological or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.

True.

And if an emboldened regime were to supply these weapons to terrorist allies, then the attacks of September 11th would be a prelude to far greater horrors.

Again, look to the information given to him by the British and American intelligence.

And if an emboldened regime were to supply these weapons to terrorist allies, then the attacks of September 11th would be a prelude to far greater horrors.

Very true.

The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks reported Wednesday that Osama bin Laden met with a top Iraqi official in 1994

Seems like a connection to me, even if Osama and Saddam weren't planning 9/11 together, they could have been planning other attacks.


Some quotes of my own.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

Feb. 17 1998- Bill Clinton, then President of the USA

"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

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"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

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 redefine 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."

Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

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

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains 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 capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."

Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 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."

Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002



The quotes go on and on. Notice many of the dates are pre-Bush.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

He never said Iraq specifically, he was using 9/11 to show that terrorists dont necessarily come from our back yard.

[...]

The quotes go on and on. Notice many of the dates are pre-Bush.

Aw crap, I thought this thread was dead. ;(

Anywho, all those points are "what if" statements.
They're pretty much just saying:
"Saddam and Osama are both bad, so, y'know, maybe they'll eventually have a party or something?"
No real facts, just conjecture. And absolutely no evidence.

Even if the declaration that Hussien has WMDs comes from John Kerry's grandma, I'm not buying it without clear evidence.

But, since I guess I gotta defend Kerry in order to hurt Bush, you'll note the "if necessary" in the last quote, and the "has been" in the quote before.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Yeah, but those quotes disprove the whole theory that Bush was making up the WMD claim to go to war. He and Clinton looked at the same intelligence, and they came to the same conclusions. Look at the quotes.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Yeah, but those quotes disprove the whole theory that Bush was making up the WMD claim to go to war. He and Clinton looked at the same intelligence, and they came to the same conclusions. Look at the quotes.

My point is that not that Bush pulled the evidence out of the blue in order to trick us.

My point is that he didn't have enough evidence to justify a war.
All those people may very well have believed the slight evidence that Saddam had weapons.

But Bush is the one who started a war over the slight evidence.

Clinton may have looked at the same intelligence, but he obviously didn't consider it solid enough to go to war over.

And I will not be convinced until some real evidence of WMD is shown, instead just quotes stating how convinced other people are.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Clinton may have looked at the same intelligence, but he obviously didn't consider it solid enough to go to war over.

Well he also wasnt President after 9/11. That changes everyones outlook at foreign policy, even if there were no ties from Iraq to 9/11.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."

Sandy Berger.

 

[Korgoth]

Making it up or not, that was his whole justification for going to war. He booted weapons inspectors out and went in head first. I don't care how long saddam had defied the UN, the weapons inspectors were making progress, and they were forced out. (probably because someone somewhere knew they wouldn't find what they were looking for and the war would never have been accepted by the public... my thoughts only, pure opinion)
His entire justification to the American people for going to war in Iraq were these weapons, and that these weapons were a immediate threat to us. They also said they had a clear exit strategy, and that we would be greeted as liberators with flowers and hugs. Neither of which i'll remind you, happens to be the case.
Point is this war was a rushed, botched operation. Now we are reaching 1000 + american troop deaths in Iraq, no telling how many injured, and no telling how many civillian casualties. If there was any chance what so ever, that the diplomatic process could have worked, we should have exhausted it. And we didn't we rushed foolishly into war and now we find ourselves in one hell of a mess, with the rest of the world (meaning the ones who opposed us going in the first place) laughing at us. And don't tell me that bush did give the diplomatic process a chance, or that saddam 12 years blah blah, I don't want to hear it. There were UN inspectors on the ground, saddam had already begun destroying missiles he wasn't allowed to have, and progress was being made. But Bush again, rushed into this.
Its also painfully obvious that they have tried to make the case that saddam and osama are one in the same and Iraq and al qaeda are tied together somehow. There is no proof to support this claim, and in my eyes this was just an attempt at fear mongoring to pursuade the American people that war was the only answer. And controlling the peopel like that is wrong in my eyes as well.

(typos, who cares get over it )

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Well he also wasnt President after 9/11. That changes everyones outlook at foreign policy, even if there were no ties from Iraq to 9/11.

So your point is that, after September 11th, Bush suddenly needed less evidence than normal to justify a war?

I think we agree!

Sandy Berger.

...is almost definitely not talking about an attack on America.
Also, note the lack of evidence behind her statement.
Just because Saddam did do something, it doesn't automatically guarantee a repeat.

And to be frank, I really wouldn't expect any politician (Democrat or otherwise) to ever publicly defend Saddam. It'd be political suicide.

Edit: Use paragraphs Innervision! Paragraphs!

 

[Korgoth]

I'm to lazy to use paragraphs.

 

[seinfeldrules]

So your point is that, after September 11th, Bush suddenly needed less evidence than normal to justify a war?

I'm saying he could act on the evidence that prior Presidents didnt see as meaningful.

...is almost definitely not talking about an attack on America.
Also, note the lack of evidence behind her statement.

Do you expect him (yes a feminine name) to reveal his sources? That wouldnt be very smart. He was the National Security Advisor by the way.

And to be frank, I really wouldn't expect any politician (Democrat or otherwise) to ever publicly defend Saddam. It'd be political suicide.

Saddam Hussein is a man who needs to be removed from power because of his crimes against humanity.

I just used a reason a Democrat could have used if he didnt feel Saddam had WMD. I didnt stick up for him, but I also didnt mention WMD as many Democrats with access to intelligence did.

Edit: Use paragraphs Innervision! Paragraphs!

NOW we agree on something

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I'm saying he could act on the evidence that prior Presidents didnt see as meaningful.

...which furthers my point that the evidence must not have been very meaningful.
It seems odd if it was like:

Pre-9/11: "Meh, we found stockpiles of Saddam's nukes via satellite."

Post-9/11: "Oh no! We had found stockpiles of Saddam's nukes via satellite years ago!"



I guess the argument comes down to this: I'd like to see some real concrete evidence, and you're confident that Bush need not disclose whatever evidence led to the war.

How's about this for a plan: Once someone actually finds some war-justifying evidence, give me a PM. Because I'd love to see it.

In the meantime, "It's maybe classified" isn't good enough for me.

 

[Korgoth]

oh guess what bush flip flops

iraq had wmd
iraq had wmd programs
iraq had wmd related program activities
we did it to liberate the iraqi people
we did it to bring peace to the middle eat
we did it so we can fight terrorism over there and not here at home.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Pre-9/11: "Meh, we found stockpiles of Saddam's nukes via satellite. They arent really a big deal, we showed those Muslim Fanatics who was boss 10 years ago. They will never hit us at home, nobody has for the last 60 years, even then it wasnt the continental USA, nor a civilian target."

Post 9/11: "Oh no! We had found stockpiles of Saddam's nukes via satellite years ago! Now we realize that we can, and will be hit, at any opportunity, its time to act before it is too late! Imagine one of those nukes going off in downtown NYC!"

Bush need not disclose whatever evidence led to the war.

I believe he should now that Saddam is out of power.

"It's maybe classified"

I was referring to Sandy Berger, Clinton's National Security Advisor. Bush had no control over what he released.

 

[Korgoth]

Here is a little something for you, Clinton and bin laden... Can't pass the buck on this one.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0409/05/lkl.00.html

KING: Do you ever say, I should have taken out bin Laden? I could have, should have, should -- shoulda, woulda, coulda?

CLINTON: No. What I say is I tried like the devil to take him out. I knew how bad he was. Even in my first term we were watching him. And we worked hard on terrorism. We had to.

Keep in mind, we had the first World Trade Center bombing in '93. We had the Oklahoma City bombing in '95. We finally passed the big anti-terrorism legislation I'd been pushing for a year and a half in '96. We averted all the terrorist attacks planned for the millennium, plus earlier attempts to blow up the Holland Tunnel and the Lincoln Tunnel and the U.N. building in New York, the L.A. airport. Planes flying from the Philippines to the L.A. airport.

KING: There were plans to blow up the L.A...

CLINTON: Absolutely. All those things.

And after the African embassies were blown up, there was a plan to blow up our embassy in Albania. We did that. There was a plan by many of bin Laden's allies from the mujahideen in Afghanistan, the Afghan War, to take over Bosnia after the Bosnian War and we stopped that.

So we were deeply immersed in this. So what I say all the time is -- and what I told President Bush when we had our little meeting after the Supreme Court decision -- I regret deeply that I didn't get him. I tried everything I knew to get him.

I wish -- the only real regret I have in terms of our efforts is nearly everybody in the world knew that he did the USS Cole in October of 2000. I knew what our options were, I knew what our military options were, I knew what our covert options were. And I felt I couldn't take strong military action against Afghanistan because the FBI and the CIA didn't officially agree that bin Laden had done it until after I left office.

If they had done so when I was in office, I would have taken stronger action -- even as a lame duck president.

KING: Do you know why they didn't?

CLINTON: I think they just had a process they wanted to go through. And keep in mind, you know, when Oklahoma City happened, which before 9/11 was the worst domestic terrorist incident, a lot of people immediately jumped to the conclusion that it was a Muslim militant terrorist. And I remember standing in the Rose Garden of the White House pleading with the American people not to jump to any conclusions.

So I felt if I launched a full scale attack, violated air space of countries that wouldn't give me permission, had to do the logistics of doing that without basing rights like we had in Uzbekistan and other things we had after 9/11, I would have been on grounds without an approval.

But I don't think -- I don't know of anything that I could have done that I didn't do at the time that would have dramatically increased the chances of getting bin Laden because I wanted to do it and I regretted not doing it

So if he told Bush how much of a threat bin laden was, and the planned attacks, and attacks they had thwarted, and also the fbi/cia came to the conclusion that bin laden was behind the cold AFTER clinton left and bush was in... Why didn't bush act before 9/11 to get bin laden?

and to Iraq...

 

[Korgoth]

Iraq:

KING: Let's -- first thing's first, though. We've got major news today out of Iraq. Today, coordinated bombing and ambush across Iraq. 90 people were killed today in Mosul, Baghdad, Ramadi, Fallujah, and Ba'qubah -- I think I'm pronouncing that right.

What do you make of this whole thing?

CLINTON: I think, first of all, it's a very tough neighborhood. It always has been. When the first President Bush was concluding the Gulf War, there were a lot of people in the State Department and elsewhere who said that they shouldn't even destroy the whole Republican Guard and run the risk of Iraq breaking up, because there would be a lot of internal violence. So, you see that.

It also is more vulnerable now to infiltration from outside terrorists who want to stir things up. I don't know how many of those there are. A lot of this stuff is just internally generated conflict. And there may be people who, for their own reasons, think they won't be very influential when we turn over sovereignty to the Iraqis and they have a kind of a representative Democratic government.

There are all kinds of explanations for this, but it's going to be a long, hard slide.

KING: Does it surprise you?

CLINTON: Not much. I always -- you know, you can't live in the way they lived for so long, under the thumb of Saddam Hussein, with a kind of a controlled state, with various periods of violence being directed against certain segments of the population and then just take it all off. So, you've got some people who resent the United States and don't like us. You've got some people who think that the situation is still fluid and they can -- if they kill enough people and terrify them, they can maybe get a bigger piece of the pie when we're gone or when we turn over sovereignty.

And as I said, there may be some terrorists from outside the country there.

KING: But you have supported the president's statements. I've read -- pretty much say that you might have waited a little longer, but you support him now. Why?

CLINTON: Well, because I think the whole world now has an interest. I don't approve of the timing. I didn't agree with the timing. I think we should have let Mr. Blix finish the inspections. We could have invaded and toppled Saddam Hussein at any time. His military was less than half the strength it was at the Gulf War, and we were in better shape militarily.
And I knew this was going to be quite a project. So, I preferred to let the weapons inspection play out and put more military personnel and more effort into Afghanistan to stabilize Mr. Karzai and to try to get bin Laden and Dr. al-Zawahiri and the other top aides.
But we are where we are. You can't undo history. We've lost over 600 young Americans there since the military victory was declared. So, now that everybody in the world has an interest in seeing a pluralistic, secure, safe Iraq. It may take four or five years, but if they can succeed at self-governance and observing basic human rights and treat the Sunni, the Shia, and the Kurds fairly, if they can do this, it might be a positive thing to promote reform throughout the Arab world.

intersting, no?

ps. sorry for the double post, but I wasn't sure I could fit this all in one.

 

[blahblahblah]

So I felt if I launched a full scale attack, violated air space of countries that wouldn't give me permission, had to do the logistics of doing that without basing rights like we had in Uzbekistan and other things we had after 9/11, I would have been on grounds without an approval.

But I don't think -- I don't know of anything that I could have done that I didn't do at the time that would have dramatically increased the chances of getting bin Laden because I wanted to do it and I regretted not doing it

The answer is in your article you cited.

 

[Korgoth]

No, go back and read the Iraq part. That is clinton talking about al qaeda.

 

[seinfeldrules]

http://www.infowars.com/saved pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm

President Clinton and his national security team ignored several opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist associates, including one as late as last year.

I know because I negotiated more than one of the opportunities.

As an American Muslim and a political supporter of Clinton, I feel now, as I argued with Clinton and Berger then, that their counter-terrorism policies fueled the rise of Bin Laden from an ordinary man to a Hydra-like monster.

Clinton also gave that interview recently, hindsight is 20/20.

 

[Korgoth]

http://www.infowars.com/saved pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm





Clinton also gave that interview recently, hindsight is 20/20.

First of all, go back and re-read. He says the fbi and cia were in a deadlock over bin laden until after clinton left office. He didn't act because his intel wasn't there. So if bush gets the "get out of jail free card" over faulty intel then clinton does aswell right?
(I'd also like to point out the site http://www.infowars.com, hardly looks credible, yes I read the article)

And go back a read the Iraq section I posted. It proves my point.

 

[blahblahblah]

No, go back and read the Iraq part. That is clinton talking about al qaeda.

When was this interview conducted? Were those premeditaded answers? I think so. Clinton has been a cheerleader for Kerry. Hard to imagine there was no bias going on.

This would have more credibility in my eye if this interview has done before the presedential election (either a year ago or after the election has been done).

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Pre-9/11: "Meh, we found stockpiles of Saddam's nukes via satellite. They arent really a big deal, we showed those Muslim Fanatics who was boss 10 years ago. They will never hit us at home, nobody has for the last 60 years, even then it wasnt the continental USA, nor a civilian target."

Post 9/11: "Oh no! We had found stockpiles of Saddam's nukes via satellite years ago! Now we realize that we can, and will be hit, at any opportunity, its time to act before it is too late! Imagine one of those nukes going off in downtown NYC!"

I really find it hard to believe that, pre-9/11, terrorists attacks were not considered to be threats. Especially WMD-related ones.
Innervision's Clinton quote shows that terrorism was a major concern.

If there was enough evidence to prove Saddam was a threat, they would have done something.

I believe he should now that Saddam is out of power.

We both know that I meant WMDs.
Remember, the one major point behind the war?

Bush had no control over what he released.

Still, if he's looking to go to war, you'd expect the president to show the American people exactly what evidence led to that decision.

If it was conclusive, airtight evidence, what would be the problem with showing it?

Kennedy showed the Cuban missiles after all, didn't he?

So my offer still stands. Someone PM me once evidence is found.

 

[Korgoth]

When was this interview conducted? Were those premeditaded answers? I think so. Clinton has been a cheerleader for Kerry. Hard to imagine there was no bias going on.

This would have more credibility in my eye if this interview has done before the presedential election (either a year ago or after the election has been done).

I miss interpreted your post blahblahblah, sorry...
But, this was before the fbi/cia had determined that bin laden was behind the cole bombing, bush was in office when that conclusion was reached, he then would have had his justification to attack bin laden wouldn't he?
And clinton obviously has the inside track, and far more knowledge on this subject than we do. Partisan ship aside, do you think he is really making that up, come on.

 

[blahblahblah]

I miss interpreted your post blahblahblah, sorry...
But, this was before the fbi/cia had determined that bin laden was behind the cole bombing, bush was in office when that conclusion was reached, he then would have had his justification to attack bin laden wouldn't he?
And clinton obviously has the inside track, and far more knowledge on this subject than we do. Partisan ship aside, do you think he is really making that up, come on.

Exaggeration is a politicians best friend. I again point to the quotes below.

So I felt if I launched a full scale attack, violated air space of countries that wouldn't give me permission, had to do the logistics of doing that without basing rights like we had in Uzbekistan and other things we had after 9/11, I would have been on grounds without an approval.

But I don't think -- I don't know of anything that I could have done that I didn't do at the time that would have dramatically increased the chances of getting bin Laden because I wanted to do it and I regretted not doing it

Until 9/11 neither Clinton or Bush could justifying invading a foreign country. The only reason why Afghanistan was invaded was because other neighboring countries were gracious enough to grant air space privleges. That didn't happen until 9/11.

PS - My spelling sucks tonight
PPS - I don't want to go into this discussion anymore, I can't handle another political debate right now. I just want to chill on these forums. I don't know why I responded in the first place.

 

[Korgoth]

Exaggeration is a politicians best friend. I again point to the quotes below.



Until 9/11 neither Clinton or Bush could justifying invading a foreign country. The only reason why Afghanistan was invaded was because other neighboring countries were gracious enough to grant air space privleges. That didn't happen until 9/11.

PS - My spelling sucks tonight
PPS - I don't want to go into this discussion anymore, I can't handle another political debate right now. I just want to chill on these forums. I don't know why I responded in the first place.

ah but need I refer you back to the article where clinton totes all the terror attacks they thwarted, then point you to a man known as richard clarke who just happened to be the counter terrorism chief under clinton and bush... Who pre 9/11 says he couldn't even get a single meeting with president bush to discuss the al qaeda intellegence and threat they posed. Not even 1 meeting! That right there should show you who the "lame duck" was. Maybe Bush couldn't attack bin laden head on, but had he taken the threat a little more seriously knowing what they knew pre 9/11 (and been so hardcore with their intel as they were in iraq ) maybe it could have been prevented. And correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that also the conclusion that the 9/11 commission came to aswell?

 

[blahblahblah]

ah but need I refer you back to the article where clinton totes all the terror attacks they thwarted, then point you to a man known as richard clarke who just happened to be the counter terrorism chief under clinton and bush... Who pre 9/11 says he couldn't even get a single meeting with president bush to discuss the al qaeda intellegence and threat they posed. Not even 1 meeting! That right there should show you who the "lame duck" was. Maybe Bush couldn't attack bin laden head on, but had he taken the threat a little more seriously knowing what they knew pre 9/11 (and been so hardcore with their intel as they were in iraq ) maybe it could have been prevented. And correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that also the conclusion that the 9/11 commission came to aswell?

Could've should've would've. Do you think Bush would have done the same thing if he known that 9/11 was going to happen? I don't think so. I don't think anybody (that includes Bush and Clarke) estimated the type of damage that Al Qaeda was capable of inflicting. Before 9/11, Al Qaeda did terrorist attacks, but not on the level of 9/11.

Honestly, before 9/11 and you asked who was more dangerous Al Qaeda or Iraq and presented the information you knew at the time, I bet everybody would have choose Iraq. Iraq had the potential to destabilize the middle east, while Al Qaeda had the potential to take out another embassy. Over the course of 9/11 this perception and knowledge has changed. What did Bill Clinton focus on during his presidency, Iraq or Al Qaeda?

Even if Bush did pursue Al Qaeda and 9/11 happened, he would still have been accused of not pursuing them enough. People want their scape goat. Though Bush is not excused from any blame at all. He still should have had intelligence briefings.

Anyways, I haven't seen criticism of any of the Senate Intellegence Committee members. They have the same information that the president does. They should be held in the same light as well.

PS - Your sig isn't changing my mind. I'm still somewhat open minded about this upcoming election. Calling the GOP - Greed Over People is not a good way to change my mind.

 

[seinfeldrules]

I really find it hard to believe that, pre-9/11, terrorists attacks were not considered to be threats. Especially WMD-related ones.
Innervision's Clinton quote shows that terrorism was a major concern

If it was a major concern, then why was 9/11 needed to launch a full scale offensive against Al Qaeda?

Anyways, I haven't seen criticism of any of the Senate Intellegence Committee members. They have the same information that the president does. They should be held in the same light as well.

Nah, Kerry was on that... so we should ignore it for now. Heaven forbid the media should be fair.

If you read the article (innerversion), you would notice it was taken from the LATIMES website. A very liberal newspaper.

We both know that I meant WMDs.

That is what I meant as well. He should disclose the intelligence regarding WMD now that Saddam is gone. There are no longer sources to be given away by doing so.

If it was conclusive, airtight evidence, what would be the problem with showing it?

Refer to the UN presentation, it was a part of their case.

This would have more credibility in my eye if this interview has done before the presedential election (either a year ago or after the election has been done).

Agreed.

 

[Korgoth]

actually seinfeild it didn't take me to the latimes, it took me to a "saved page" on infowars.com. And your right blahblahblahblah, we do need to see the senate intellegent commitees findings. And about my sig, i'm not trying to change your mind, i'm expressing my views.

 

[seinfeldrules]

it took me to a "saved page" on infowars.com.

A saved page from what site...

 

[Korgoth]

Does it mean its real? I tried to go to the latimes website but you must be a member, show me that exact page on the real latimes site and it will hold more water.

 

[seinfeldrules]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,46241,00.html

Ijaz is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and has been featured twice in BARRON’s Currency Roundtable discussions. He has contributed to the editorial pages of the Financial Times, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, Newsweek and International Herald Tribune on matters related to nuclear proliferation, terrorism, politics and the Islamic world.

 

[Korgoth]

Fair enough, but that means the bush administration ignored these same things.

 

[blahblahblah]

And about my sig, i'm not trying to change your mind, i'm expressing my views.

Ahhh, but if you really want Kerry in office, you shouldn't be offended people (because they are Republican) who are willing to change their mind. It may alienate them.

 

[Korgoth]

ok i'll take that line out then if it really offends.

 

[blahblahblah]

ok i'll take that line out then if it really offends.

It doesn't offend me, it just gives me less of a reason to vote Kerry in November.

It would be like me having in my sig

Vote Bush/Cheney 04
visit www.kerrysucks.com
Home of the Jackass party...

Stuff like that. Not exactly going to change peoples minds. It is expressing your opinion. I just think that if you want Kerry to win, you wouldn't want to alienate potential swing voters.

[Edit]: Wow, I didn't know kerrysucks.com was a website. :O
[Edit2]: One man...One bottle of ketchup...Too much botox. lol

 

[qckbeam]

I just wanted to chime in and say that I personally think blahblahblah has the best political sig I've seen on these forums. Nice

*qckbeam slowly backs out of the thread and quietly closes the door behind him

 

[Korgoth]

well done and done, but i'll point out that there are many here who do the opposite (IE. gh0st's sig has a link to krushkerry.com or something like that... whats the diff )

 

[blahblahblah]

well done and done, but i'll point out that there are many here who do the opposite (IE. gh0st's sig has a link to krushkerry.com or something like that... whats the diff )

Next time you see gh0st in this thread or where ever, say the same thing. If he has any common sense, he should see that you are right.

I just wanted to chime in and say that I personally think blahblahblah has the best political sig I've seen on these forums. Nice

*qckbeam slowly backs out of the thread and quietly closes the door behind him

Thanks. I'd rather have people make an informed decision (based off of facts and their belief) than a uninformed decision (just their beliefs) even if it goes against my preferences.

That said, vote Bush unless I say otherwise.

 

[Korgoth]

No you said INFORMED decision