Originally Posted By gadzuux Busy thread - let's just grab a few of hypertyper's hyperboles to task. >> While Saddam's complicity in the events of 9/11 is in doubt << What doubt? There is no complicity. >> The lesson of 9/11 isn't that Saddam did it, but rather that we have to take any threat, from any rogue band of terrorists to any dictatorial state, absolutely seriously. << But that's not what we're doing. Afghanistan, al qaeda and the taliban were all legitimate targets for their involvement in the last attack. Iraq wasn't. Saudi arabia and pakistan have far greater complicity in the 9/11 attacks, and both of them, along with iran, are the likely sources of the next one. Yet bush considers both pakistan and saudi arabia our allies. Pakistan even is negotiating with bin laden and agreeing to release it's taliban prisoners and allow bin laden safe haven. And yet the bush administation just can't seem to find him. Do you really believe that, or are they lying? At any rate, they may talk a good game about "any threat, any rogue nation" but that's just cover for invading iraq. They've shown absolutely no interest in attacking anyone else. >> Saddam Hussein has tortured, maimed, raped, and gassed (using the "nonexistent" weapons of mass destruction) his own people, and those of other nations. << And we sat by complacently and did nothing. >> Saddam's refusal to cooperate resolutions was enough to cause great concern and uncertainty. << But it wasn't enough to commit to a full scale war. >> Bush was not willing to give a man like Saddam the benefit of the doubt and hope he was being a good boy. << Nobody was giving him the benefit of the doubt. He was effectively boxed in and unable to attack anybody. >> ALL terrorist threats would be addressed, and he made the definition of "terrorist" very broad << What terrorist states have been 'addressed', other than iraq and afghanistan? Is that the sum total of the terrorist threat to the world? >> 2. Iraq was a threat. << How do you figure? >> Americans supported him then. What changed? << More facts of bush's subterfuge came to light. >> Bush's critics wanted to win an election and put Kerry in the White House << Anybody but bush. >> ... but the true liars are those who say Saddam was not a threat << The senate is saying that saddam was not a threat. It doesn't matter who says it, you'll never believe it because you're wedded to an ideology that dismisses facts. >> We can't even agree on a simple definition of good and evil. << Simple definitions about complicated concepts are for simpletons. Things are not always so cut and dried. >> I couldn't stand Bill Clinton. << Now there's a shocker. >> SADDAM LIED, friends. << Not about the WMD he didn't. He said he didn't have any. Bush said he did. Guess what - saddam was telling the truth and bush wasn't. >> Those who are fixated on "proving" Bush a liar, waving-off the lies of bloodthirsty tyrants << It was bush who was hanging his invasion on the lies of chalabi - even though he was repeatedly told that he was a dubious source, at best. It didn't matter, chalabi was saying exactly what bush wanted to hear. >> ... need to seriously ask themselves why they are so tolerant of evil, and so hostile to good. << Bush is not "good". Not very perceptive, are you? >> The attitude is implicit when people go around saying Bush lied about Saddam, Saddam wasn't a threat << Bush lied about saddam, and saddam wasn't a threat. There's nothing implicit about it - it's explictly stated. >> Dean has said horrible things about Bush he has never said about Saddam. << We as americans are responsible for the actions and statements of our leaders - we're not responsible for other leaders. I'm always surprised when objections like this are raised. Objecting to policies of our own country is a completely different thing from criticizing other nation's policies. >> When you speak against Bush and are silent on Saddam's proven treachery and butchery, you ARE siding with evil. << You're big on this 'good vs evil' stuff. Absolutes make everything so simple. >> No one had any way of knowing whether he was or wasn't a threat at the time. That was the problem. << Of course we did. We had the UN inspectors on the ground for most of the decade. Are you really stating that there was no option but to invade iraq because "we couldn't be sure"? What kind of empty reasoning is that? >> I would also add that just because we haven't found WMD doesn't mean they didn't exist. << Here we go again. It's vitally important to neo-cons that those WMDs are still "in play" because that's how the war was sold - and they know it. But whenever they're pressed on the issue, they'll immediately back off and jump to the UN resolutions - the only firm footing they've got left. And it's not enough to justify war - and they know that too. >> We apparently haven't found JonBenet Ramsay's murderer yet, ten years later. Doesn't mean he/she didn't exist. << Ridicously inept analogy. But good for a chuckle. >> We'd have no need or reason to say that if liberals would quit saying Saddam wasn't a threat, and quit calling Bush a terrorist and a warmonger. << Main Entry: war·mon·ger Function: noun : one who urges or attempts to stir up war So what's the problem with "warmonger"? Oh yeah - and saddam wasn't a threat. I think that's the third time I've had to reiterate that in one post. >> Look what the dems and libs did to Lieberman!!! << Republicans like to throw "appeaser" around. Lieberman is an appeaser.
Originally Posted By HyperTyper >>> Now please, somebody show me a thread started by a liberal on here that is pro America, pro military, pro winning. Gee ... I can't. Try finding one that even just suggests an alternative plan ... ANY plan ... to deal with terrorism that will actually work. I can't find that either. Bush's plan is supposedly a "failure," but no one else has one. Except John Kerry. But he won't tell us what it is.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> We were in war mode in 2001 because we were hurt and mad. We sent our boys over gladly, because we thought our necks were on the line. << Don't be so quick to blur the difference between afghanistan and iraq. One is a righteous and justified action, and one isn't. >> Now, thanks to some proactive terrorist hunting, they're on the run and we've been untouched for nearly five years. << Last time I checked, bin laden was not only 'at large' but engaged in successful negotiations with our putative ally pakistan for the release of all taliban prisoners. By the way, are you troubled at all that the bush family and the bin laden family are close friends? >> We WILL leave Iraq, and it will probably be within a year or two, in my prediction. << That's my prediction too - sooner rather than later. But it won't be bush's doing. We'll be asked to leave. Bush will be opposed - he wants to stay and populate those bases for the indefinite future. >> So many political elites are so obsessed with their own self-importance, and take glee in calling Bush a hick and a stupid cowboy. << Bush recently said that he "read two shakespeares" over the summer. Yep, he's a funny guy all right.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Oh yeah - and saddam wasn't a threat. I think that's the third time I've had to reiterate that in one post.> Then why did the Clinton administration continually call him one? For that matter, why did they bring up links between him and Al Queda? Evidently, Saddam was a threat, and had connections to Al Queda, until March, 2003, when suddenly, he was no longer a threat and had no connections to Al Queda. It's simply absurb. And by the way Gazuux, the Senate is not saying that Saddam was not a threat, and the President didn't lie about anything. Every accusation he made against Saddam was based on the consensus of our intelligence agencies, and agreed with the intelligence agencies of most other countries.
Originally Posted By HyperTyper >>> Iraq has indeed harbored terrorists, including those from al-Quaida. That's all it takes in my book to have blood on one's hands. >>> Afghanistan, al qaeda and the taliban were all legitimate targets for their involvement in the last attack. Iraq wasn't. The taliban didn't order September 11. They only harbored those who did. Saddam has harbored terrorists and others who wish death upon America and Israel ... just like the Taliban. I don't think we need another three thousand American deaths with a blood trail leading directly to Saddam's bedroom to justify action. >>> Do you really believe that, or are they lying? I believe bin Laden is now weak, and a coward. He is hiding, and will stay hidden for quite some time, because he doesn't want death or capture. He'll stay hidden as long as he wants to, until someone rats him out. >>> How do you figure? (that Iraq was a threat) Oh, I don't know. Something about killing Kurds, Kuwaitis and Americans, and expressing leanings to do more of it. >>>Things are not always so cut and dried. Killing innocent people is evil. Helping them is good. You would disagree? Is that not nuanced enough for you? >>> Not about the WMD he didn't. He said he didn't have any. Saddam told us he didn't have them. He told his own people he did. Either way, he lied. >>> We as americans are responsible for the actions and statements of our leaders - we're not responsible for other leaders. Gotcha. We're not our brothers' keeper. I'll have to remember that one, and that we have a responibility to bad-mouth our own leaders while exercising diplomacy with foreign rogues and ne'er-do-wells. It's all starting to make sense now ... >>> Ridicously inept analogy. But good for a chuckle. And yet you don't explain why it's inept. WMDs are not hard to hide, or sell. What makes you think it can't be done? >>>So what's the problem with "warmonger"? Bush didn't invite war. He pursued every diplomatic option, went through the U.N. and through congress. Saddam was the warmonger, as is every terrorist. That liberals don't separate the two is alarming and sick.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Clinton didn't march us into a war based on unsubstantiated facts. Bush did. An important distinction.
Originally Posted By HyperTyper DouglasDubh, I think what gadzuux meant was that Saddam wasn't a threat to HIM. Funny ... a lot of people were saying bin Laden wasn't a threat before 9/11. A little hit here, a little terror there. Really, we ALL thought he was no big deal, until New York, Washington and Pennsylvania learned otherwise. The liberal approach: Claim there is no threat, then when thousands die, blame the other side for not taking the threat seriously.
Originally Posted By HyperTyper >>> Clinton didn't march us into a war based on unsubstantiated facts. Clinton took us into eastern Europe. Milsovich was no threat to us. He had no WMD. Didn't matter. He was trouble, and now he's gone. Only a very few conservatives complained about it, and they were wrong. The ONLY difference with Iraq is the culture of radical Islam that fuels a frenzied kill-our-own-and-fight-to-the-death mentality that makes putting this to an end extremely difficult ... but no less crucial. By the way, there is no such thing as an "unsubstantiated fact." Saddam's record and mentality were and are facts. The WMD allegations are not yet disproved, only questioned and doubted. Saddam's nocompliance, the U.N's resolution and the authorization of Congress, who had the same "unsubstantiated" intelligence as Bush, are ALL facts and remain so.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> I don't think we need another three thousand American deaths with a blood trail leading directly to Saddam's bedroom to justify action. << Now we have 2600 americans dead with the trail leading to the white house. >> Killing innocent people is evil. Helping them is good. << How many deaths of iraqi innocents has our 'helping' caused? Just tough luck for them, I guess. There's nuance for you. >> Gotcha. We're not our brothers' keeper << Try this - out first responsibility is to ourselves. It's more nuanced. >> And yet you don't explain why it's inept. << Comparing jonbenet's missing killer to saddam's missing WMD? (sigh)... alright - one is an unsubstantiated claim that was the basis for starting a war that is responsible for the deaths of tens of thousand of innocent people. The other is a parent who murdered their own daughter. >> Bush didn't invite war. << He's responsible for the new term "pre-emptive war", which really means elective war of choice. >> He pursued every diplomatic option, << No he didn't - he pre-empted diplomatic options, going so far as to removing the weapons inspectors so he could begin the 'shock and awe' campaign. >> went through the U.N. and through congress. << He touched all the bases on the way around - that's about it. He also stated that he would return to the UN to seek authorization. He never did. It was another lie.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> a lot of people were saying bin Laden wasn't a threat before 9/11. << And who would that be? When bush took office, the outgoing clinton administration tried repeatedly to press the case that bin laden, al qaeda and the taliban were going to be the biggest threat the incoming bush administration would face. They were ignored. Bush did N O T H I N G about terrorism prior to 9/11. Cheney announced a commission to examine the problem. They never met, not even once. Then there's the PDA that stated 'bin laden determined to attack within the US' on the cover in ninety point type. It too was ignored. In the aftermath of 9/11, the talking point was to dismiss the document was "historical". Rice alone said it eight times. All just a weak attempt at political butt covering.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Now we have 2600 americans dead with the trail leading to the white house.> Actually, it leads to the terrorists who did the killing. <How many deaths of iraqi innocents has our 'helping' caused?> Not as many as Saddam and the terrorists have.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> The ONLY difference with Iraq is the culture of radical Islam that fuels a frenzied kill-our-own-and-fight-to-the-death mentality that makes putting this to an end extremely difficult ... but no less crucial. << The ONLY difference? I can think of a few more. Our involvement in the balkan war was a humanitarian effort. You don't really think the same thing about iraq, do you? If so, then it bolsters the arguments that iraq is wholly unrelated to 9/11 and has nothing to do with the war on terror. You can't have it both ways. >> and the authorization of Congress, who had the same "unsubstantiated" intelligence as Bush << That's because the white house had control over what intelligence reached congress. The cherry-picking was completed by the time the reports reached capitol hill.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <And who would that be?> Larry Johnson, for one. You might recognize the name - he's a critic of President Bush and a friend fo Ray McGovern and Valerie Plame. <a href="http://afghanlaw.de/The" target="_blank">http://afghanlaw.de/The</a>%20Declining%20Terrorist%20Threat.htm <When bush took office, the outgoing clinton administration tried repeatedly to press the case that bin laden, al qaeda and the taliban were going to be the biggest threat the incoming bush administration would face.> The only source for this claim is President Clinton, a known liar. In the meantime, the facts are clear that President Clinton did little to curb the threat of Osama Bin Laden.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <You can't have it both ways.> Why? Why can't the removal of a dictator who oppressed his people and supported terrorism be both a humanitarian effort and a vital part of our war on terrorism? <The cherry-picking was completed by the time the reports reached capitol hill.> An unsubstantiated claim, as usual.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder So let's put all this in a way that is apropos for the first Sunday of the NFL season. Upon further review, the Senate Intelligence Committee has ruled that there was not enough evidence to tie Saddam to Al Qaeda. The initial call was incorrect and they withdraw the flag.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Here's an article about all the information the Senate committee staffers had to ignore to reach their conclusion: <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/670bsucx.asp" target="_blank">http://www.weeklystandard.com/ Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/670bsucx.asp</a>
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Here's an old article that recalls the links the Clinton administration made between Saddam and Al Queda: <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2097901" target="_blank">http://www.slate.com/id/209790 1</a>
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <If Republicans on the panel are playing politics here and are trying to distance themselves from the status quo, i.e. Bush, what does that tell you?> That they are as dishonest or as muddleheaded as the Democrats on the panel.
