Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Yet not one of these Democrats provides proof that Saddam was any kind of threat.<< At least one of these Senators (Kerry) had been on the Intelligence Committee for years, long before Bush was in office. (Rockefeller had been looking at Saddam's dubious record before Bush was in office, too.) Are you suggesting that everyone who disagrees with you was lying? Is this the scorched earth policy that partisanship breeds?
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>An equally gloomy statement could be made about Kim Jong Il - but he's not the flavor of the day apparently...<< No, he's not the subject of this discussion. If you cannot make a cogent point to refute what is inherently obvious-- that Bush was drawing the same honest conclusions that any other knowledgeable person did at the time-- then don't bother bringing up irrelevant observations about other dictators and tyrants.
Originally Posted By ecdc "Are you suggesting that everyone who disagrees with you was lying? Is this the scorched earth policy that partisanship breeds?" See my 140. There's a reason why no one was calling for the invasion of Iraq under Bill Clinton. Then suddenly, Bush came into office and all we heard was what a terrible threat Saddam was and how immediate action was essential. Republicans are very good at inventing issues or shifting them for their needs - like how we suddenly have to all be appalled at the phrase "Happy Holidays." Democrats like Kerry made selective statements based on the intelligence they had about Saddam, but not even all of them agreed invasion was the best option. Some Democrats had the guts to stand up and say there are other options. Even Kerry thought Bush rushed into it too fast. Time has proven he was absolutely correct.
Originally Posted By ecdc "If you cannot make a cogent point to refute what is inherently obvious-- that Bush was drawing the same honest conclusions that any other knowledgeable person did at the time-- then don't bother bringing up irrelevant observations about other dictators and tyrants." It's not irrelevant in the least. Bush brought up Saddam. He demanded action against Saddam. Some Democrats went along for the ride. It's absolutely relevant to ask why other dictators are not given the same attention. It also goes to the point that some Democrats were playing politics too; they too used selective intelligence to make statements against Saddam to appease a majority of Americans. I'd add, I've never once said Bush lied in this thread; I will say I think he's completely incompetent and the Iraq war shows that. I don't equate Bush with Hitler, the way some partisans do. I think he had it in for Iraq from day one (and Bob Woodward's book, Bush at War demonstrates this very well) and he got his wish. Now he's there and he can't handle it.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Of course, we're not told what makes him so different.> I distinctly remember the President outling what made Saddam unique at the time - his pursuit of WMD's, his support of terrorism, and his defiance of the UN resolutions. And, of course, I and many others have noted those reasons many times over the last few years.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <There's a reason why no one was calling for the invasion of Iraq under Bill Clinton. Then suddenly, Bush came into office and all we heard was what a terrible threat Saddam was and how immediate action was essential.> No one was calling for an invasion of Afghanistan, either. 9/11 changed things. No longer did we believe terrorist threats could be contained.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Democrats like Kerry made selective statements based on the intelligence they had about Saddam...<< Yes, yes he did. You can read them here: <a href="http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html" target="_blank">http://www.independentsforkerr y.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html</a> The word "selective" doesn't leap to mind in typifying his assessment of Saddam.
Originally Posted By ecdc "No one was calling for an invasion of Afghanistan, either. 9/11 changed things. No longer did we believe terrorist threats could be contained." And after 9/11, an invasion of Afghanistan was called for and supported by most Americans and the rest of the world. As has been demonstrated numerous times and understood by all but the most partisan defenders of Bush, Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Terrorists were in Iraq, but they were also in Egypt, Syria, and Saudi Arabia.
Originally Posted By ecdc Re, 147. You're welcome to make this all about Kerry and his statements to rub Democrats noses in it all you like. But grabbing a handful of statements from conservative websites that no doubt take great glee in posting what Democrats said before the war is just as much revisionist history as you claim of others. Before war in Iraq, many Americans, some Democrats, a small handful of Republicans, and the majority of the world were opposed to war in Iraq. They didn't understand then, nor do they now, the urgency. They saw then, nor do they see now, that there was no difference between Saddam and the other thuggish dictators who live and have lived and will live on the earth. What was Americas response? To give these people the collective finger and rename french fries and french toast. Now, time has shown that they were correct. Saddam had no WMDs. He had no plans to attack us or his neighbors. But rather than wiping the egg off their faces, Republicans and their supporters have only deepened the rhetoric, using phrases like "Terrorist Bill of Rights" and questioning the patriotism of those opposed to what turns out to be a waste of lives. Democrats like Kerry, rather than being praised for recognizing Iraq for what it was, are simply labeled flip-floppers. Well, now it turns out a majority of Americans are flip-floppers, while Republicans seem to take some kind of bizarre pride in being so stubborn as to refuse to acknowledge what a mess it is.
Originally Posted By ecdc "So he WASN'T lying about those terrorists in Iraq, hmmmmm....?" But he sure was exaggerating their connection to Saddam. Terrorists live all over the world, why do we only care about the ones who live in Iraq? Of course, invading Iraq has drawn far more terrorists to the region, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy for Republicans. They dance around saying "See, we told you so!" when their the ones that created the environment in the first place. Let me know when that invasion (or hey, even some sanctions) is in place for Saudi Arabia. But I guess there's too much oil there for that.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.> No, but he did have something to do with terrorism. <Terrorists were in Iraq, but they were also in Egypt, Syria, and Saudi Arabia.> But none of those countries were in defiance of UN resolutions because of it. And Egypt and Saudi Arabia pledged to help us fight terrorism, even if it might be only lip service.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Democrats said before the war is just as much revisionist history as you claim of others> It's not revisionist history. It's what they said. <Saddam had no WMDs.> While the stockpiles we thought he had were not found, we did find he still had WMD programs, and fully intended to revive them as soon as he could. <He had no plans to attack us or his neighbors.> According to whom? Saddam Hussein?
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Re, 147. You're welcome to make this all about Kerry and his statements to rub Democrats noses in it all you like.<< I'd really rather not have, but it was brought up by you in post #143 (>>Democrats like Kerry made selective statements based on the intelligence they had about Saddam...<<) >>But grabbing a handful of statements from conservative websites that no doubt take great glee in posting what Democrats said before the war is just as much revisionist history as you claim of others.<< I neither read nor "grabbed from" conservative websites. Nor am I particularly gleeful about it. The statements I (soberly) cited were from Independents For Kerry: <a href="http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html" target="_blank">http://www.independentsforkerr y.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html</a> ; The official website of Senator Hillary Clinton: <a href="http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html" target="_blank">http://clinton.senate.gov/spee ches/iraq_101002.html</a> ; and the official website of Senator Rockefeller: <a href="http://www.senate.gov/~rockefeller/news/2002/flrstmt0102002.html" target="_blank">http://www.senate.gov/~rockefe ller/news/2002/flrstmt0102002.html</a> . I don't trust excerpts from other websites, as I cannot be sure they haven't pulled something out of context. Unlike some here, I don't particualrly enjoy getting egg on my face. As far as "revisionist history" goes, it is only by looking at what was actually said and done that a true context, and real understanding can be achieved. Within the narrow confines of this discussion ("Bush Lied"), I believe I have made a cogent case, supported by real history, that this is not the case. That the invasion of Iraq may or may not have been unwise is another subject entirely. (And since you have been good enough to state that you agree that Bush did not lie, I will tell you that I agree that the invasion of Iraq was, indeed, unwise, and that Bush did not make [and did not have] a strong enough case to justify it. But that's just my opinion.)
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>> Why are you pretending it only works one way? Most honest people understand that some people on both sides engage in that kind of hyperbole, but you actually seem to think it's only one way, or overwhelmingly one way. That's ideology, not reality.>> <I'm not. But you have two loudmouths on the right (Limbaugh and Coulter) who engage in extreme rhetoric for public. For the most part, conservative leaders and rank-and-file are still reasonably civil in the debate. I am surrounded by conservatives all the time, and we don't go around blaming Clinton for terror, or calling him a murderer, or whatever. (Rapist is about as bad as it gets, but if the shoe fits ...) And even when Coulter shoots off at the mouth, there are many conservatives who say she's taking it too far. Try finding that on the left. Libs from the top to the bottom, from the airwaves to Congress will paint Bush in all of Hitler's colors.> You just inadvertently proved my point. You see all of two (!) conservatives who engage in extreme rhetoric, and somehow see ALL liberals as doing that. (!!) Somehow in your world, other extremist conservatives like Hannity or Savage or pick-your-talk-radio-guy here don't exist, nor do thoughtful liberals like David Broder or Ellen Goodman or plenty of others I could name, none of whom have ever compared Bush to Hitler except apparently in your mind. No, in your world it's all civil conservatives and foaming at the mouth liberals. Again, most honest people will realize that's not reality - that's seeing the world through your ideological prism. Thanks for proving my point. <Logic, reason, truth aren't necessary. You just don't find that kind of vitriol coming from the right, and even Coulter and Limbaugh have not stooped so far as to call Clinton or Kerry murderers or terrorists, though both have fought in wars and/or led them.> Of course you find that kind of vitriol from the right. I could name half a dozen who insisted Clinton murdered Vince Foster. Take off the blinders. It's NOT all one way; there are nuts on both fringes, and good civil people in both liberalism and conservatism. >>> Nice attempt at goalpost moving. Obviously I meant that the WORDS of the average American (which is what you were complaining about) couldn't have much effect on a foreign dictator, not the US army.>> <No. Obviously, individuals do have a say. The election of 2000 showed just how much one voice can have. So did Samantha Smith, the girl whose letter caught the attention of a Russian dictator in the 1980s. And when you bad-mouth your own president, and say he has blood on his hands, and blame him for something terrorists did, you give licence to the terrorists overseas.> I don't know who you're railing at, but I never said anything of the sort. <They publish the polls, the quote the blowhards like Cindy Sheehan, and they love every minute of it because it emboldens their minions, sours international opinion against the U.S. and weakens resolve against terror. Vote for whom you like. Write a letter to President Bush objecting to his choices. More power to you. But don't paint him as the enemy, or worse, and expect people to respect your opinion ... because it's trash.> Again, I didn't do this. <Every country has its traitors ... even ours. The more true hyperbole you use against your own countrymen who may not agree but are genuine in their views about foreign threats,> This is exactly what I see you doing... <the more you turn your back on the good people of this nation who are sacrificing everything for you and for me. And you trash the spirit of civility and loyalty to goodness, despite differences, that once made this country something different ... and wonderful. Instead of constructive criticism, your rhetoric mirrors the pointless whining and gossip> Examples, please, from my posts and not others'. <that comes from mean girls table in junior high school. Grow up.> Oh, the "grow up" card. How high school. Physician, heal thyself.
Originally Posted By DlandDug Um... can you tab which post you're responding to? I have such a hard time wading back through old threads to find the original sources...
Originally Posted By Dabob2 If you're asking me, that was a response to #119, in which HT responded to both me and gadzuux, without distinguishing between us.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy I didn't want to let this thread slide since RoadTrip said Bush lied and STPH said the Intelligence report proved there was no Saddam - Al Quaida connection. They crowed how gret this report was even though it is a joke. But we see this a lot from these guys. Guys who now call the people who get it... trolls. Here is another report that documents the many, many liks Saddm had to terrorism and Al Quaida. How Bad Is the Senate Intelligence Report? Very bad. According to a report released September 8 by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Saddam Hussein "was resistant to cooperating with al Qaeda or any other Islamist groups." It's an odd claim. Saddam Hussein's regime has a long and well-documented history of cooperating with Islamists, including al Qaeda and its affiliates. As early as 1982, the Iraqi regime was openly supporting, training, and funding the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist organization opposed to the secular regime of Hafez Assad. For years, Saddam Hussein cultivated warm relations with Hassan al-Turabi, the Islamist who was the de facto leader of the Sudanese terrorist state, and a man Bill Clinton described as "a buddy of [Osama] bin Laden's." Read it all... <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/710goolj.asp" target="_blank">http://www.weeklystandard.com/ Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/710goolj.asp</a>
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Here's what CIA Director George Tenet had to say about Iraq-Al Qaeda links before the Senet Select Committee On Intelligence in February of 2003: "Iraq is harboring senior members of a terrorist network led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a close associate of al Qaeda. … Iraq has in the past provided training in document forgery and bomb-making to al Qaeda. It has also provided training in poisons and gases to two al Qaeda associates. One of these associates characterized the relationship he forged with Iraqi officials as successful. … I know that part of this – and part of this Zarqawi network in Baghdad are two dozen Egyptian Islamic jihad which is indistinguishable from al Qaeda – operatives who are aiding the Zarqawi network, and two senior planners who have been in Baghdad since last May. Now, whether there is a base or whether there is not a base, they are operating freely, supporting the Zarqawi network that is supporting the poisons network in Europe and around the world. So these people have been operating there. And, as you know – I don't want to recount everything that Secretary Powell said, but as you know a foreign service went to the Iraqis twice to talk to them about Zarqawi and were rebuffed. So there is a presence in Baghdad that is beyond Zarqawi."
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Here's Mr Tenet's response to a question from a Democrat Senator at the same hearing: "We have said – what we've said is Zarqawi and this large number of operatives are in Baghdad. They say the environment is good. And it is inconceivable to us that the Iraqi intelligence service doesn't know that they live there or what they're doing."
