Impressive, MT. Perhaps the Republican congressman initially felt there was no harm in stating what appears to be common knowledge within the United States.
Cuts down the after-the-fact spin doctoring arguments right down to size – so small that they can ride the MRT for free, so small that most amusement park rides won’t let them on.
[quote=“mofangongren”]Impressive, MT. Perhaps the Republican congressman initially felt there was no harm in stating what appears to be common knowledge within the United States.
Cuts down the after-the-fact spin doctoring arguments right down to size – so small that they can ride the MRT for free, so small that most amusement park rides won’t let them on.[/quote]
Right.
The attacks of 911 never happened.
Too many times if you ask me. Nevermind, but it seems you seem to care more about what he said than if the underlying facts were/are actually correct or wrong and if Bush didn’t know that parts of the facts he presented were weak at best if not wrong/exaggerated/questionable/untrue etc.
IMO later, i.e. without WMD, it would have been impossible for Bush to get support for an invasion of Iraq. And later would have been by the time the final UN weapons inspector’s report would have come out, with the result we all know about by now.
WMD were a convenient because convincing reason and no doubt the Bush administration rushed to war so they wouldn’t look like fools when the final report had said something along the line of “Iraq has no WMD and is no threat to the ME and the US” and forcing them to back down.
A mess? - Nice way of putting it. But where does ‘going in earlier’ come from? Opinion or [true] fact?
If the latter please show where it was said that the US would have a) invaded Iraq anyhow (‘later’, as you put it) and b) done so without the WMD argument.
Given the amount of discrepancies between his speeches and the facts I wouldn’t hope or expect that.
I didn’t ask you… 
I don’t think you’ve understood any of my arguments regarding this issue.
I don’t know about “impossible”. It would have been more difficult, that’s for certain.
But, it sure is a good thing that we did invade Iraq and get Saddam out of there.
But, I guess I could assume (as you did above) that it seems you would rather have left Saddam in power to crush the Iraqi people and menace his neighbors and support Palestinian terrorism and terrorist acts against women and children in Israel… right?
Nonsense. We do not know that a final UN inspectors report would have come out nor do we know what any report would have said. The reason we KNOW what we know now is that the US and coalition forces went in and verified the condition. Saddam was not cooperating (even the UN report prior to the invasion admitted this) with the inspections.
No doubt? Have you proof of that? Don’t make me quote your previous statements regarding this type of assertion. 
I don’t understand your question.
I don’t think we would have invaded had Saddam complied with the UNSC resolution. I’m glad he was too stupid to comply.
What discrepancies? Please cite and explain the same.
[quote=“Tigerman”]Right.
The attacks of 911 never happened.[/quote]
But wait a second Tigerman… don’t you know the “fact” that Iraq had nothing to do with 911!!!
Then again, as we’ve discussed previously, the Iraq-911 connection (or lack of it) is really only relevant if we think that getting revenge for 911 should be our key foreign policy goal. If, alternatively, we think that preventing future 911-style attacks is the key thing, then I suppose we would not care so much about the question “Was Iraq involved in 911?” but would rather ask ourselves the question “How can we reduce the long term chances of another 911 type attack happening in the future?”
This “let’s finally try and do something to reduce the root causes of terrorism at their source” approach, I suppose, might lead us to try and do something to begin a gradual transformation of the Middle East from a place that creates creates the kind of hatred and frustration that lead to 911, to a place where people are represented in government, to a place where leaders do not take money intended to buy medicine for sick children and use it for gold-plated palaces etc. Maybe try and find a way to help create a place where the people are not so miserable and angry after years of abuse by their rulers, that they would no longer need to look for scapegoats for their anger, or turn in desperation to intolerant fanaticism…
So yeah, okay, on second thought I guess I can see where you were going with the 911 reference…
OK, Rascal. Put your money where your mouth is. Let’s start with this speech below. Show me the discrepancies. This should be easy for you, as you claim that there is a large amount of discrepancies between the speeches and the facts.
[quote=“President Bush on 29 January 2002”]Our discoveries in Afghanistan confirmed our worst fears, and showed us the true scope of the task ahead. We have seen the depth of our enemies’ hatred in videos, where they laugh about the loss of innocent life. And the depth of their hatred is equaled by the madness of the destruction they design. We have found diagrams of American nuclear power plants and public water facilities, detailed instructions for making chemical weapons, surveillance maps of American cities, and thorough descriptions of landmarks in America and throughout the world.
What we have found in Afghanistan confirms that, far from ending there, our war against terror is only beginning. Most of the 19 men who hijacked planes on September the 11th were trained in Afghanistan’s camps, and so were tens of thousands of others. Thousands of dangerous killers, schooled in the methods of murder, often supported by outlaw regimes, are now spread throughout the world like ticking time bombs, set to go off without warning
Apparently there were 27 reasons to attack Iraq. With all of those reasons, there’s bound to be at least one that you can agree with.
[quote]The results showed that twenty-seven rationales for the war on Iraq were used at one time or another, twenty-three of which can be attributed to the administration. Five rationales were prominent in all three phases: the war on terror, the desire to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the lack of inspections, the desire to remove the Hussein regime, and the fact that Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator. One rationale surfaced initially and gained favor over time: the interest in liberating the people of Iraq. One other rationale emerged later and became very important to official sources and the media: the imminent threat that Iraq posed, though the words
I thought this was general knowledge by now. 
Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt, but this is unmitigated garbage I thought even you were incapable of.
I think we’ve all seen this sort of reasoning before, usually from people who with smug assurances that this was all “organized” by the CIA and Mossad. However, most of us Americans don’t buy into that load of malarkey.
If you really think that 9/11 never happened, I encourage you to go down to Ground Zero. I’ve been there. I have longstanding friends who were watching the fire from the first plane when they witnessed the crash of the second.
Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt, but this is unmitigated garbage I thought even you were incapable of. [/quote]
You really don’t think that it’s possible that 911 played a role in galvanizing the notion that it was time to start taking terrorism seriously, MFGR?
If that is your view, then you are certainly entitled to it. It does seem to me, though, that the 911 attacks added tremendous support to the idea that it was time to look seriously at the root causes of terrorism --namely, the intense anger and frustration created by the terrible and desperate conditions in which many ME dictators kept their people-- and to try and address this root cause at its source, rather than to simply keep putting band-aids on the surface problems.
I think 911 probably changed some perspectives on the importance of this… But who knows – maybe you are right… maybe it had no impact. 
What worst fears? That Bush was surprised in even his own incompetence in pursuing and catching the Al Qaeda terrorists responsible for 9/11?
Yep, we’ve seen our enemies’ hatred in videos. We’re still seeing it on newly released videos. You know why? Because Bush was utterly incompetent in his effort’s to catch Osama bin Laden “alive or dead.” These guys laugh at how Bush is so desperate he’s got to lie to the American people and try to distract his own citizens with mythical enemies. More proof that Bush is lazy and basically went after the low-hanging fruit of Iraq when he should have kept his focus on the Al Qaeda groups. Put simply, Bush has the attention span of a small child.
[quote=“Tigerman”][quote=“President Bush on 29 January 2002”]What we have found in Afghanistan confirms that, far from ending there, our war against terror is only beginning. Most of the 19 men who hijacked planes on September the 11th were trained in Afghanistan’s camps, and so were tens of thousands of others. Thousands of dangerous killers, schooled in the methods of murder, often supported by outlaw regimes, are now spread throughout the world like ticking time bombs, set to go off without warning
Holy handjob!
There it is again, that ‘kicked out the inspectors’ claim. Sometimes I wonder why I even bother.
Spook – Hans Blix is probably spinning in his office chair right now.
[quote]In the autumn of 2002, Blix said Friday, he still had a
You could not assume the same if you were to recall some previous statement of mine in which I did not object the removal of Saddam. I however oppose the means used, i.e. the invasion.
And since you brought up supporting terrorists in Palestine: any proof that removing Saddam has changed anything there? I mean it seems that this was an important reason (else why did you mention it?) and now that Saddam is gone we should expect / see significant changes because of that.
Attacks however have continued and any changes taking place are coming from the inside (on both sides), not because Saddam had been removed.
I think we went through this before but perhaps you can present us some (new) facts on this.
Nonsense? Nope - there was sufficient indications (made public) previously to reports about Saddams WMD facilities/arsenals were, shall we say, flawed. Ask the weapons inspectors and your own intelligence agencies and see the information (e.g. memos) from that time which turns up now and then. Besides, the on-going inspections would have verified what the US had been asking for - and it’s very reasonable to assume the US was afraid that the result would not “meet their expectations” and prevent an invasion for a long time.
I don’t make you do anything, it’s your free choice to do it or not do it. Besides, I am merely stating my opinion.
Your statements:
So the question is: when is later / earlier than what? Just seeking clarification if you meant to say/imply that Bush would have invaded anyhow, perhaps for all the other reasons he stated (except WMD that is).
If yes, is that your opinion or a fact? If it’s a fact, please provide proof of the same.
Discrepancies as in “Saddam has this and Saddam has that and we (the US) have the proof / we know” but nothing of this and that has been found to date. If I am not mistaken even the lead to Syria turned out to be a blank.
Firstly you are being selective (in your favor), secondly parts of that speech are hypothetical and thirdly I didn’t say all his speeches (or his entire speeches) are discrepant.
So do I really need to quote Bush & Co. where they stated certain knowledge that Iraq/Saddam possesses all those WMDs? Since none were found as of today I believe it is right to call it a discrepancy, which is one of the reasons for me not to trust everything Bush says. He might be right on occassion but that doesn’t mean I have to believe everything he tells us. Not that this makes him much different from other politicans in that regard but he is one of the few (if not the only one) that claims to spread freedom, democracy etc. and goes to war on flawed/faulty evidence, runs several prison camps outside of US juristriction, has people detained in countries known to torture, has cases of abuse and torture by US military personal on-going under this watch etc. etc.
But fine, stick to his speeches, believe in his fears, his worst-case scenarios of threats against the US and so on - who then needs to care about the accurateness of the facts stated, the means used, some leading to the incidents mentioned, the violation of the values he preaches etc.
But hey, ignorance is bliss - in particular if it doesn’t directly affect those that support him.
Unaccounted does not mean they are there / still exist. Perhaps had the US let them finish the inspections they would have been accounted for as the US did account for them …
Uh… that the terrorists were intent on using and actively seeking to obtain WMD to use against us. Jaysus, you are not really ignorant of this, are you?
You seem uncomfortable with my question put to you earlier, i.e., do you believe that democratic reform in the mid-east is the best way to deal with the problems created by despotic autocratic governments that opress their peoples thus resulting in a rise in terrorists?
Your constant bitching and moaning about members of al Qaeda still being at large would almost be funny, if it were not so pathetic. Honestly, what do you think Clinton or Gore or Kerry would have done if they were President at 911? Lobbed a few cruise missiles? Initiated a study group to understand the cause of the terrorists’ anger at us? Met with the Europeans and or UN to discuss sanctions against the meanies?
Your denial of any success against the terrorists is sad. The fact is, since 911 there has been no terrorist act against the US (in the US) when everyone was expecting the same soon. al Qaeda is on the run and they have been badly beaten… it is only a matter of time before OBL is caught. Hell, its funny we don’t read your complaints about Clinton letting OBL get away when the Sudanese offered him to us. Clinton was worried about whether or not taking OBL in that way would be a violation of international law! Fucking Hell! Bush has these assholes running for their lives with their tails tucked between their legs and you are complaining because they have not all been captured (as if al Qaeda will collapse and cease operations when OBL is captured ). Get a freakin’ clue.
[quote=“Tigerman”][quote=“President Bush on 29 January 2002”]What we have found in Afghanistan confirms that, far from ending there, our war against terror is only beginning. Most of the 19 men who hijacked planes on September the 11th were trained in Afghanistan’s camps, and so were tens of thousands of others. Thousands of dangerous killers, schooled in the methods of murder, often supported by outlaw regimes, are now spread throughout the world like ticking time bombs, set to go off without warning
[quote=“spook”]Holy handjob!
There it is again, that ‘kicked out the inspectors’ claim. Sometimes I wonder why I even bother.[/quote]
spook,
Saddam constructively “kicked” them out.
[quote=“Rascal”]And since you brought up supporting terrorists in Palestine: any proof that removing Saddam has changed anything there? I mean it seems that this was an important reason (else why did you mention it?) and now that Saddam is gone we should expect / see significant changes because of that.
Attacks however have continued and any changes taking place are coming from the inside (on both sides), not because Saddam had been removed.
I think we went through this before but perhaps you can present us some (new) facts on this…[/quote]
I do not need to raise any new facts to illustrate the flaw in your logic. Its really very simple. Pay attention.
I never said that removing Saddam from Iraq would end terrorism against Israel. I said that terrorism agaisnt Israel would not stop while regimes suported and encouraged the same. Iraq supported and encouraged terrorism against Israel. Iraq does not do so any longer. However, Syria and Iran also support and encourage terrorism against Israel. Since the ouster of Saddam, events have transpired that make it hopeful, at least, that Syria will lose its ability to support and encourage terrorism against Israel and with Saddam out of the way and Iraq no longer posing a threat to Iran, and with reform in the region, we can hope that Iran too will undergo change for the better.
Its amazing that some of you folks are acting as if the only way to judge Bush’s policy as successful would be an immediate end of all problems in the ME. The problems will take time and effort to remedy. Bush stated the same in his many speeches… but, then again, you haven’t read those… 
Who cares? We may have been wrong. So what? We’ve already discussed this to death. Move the fuck on, will you?
So, show me the discrepancies.
Rascal… read this very carefully… I don’t give a shit. Bush was wrong… the intelligence was wrong. So what? Would you rather have Saddam put back in power and reverse the results of the election in Iraq and disband the current government there? What is your problem?
Pitiful. So, because Bush was wrong about the WMD, you also distrust his statements of desire to implement and follow a policy of encouraging democratic reform in the ME and world wherever possible?
That’s truly astounding, especially given the events that have transpired since Saddam was ousted from his position of power in Iraq.
Believe? What’s to believe? You either agree that democratic reform is a good way to deal with the problems in the ME or you do not. We can disagree about the policies implemented to facilitate such reform… but, I find it odd that you would use the term “believe” in the context of this discussion. :s
Oh for goodness sake Who else leads a war to bring democracy to an area far from home and does so in a completely immaculate and flawless manner? Yes, there have been mistakes. These should be remedied where possible and prevented where possible. But to harbor suspicions re the overall strategy and goal based on certain flaws in the execution of the plan seems very strange, IMO.
[quote=“Rascal”]But fine, stick to his speeches, believe in his fears, his worst-case scenarios of threats against the US and so on - who then needs to care about the accurateness of the facts stated, the means used, some leading to the incidents mentioned, the violation of the values he preaches etc.
But hey, ignorance is bliss - in particular if it doesn’t directly affect those that support him.[/quote]
Rascal, do you disagree with Bush’s idea that the best way to remedy the problem of terrorism is to address and deal with the root causes of terrorism? If yes, do you agree that encouraging and facilitating democratic reform and providing economic assistance is the best way to deal with the problem?
The theory I’m currently working on is that Saddam made the Republican Guard eat the missing WMD somewhere between the time that Colin Powell spotted them from the air and the U.S. invaded.
Think about it. The evidence has been there all along right under our noses. We’ve all seen those videos of the terrorists running around in the night glowing like escaped lab rats and being picked off by the good guys. What do you think makes them glow like that? If it was something that all Iraqis ate they’d all glow like that but only the bad guys do. That’s why U.S. Army regulations allow soldiers to pick off anyone over there on sight just for glowing in the dark.
It all makes sense when you think about it.
You can deny it all you want but the denial ain’t a river in Egypt. The fact that there’s no proof that they don’t glow because they ate WMD makes it an open and shut case if ever there was one.
Besides, it’s up to them to prove that they don’t glow because they tried to hide the WMD where the sun don’t shine. It’s an old con’s trick that Hans Blix and his bunk buddy Jimmy Carter were just too dumb to figure out.