Bush has failed to answer for Sept. 11 - moved

[JohnDoe]

Well, I don't believe we had an ally agreement of any sort with Kuwait. But the Brits did, and the Brits got a great deal of their oil from the Kuwait region.... George HW Bush did not want to go in to gulf war one, he said as mush to us and the very public, but then he got a visit from Margaret Thatcher, is what I have read, and changed his mind shortly after this meeting. Many say Thatcher asked for our help, and honestly, I don't find that hard to believe. Especially the way the Brits have come to our aid with this crisis, and stuck by us, no matter what, like there was some sort of IOU owed to us... AND THERE WAS, if we bailed their rumps out back with Gulf war one. (and yes I know we were also told that there were concerns about saddam going in to Saudi Arabia afterwards, but this has been disproven, I believe?)

And also Manu, there is the fact that the Cease fire for Gulf War 1 was never a cease fire agreement with us.

It was a Cease fire agreement that the UN drew up ...and Kuwait and Iraq are the signatories, the usa was not a signer of the Cease fire agreement, like I said, I am pretty certain it was Kuwait and Iraq because I remember looking it up once for debate a couple of years back. (But if you insist, I will search for a link, with my ever so slow dial up.....to give to you. )

And I was going to post to Gabby that I disagree this had anything to do with saddam's attempts on to Bush 1.... That is too simplistic imo, I think it was more on the line of building an oil empire in our pocket like all of our other competitors have done( only without war) like Russia and India and even China, with certain middle eastern oil producing communities like Iran on some, AND protecting our ally Israel, AND more on the lines of the PNAC's goals of world control by the usa, or policing the world.....

Iraq has an estimate of 20% of the entire world's oil reserves, and we use 25% of the entire world's oil taken out of the ground, even though we are only 5% of the population, or something like this....?

This is not about a simple assasination attempt, not in the least, imho Gabs!

And I would have to disagree with Gunny and maybe you, i think that this was "pushed" on to the American people as a war that would stop the smoking gun in this country from being a mushroom cloud, (wmd) ask Condi.

This was also INDIRECTLY, and multiple, multiple, multiple times by various people in the administration, linked to 9/11 and many people in this country felt that it was Saddam that attacked us. I did not. But i could see how they thought the way they did, the way the ''sort of mindcontrol/brainwashing) took place, the repetitive mentioning of 911 and alqaeda and Iraq in the same paragraphs or even sentences, in speech after speech and 24/7 shows after 24/7 shows in the media.

Anyway, that's how this DOVE feels and thinks on the subject.

jd

[gabosaurus]

ConReps have been blowing out the "Dems in Congress also agreed!" crap about Iraq for years. The reason they agreed is because the Bushies flat out lied to them. Lied about WMDs. Lied about the connections between Saddam and AQ. Lied about Iraq as a threat.
The Bushies have been shitting out lies for years. The Bush apologists have been swallowing and regurgitating it all for the same amount of time.
It's all backtrack lies and deceit. All to cover up the terrorist actions of the Bushies. He promotes the bloodshed and you all celebrate it.

[jimnyc]

ConReps have been blowing out the "Dems in Congress also agreed!" crap about Iraq for years. The reason they agreed is because the Bushies flat out lied to them. Lied about WMDs.

Sorry to break the news to you but quite a few democrats were on the intelligence committee and were privy to the intel as well. And let's not forget the dems who were going on about Saddam and how he needed to be taken care of since 1998.

[Dilloduck]

ConReps have been blowing out the "Dems in Congress also agreed!" crap about Iraq for years. The reason they agreed is because the Bushies flat out lied to them. Lied about WMDs. Lied about the connections between Saddam and AQ. Lied about Iraq as a threat.
The Bushies have been shitting out lies for years. The Bush apologists have been swallowing and regurgitating it all for the same amount of time.
It's all backtrack lies and deceit. All to cover up the terrorist actions of the Bushies. He promotes the bloodshed and you all celebrate it.

Bullshit---the democrats knew the scoop and didnt want to miss the boat. They wanted their names on there as supporting the invasion so they could take credit for it if it was a quick success. "Bush tricked us"----

[Kathianne]

Bush invaded afganistan as a response to 911.....

bush invaded iraq as the terms of the cease fire of gulf I were violated....

tell me of your great Saviour's response to.... WTC I.....somalia....the uss cole...the us embassy bombings....

Exactly. Afghanistan in 2001, Iraq 2003.

[JohnDoe]

Sorry to break the news to you but quite a few democrats were on the intelligence committee and were privy to the intel as well. And let's not forget the dems who were going on about Saddam and how he needed to be taken care of since 1998.

Put up!

SHOW me ONE Democrat back in 1998 that said we had to go in to a full fledge war to take care of saddam and his threat to us? NONE did. as far as I have seen from the quotes gathered by your side's partisan blogs and sites , it has all been the "big stick hype" a lion roaring, that we americans do well...
imo.

and we didn't send our troops in to a full fledge war to take out Saddam.

so the history also shows those "tough" statements back then were just that, STATEMENTS ...carrying the big stick, but not ready or willing to use it on Saddam....imo.


(When a lion roars he can't be hunting and he can't be devouring his prey, it is one of the safest times to be in the neighborhood of a lion, some say )

[jimnyc]

Put up!

SHOW me ONE Democrat back in 1998 that said we had to go in to a full fledge war to take care of saddam and his threat to us?

Why don't you stop trying to put words in my mouth and ask me to put up what I stated? I can easily produce factual quotes of MANY democrats claiming Saddam needed to be stopped and similar based comments. But I never stated any of them said we needed a full fledged war.

This is why you libs have a bad name when it comes to debating, you guys tend to just make shit up as you go along regardless of what we say.

[waterrescuedude2000]

No person in their right mind will vote for Hillary. Or Tancredo.

Note to WRdude: No one has "defended our country" since WWII. You may have served in the military, but you did not "defend our country." Because our country has not been threatened. You silly whining merely points out how ridiculously uneducated and uninformed you are.

I read the responses to my thread. Obviously, none of you read it correctly. You have simply regurgitated the same stale old talking points.
The invasion of Iraq WAS the Bush response to Sept. 11. If you remember the idiots who attempted to link Saddam with the attacks. It is obvious that he didn't give a shit about bin Laden. Dubya merely wanted to take personal vengeance on Saddam.

You can post the WTC attack all you want. It doesn't explain why we never captured bin Laden. Or why we did not hold the Saudis accountable for the attacks. Instead, we took out someone who meant nothing.

So while I was in the military what was I doing just looking pretty when I was overseas?????? Oh wait I was sitting with a thumb up my ass doing absolutely nothing no it wasn't your freedom of speech I was defending it was Kosovo which you probably think we should have never been there??????

[waterrescuedude2000]

No they never said it out right they just made 70 % of the America believe striking Saddam was fighting AQ.

How many AQ leaders have been killed and or captured between Afghanistan and Iraq???? Oh wait you liberals would rather fight the terrorists in our streets right???? You can argue that they are over there fighting us because we have invaded their "holy land" Well it is pretty well full of holes now because we are fucking them up. Anyways back to the point would you rather fight them here and they can kill our innocent civilians or theirs???? I'd rather not see civilians die but it is a fact of war civilians have died in every war in the history of mankind and I would rather see theirs die than ours. Sound cold???? Well tough shit better them than us.

[JohnDoe]

ConReps have been blowing out the "Dems in Congress also agreed!" crap about Iraq for years. The reason they agreed is because the Bushies flat out lied to them. Lied about WMDs. Lied about the connections between Saddam and AQ. Lied about Iraq as a threat.
The Bushies have been shitting out lies for years. The Bush apologists have been swallowing and regurgitating it all for the same amount of time.
It's all backtrack lies and deceit. All to cover up the terrorist actions of the Bushies. He promotes the bloodshed and you all celebrate it.

the majority of the democrats in congress DID NOT VOTE for the resolution.

the resolution was to give President Bush only, the decision in choosing to NOT GO TO WAR or to Go to war.... the Congress relinquished their constitutional powers to do this, imho....though i am open for discussion or debate on this....

either the day before or the day of the resolution, president Bush told congress and told the nation and ''insisted, that he had NOT made up his mind yet, on whether going to war was necessary. I guess now, with the rewriting of history, everyone is saying and implying that all the dems voted FOR THE WAR TOO.... And that is NOT how it really came down at the time.... people's memories are short i guess, and our political sides that influence us...know it, again, imo.

jd

[waterrescuedude2000]

Ridiculous points. Why did we invade Iraq? They had nothing that we needed or wanted. There are more than a dozen lunatic mass murderers running countries. Why did we choose one of them? Or did it just happen to be the one that dissed Bush's daddy?
The U.S. was attacked in World War II. We had war declared on us. The U.S. did not attack a country without provocation.



You have a selective memory. Cheney said it a couple of times. Rice also made the connection.

So let me get this straight.... The United States was not attacked?????? What about the Twin towers, The pentagon, all of our civilians on those planes. No they were never attacked just keep pretending that it never happened. THIS WAS THE PEARL HARBOR OF OUR TIME!!!!!! THEY DID DECLARE WAR ON US as he said before its called Jihad which means a holy war.... The U.S. did not attack a country without provocation.... Oh so we attacked Afghanistan for no reason???? I won't even bother to try and pull your head out of your ass about Iraq. You have your head so far up your ass you cant see the light of day. I will say that the liberal media makes it look 10 times worse than it is over there. They probably have done that in every war surprise surprise right???

[Gaffer]

Put up!

SHOW me ONE Democrat back in 1998 that said we had to go in to a full fledge war to take care of saddam and his threat to us? NONE did. as far as I have seen from the quotes gathered by your side's partisan blogs and sites , it has all been the "big stick hype" a lion roaring, that we americans do well...
imo.

and we didn't send our troops in to a full fledge war to take out Saddam.

so the history also shows those "tough" statements were just that, STATEMENTS...carrying the big stick, but not ready or willing to use it on Saddam....imo.


(When a lion roars he can't be hunting and he can't be devouring his prey, it is one of the safest times to be in the neighborhood of a lion, some say )

Hopefully Jim or one of the others has that list of dems that recited what all had to be done about saddam. It's been posted on this board in a couple of threads. It includes every major dem/lib who is currently complaining about iraq and calling for withdrawal from iraq and that we should never have gone there.

We initially went into iraq to take down saddam. That was the initial mission. It was a full fledged war. I dare you to tell my nephew he wasn't in a full fledged war. Saddam had 25 divisions facing our forces when they went in. Our forces cleaned them out with three divisions.

The tough talk and big stick was saddam. We warned him he was going down then went in with a chain saw.

When a lion roars you know where he is. You don't know where his mates are, and they are the ones doing the hunting.

[retiredman]

So let me get this straight.... The United States was not attacked?????? What about the Twin towers, The pentagon, all of our civilians on those planes. No they were never attacked just keep pretending that it never happened. THIS WAS THE PEARL HARBOR OF OUR TIME!!!!!! THEY DID DECLARE WAR ON US as he said before its called Jihad which means a holy war.... The U.S. did not attack a country without provocation.... Oh so we attacked Afghanistan for no reason???? I won't even bother to try and pull your head out of your ass about Iraq. You have your head so far up your ass you cant see the light of day. I will say that the liberal media makes it look 10 times worse than it is over there. They probably have done that in every war surprise surprise right???

the US was attacked. We were attacked by an enemy that we really ought to have been concentrating on 24/7 since 9/11/01. Our offensive against Afghanistan was appropriate and was evidence that the Bush administration was, indeed concentrating on the enemy that had attacked us.

The attack against Iraq was clear evidence that the Bush administration had taken their eyes off the ball... had forgotten who the real enemy was, and everything that has happened since then has been counterproductive to the effort to prevail in the conflict against the guys who attacked us.

THEY are as strong today as they were the day they attacked us. THAT is what Bush has spent five years, 31K dead and wounded, and a half a trillion dollars to accomplish: our enemy is undiminished in his capacity.

And beyond that, the war in Iraq has created chaos and carnage and anarchy in Iraq where once there was brutal order. It has emboldened Iran and allowed it to increase its stature in the Islamic world and make significant gains in its regional hegemony agenda that had been fairly well contained and foiled by the orderly brute we deposed....the same orderly brute and tinhorn dictator that Bush's own secretary of state claimed was not a threat to America months before 9/11.

General William Odom, former director of the NSA, has called the decision to invade Iraq the worst strategic blunder of our country's history.... but what the fuck does HE know, right?

[JohnDoe]

Hopefully Jim or one of the others has that list of dems that recited what all had to be done about saddam. It's been posted on this board in a couple of threads. It includes every major dem/lib who is currently complaining about iraq and calling for withdrawal from iraq and that we should never have gone there.

We initially went into iraq to take down saddam. That was the initial mission. It was a full fledged war. I dare you to tell my nephew he wasn't in a full fledged war. Saddam had 25 divisions facing our forces when they went in. Our forces cleaned them out with three divisions.

The tough talk and big stick was saddam. We warned him he was going down then went in with a chain saw.

When a lion roars you know where he is. You don't know where his mates are, and they are the ones doing the hunting.

You know, either you are just trying to bate me or you have a reading comprehension problem Gaffer...j/k u btwWhat I am speaking about above is that back in 1998 when all of those tough statements and professions of saddam's danger to us was going on, it was nothing but a Lion roaring....pretending we are carrying a big stick and that we would use it yahdeedah.... but Clinton nor the Democrats, nor the Republicans at that time for this matter, recommended or suggested or acted upon, going in to a full fledge war, to take the threat of saddam out.

AND YES, of COURSE the war in Iraq is a full fledge war.... that was MY POINT!

[Kathianne]

the US was attacked. We were attacked by an enemy that we really ought to have been concentrating on 24/7 since 9/11/01. Our offensive against Afghanistan was appropriate and was evidence that the Bush administration was, indeed concentrating on the enemy that had attacked us.

The attack against Iraq was clear evidence that the Bush administration had taken their eyes off the ball... had forgotten who the real enemy was, and everything that has happened since then has been counterproductive to the effort to prevail in the conflict against the guys who attacked us.

THEY are as strong today as they were the day they attacked us. THAT is what Bush has spent five years, 31K dead and wounded, and a half a trillion dollars to accomplish: our enemy is undiminished in his capacity.

And beyond that, the war in Iraq has created chaos and carnage and anarchy in Iraq where once there was brutal order. It has emboldened Iran and allowed it to increase its stature in the Islamic world and make significant gains in its regional hegemony agenda that had been fairly well contained and foiled by the orderly brute we deposed....the same orderly brute and tinhorn dictator that Bush's own secretary of state claimed was not a threat to America months before 9/11.

General William Odom, former director of the NSA, has called the decision to invade Iraq the worst strategic blunder of our country's history.... but what the fuck does HE know, right?

I haven't made up my mind, at this late date whether I agree with you or not. Somehow though I am reminded of the Red Cross and inspections of German 'detention'/retraining camps and their sign off that everything was more than acceptable.