From the bastion of the left....

[Annie]

Look boys and girls. I'm not going to say that Iraq necessarily should have been the second front, but I do. If not for OBL and Taliban, it would have been first. Then again, if OBL had been able to remain in SA, they would have been first and perhaps last, which would make much more sense than what came after. But they did exile him and here we are.

Iraq because of Saddam, perhaps not. Iraq as a serious base in ME, yes. About the innocents killed, yes that is regretable, so it was under Saddam. As for the casualties in Iraq, when caused by US actions, they are able to be treated by US facilities. I grant that's only somewhat comforting, but more than was available prior.

 

[Cypress]

We were lied to about Iraq, in the run up to the war:

*CIA/Senate Bipartisan Report on Iraq Intelligence, September 2006:

-Conclusion 1: "Postwar findings indicate that Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qa'ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qa'ida to provide material or operational support."

-Conclusion 4: "Postwar findings support the April 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) assessment that there was no credible reporting on al-Qa'ida training at Salman Pak or anywhere else in Iraq. There have been no credible reports since the war that Iraq trained al-Qa'ida operatives at Salman Pak to conduct or support transnational terrorist operations."

-Conclusion 5: Postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi

-Conclusion 6: Prewar interactions between Saddam Hussein's government and al-Qaeda affiliate group Ansar al-Islam were attempts by Saddam to spy on the group rather than to support or work with them.. "Postwar information reveals that Baghdad viewed Ansar al-Islam as a threat to the regime and that the IIS attempted to collect intelligence on the group."


http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf

.

 

[NOVA]

I would ask that every single conservate on this board answer this question once and for all:

ARE YOU OR HAVE YOU EVER BEEN, AWARE, THAT THE NY TIMES EDITORIAL PAGES, AKA "THAT BASTION OF THE LEFT" STRONGLY ADVOCATED FOR THE IRAQI WAR PRE-INVASION?

Yes, I am aware but choose to ignore it, it's more convienent.
No, I was not aware, I get my news from only Matt Drudge and he said they were commies.

Thank you.

Why ? Biden, Cleland, Clinton, Daschle, Dodd, Dorgan, Edwards, Feinstein, Harkin, Hollings, Kerry, Landrieu, Lieberman, Lincoln, Reid, Rockefeller, Schumer, Toricelli, etc.

There was alot of support from the left....

These are just some of the BIG NAME leaders in the Democratic Senate that helped pass the War Resolution....
But when the "worms" turned so did the NY TIMES...when they get the DNC talking points, they follow....

 

[Annie]

Why ? Biden, Cleland, Clinton, Daschle, Dodd, Dorgan, Edwards, Feinstein, Harkin, Hollings, Kerry, Landrieu, Lieberman, Lincoln, Reid, Rockefeller, Schumer, Toricelli, etc.

There was alot of support from the left....

These are just some of the BIG NAME leaders in the Democratic Senate that helped pass the War Resolution....
But when the "worms" turned so did the NY TIMES...when they get the DNC talking points, they follow....

A 'con' to your way of thinking, I choose, I knew of some editorialists being pro-Iraq war, but they were in the minority. Included Judy Brown, which is your ace.

 

[LadyT]

Look boys and girls. I'm not going to say that Iraq necessarily should have been the second front, but I do. (#1)If not for OBL and Taliban, it would have been first. Then again, (#2) if OBL had been able to remain in SA, they would have been first and perhaps last, which would make much more sense than what came after. But they did exile him and here we are.

Iraq because of Saddam, perhaps not.(#3) Iraq as a serious base in ME, yes.(#4)About the innocents killed, yes that is regretable, so it was under Saddam.(#5) As for the casualties in Iraq, when caused by US actions, they are able to be treated by US facilities. I grant that's only somewhat comforting, but more than was available prior.

Absolultely nothing in that post makes sense or even resembles a conjecture based on facts.

#1) You have things completely confused. THE ONLY reason the Iraq resolution passed was because of the Taliban and the culture of fear that permeating throughout the US. It most certainly is not the other way around. That was evidenced by Bush's continual exploitation of 9/11 and his speeches that implied Iraq had something to do with 9/11. Most of the country was confused. If I'm not mistaken at the time over 80% of the people thought Saddam worked with the taliban and had some part in 9/11. The idea of pre-emtively striking was simply not an option that was applicable pre-9/11.

#2) I'm calling bullshit. Most of the people that attack the US on 9/11 were Saudi Arabian. If we didn't hit them then we aren't going to hit them until of course we run out of oil. Or do I need to pull up a photo of Bush making out with the Saudi Crown Prince.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/27/eveningnews/main691413.shtml

#3) Are you really saying that its okay to invade Iraq, not because of Saddam but because the US needed another ME base?

#4/5) I didn't vote for Saddam and he didn't represent me throughout the world. My taxes are funding this bullshit in Iraq. REgardless of what wrongs Saddam committed, my so-called pResident is at the helm of the biggest debacle in our history. Dismissing the destruction of innocent people's lives in my name pisses me off immensely. I for one can't consider the lives lost as simply 'regretable' and continue on guilt free with my life. Children have lost limbs, people have lost homes, loved ones and a way of life that they enjoyed and that was ten times better than the hell we've brought them. So telling me that they can be treated at US facilities is of no comfort or justifcation for me.

 

[Cypress]

Why ? Biden, Cleland, Clinton, Daschle, Dodd, Dorgan, Edwards, Feinstein, Harkin, Hollings, Kerry, Landrieu, Lieberman, Lincoln, Reid, Rockefeller, Schumer, Toricelli, etc.

There was alot of support from the left....

These are just some of the BIG NAME leaders in the Democratic Senate that helped pass the War Resolution....
But when the "worms" turned so did the NY TIMES...when they get the DNC talking points, they follow....

You didn't answer the question.

Were you aware that the NY Times endorsed Bush's war? Yes or no?


I would also ask you if you were aware that the Washington Post also endorsed Bush's War?

 

[Annie]

Absolultely nothing in that post makes sense or even resembles a conjecture based on facts.

#1) You have things completely confused. THE ONLY reason the Iraq resolution passed was because of the Taliban and the culture of fear that permeating throughout the US. It most certainly is not the other way around. That was evidenced by Bush's continual exploitation of 9/11 and his speeches that implied Iraq had something to do with 9/11. Most of the country was confused. If I'm not mistaken at the time over 80% of the people thought Saddam worked with the taliban and had some part in 9/11. The idea of pre-emtively striking was simply not an option that was applicable pre-9/11.

#2) I'm calling bullshit. Most of the people that attack the US on 9/11 were Saudi Arabian. If we didn't hit them then we aren't going to hit them until of course we run out of oil. Or do I need to pull up a photo of Bush making out with the Saudi Crown Prince.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/27/eveningnews/main691413.shtml

#3) Are you really saying that its okay to invade Iraq, not because of Saddam but because the US needed another ME base?

#4/5) I didn't vote for Saddam and he didn't represent me throughout the world. My taxes are funding this bullshit in Iraq. REgardless of what wrongs Saddam committed, my so-called pResident is at the helm of the biggest debacle in our history. Dismissing the destruction of innocent people's lives in my name pisses me off immensely. I for one can't consider the lives lost as simply 'regretable' and continue on guilt free with my life. Children have lost limbs, people have lost homes, loved ones and a way of life that they enjoyed and that was ten times better than the hell we've brought them. So telling me that they can be treated at US facilities is of no comfort or justifcation for me.

I disagree. If SA had not kicked UBL out, Afghanistan would not have been in play and most likely, the #1 state would have been SA. In no case would Iraq have been #1, it's importance has to do with location, which if SA had been in play, may not have been necessary.

I have more empathy than it sounds, certainly more than you would ever give credence to, regardless of my nice words.

 

[Cypress]

I disagree. If SA had not kicked UBL out, Afghanistan would not have been in play and most likely, the #1 state would have been SA. In no case would Iraq have been #1, it's importance has to do with location, which if SA had been in play, may not have been necessary.

I have more empathy than it sounds, certainly more than you would ever give credence to, regardless of my nice words.

1) Bin Laden was banished from the kingdom of Saudi Arabia in the mid 1990s, over a decade ago. I have no idea where you get the idea that OBL was holed up in SA.

2) There's not a snow balls chance in hell, that Clinton, Gore, or Bush would invade Saudi Arabia. Even if bin laden was there. Which he wasn't.

 

[Cancel7]

I disagree. If SA had not kicked UBL out, Afghanistan would not have been in play and most likely, the #1 state would have been SA. In no case would Iraq have been #1, it's importance has to do with location, which if SA had been in play, may not have been necessary.

I have more empathy than it sounds, certainly more than you would ever give credence to, regardless of my nice words.

Runyon, George W bush told me we had to go to Iraq so that the smoking gun wasn't a mushroom cloud. he lied. Now, that might be ok with you, but it's not ok with me.

And frankly, if you were responsible for a bomb falling on the head of someone I loved? You could be as empathetic as you liked, I'd be looking for you. And not to compliment you on your empathic skills.

I can't imagine why Americans think that matters. Would it matter if it were your child?

Anyway, all of our good feelings aside, Bush lied. YOu lie a country into war, you belong in prison. All the dancing in the world will never change that.

 

[LadyT]

I disagree. If SA had not kicked UBL out, Afghanistan would not have been in play and most likely, the #1 state would have been SA. In no case would Iraq have been #1, it's importance has to do with location, which if SA had been in play, may not have been necessary.

I have more empathy than it sounds, certainly more than you would ever give credence to, regardless of my nice words.

I'm not following the Saudi assertion one bit. We invaded Afghanistan because they wouldn't give up bin laden AFTER 9/11.

I have no idea how much empathy you have in your heart. I can only go by what you present on this board. When you addressed the thousands of casualties and victims of "operation freedom" you simply stated that they could be treated at US facilities, despite the fact we caused most of their current woes.

 

[Annie]

Runyon, George W bush told me we had to go to Iraq so that the smoking gun wasn't a mushroom cloud. he lied. Now, that might be ok with you, but it's not ok with me.

And frankly, if you were responsible for a bomb falling on the head of someone I loved? You could be as empathetic as you liked, I'd be looking for you. And not to compliment you on your empathic skills.

I can't imagine why Americans think that matters. Would it matter if it were your child?

Anyway, all of our good feelings aside, Bush lied. YOu lie a country into war, you belong in prison. All the dancing in the world will never change that.

And here's the real problem. What you now say are 'facts' are not to me at all. Nor mine to yours. The schism is real and will have repercussions.

 

[Cypress]

I'm not following the Saudi assertion one bit. We invaded Afghanistan because they wouldn't give up bin laden AFTER 9/11.

I have no idea how much empathy you have in your heart. I can only go by what you present on this board. When you addressed the thousands of casualties and victims of "operation freedom" you simply stated that they could be treated at US facilities, despite the fact we caused most of their current woes.

99.9% of iraqi casualites are being treated at iraqi hospitals. Of that, I'm pretty damned sure. And a lot of the doctors and educated class have fled the country.

The amount of suffering and misery Bush and his supporters have caused - unneccessarily I might add - is unfathomable.

 

[Cancel7]

And here's the real problem. What you now say are 'facts' are not to me at all. Nor mine to yours. The schism is real and will have repercussions.

So you don't believe in an actual reality? You are a relativist? If you believe it it's real, if I believe something else, that's real, but there is no actual truth to be found?

 

[Annie]

So you don't believe in an actual reality? You are a relativist? If you believe it it's real, if I believe something else, that's real, but there is no actual truth to be found?

Actually the contrary, without trying to be difficult. What you are claiming as facts are your perceptions presented as such. I don't buy them. I assume from the get go that whatever I say, will be met as untruth by you.

 

[Cypress]

Actually the contrary, without trying to be difficult. What you are claiming as facts are your perceptions presented as such. I don't buy them. I assume from the get go that whatever I say, will be met as untruth by you.

I'm just not getting your assertion that if only OBL had stayed in saudi arabia, we could have trapped him like a rat there, and not had to go on to have your war in iraq.

That doesn't even make sense. OBL hadn't even lived in saudi arabia since like 1991 or 1992. BEFORE even the first WTC bombing. He lived in Sudan, remember? And the saudi's revoked his saudi citizenship and banished him in 1994 - well before he was known as an international terrorist.

Its almost like you're inventing alternative realities to continue to find ways to justify your war in iraq.

 

[Annie]

I'm just not getting your assertion that if only OBL had stayed in saudi arabia, we could have trapped him like a rat there, and not had to go on to have your war in iraq.

Probably because that is not what i am saying. However, SA would have been the state held responsible.

That doesn't even make sense. OBL hadn't even lived in saudi arabia since like 1991 or 1992. BEFORE even the first WTC bombing. He lived in Sudan, remember? And the saudi's revoked his saudi citizenship and banished him in 1994 - well before he was known as an international terrorist.

I remember. SA has a history of exporting it's problems, including massive numbers now in Iraq.

Its almost like you're inventing alternative realities to continue to find ways to justify your war in iraq.

Um, not.

 

[Cypress]

Probably because that is not what i am saying. However, SA would have been the state held responsible. I remember. SA has a history of exporting it's problems, including massive numbers now in Iraq. Um, not.

I'm not getting anything your saying. And its not because I'm dense. Other posters have indicated they don't understand what you're talking about.

None of what you have said explains why we're in iraq. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, with Al Qaeda, and indeed he viewed islamic extremists as a threat to his secular regime.

Are you saying we should have invaded Saudi Arabia - even though the attacks originated from a terrorist group in Afghanistan?

 

[LadyT]

99.9% of iraqi casualites are being treated at iraqi hospitals. Of that, I'm pretty damned sure. And a lot of the doctors and educated class have fled the country.

The amount of suffering and misery Bush and his supporters have caused - unneccessarily I might add - is unfathomable.

To be honest, I really don't give a rats ass where they are treated. The fact is that injuries due to terrorists or insurgents or our stray bombs and bullets is a direct result of George Bush's war.

 

[Cypress]

Look boys and girls. I'm not going to say that Iraq necessarily should have been the second front, but I do. If not for OBL and Taliban, it would have been first. Then again, if OBL had been able to remain in SA, they would have been first and perhaps last, which would make much more sense than what came after. But they did exile him and here we are.

Iraq because of Saddam, perhaps not. Iraq as a serious base in ME, yes. About the innocents killed, yes that is regretable, so it was under Saddam. As for the casualties in Iraq, when caused by US actions, they are able to be treated by US facilities. I grant that's only somewhat comforting, but more than was available prior.

See, I had to go back and read this.

Its so disjointed and illogical, it defies comprehension on the first reading.

First, how was OBL going "to remain in Saudi Arabia"? He hadn't lived there since 1991, and his saudi citizenship was revoked. You just invented an alternative universe, where OBL lived in SA, when if fact he didn't live there, in THIS universe. Logical fallacy number one.

Second, how was Iraq in anyway related to Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, or international jihaddists? Saddam considered them a threat to his own regime. It didn't make a lick of sense to invade Iraq as a response to 9/11 or international jihaddists in general. Logical fallacy number two.

Third, even if we could transport ourselves to a mythical alternate universe, where OBL was actually living in Saudi Arabia, what makes you think that the kingdom of SA "would have been first". Are you saying that - in this fictional alternate universe - we would have invaded Saudi Arabia? Nonsense. Do you realize that the entire muslim world would rise up against us if we invaded saudi arabia? I can't imagine a stupider or more reckless policy. Saudi Arabia is the land of mecca and medina. The holiest sites in islam. Even if we invaded the kingdom (in your mythical non-existent universe), it wouldn't have "ended" there as you suggest. We would be at war with the whole of islam. But, its a moot point anyway, since Bin Laden wasn't even in Saudi Arabia for the last 16 years. Logical fallacy number three.

 

[Cypress]

Fixed

To be honest, I really don't give a rats ass where they are treated. The fact is that injuries due to terrorists or insurgents or our stray bombs and bullets is a direct result of George Bush and the people who voted for him.