Remember When
- Thread starter Prakosh
- Start date
uscitizen
Villified User
Yep but he did not invade, and Sadam DID have WMD's and used em in the past.
I guess the issue is WHEN he had em.
I am by no means saying Clowntoon was right either, that whole Iraq thing has been a mess for serveral presidents terms.
But this is water under the bridge, what do we do going forward ?
Sir Evil
Megalocon, The Evil Dick
Ahh key question! more importantly though is that it needs to go forward.
However water under the bridge can be traced back for some time. Because Billy didn't go to war about this makes him better for some reason? or perhaps if he did it may not of been an issue that is still ongoing? Did Billy have a better intelligence report in comparison to the reports of today? I'm merely pointing out that this thread of "remember when" will be read by most here with selected memory. iraq was an issue long before this administration!
maineman
Banned
THe significant difference between democrats and Bush is that democrats never advocated invading, conquering, and occupying Iraq as a response to the possibility that Saddam may have hade weapons of mass destruction program development related activities. We were suggesting that if we did, in fact, know where the wmd's were - like Rummy told us - that maybe a good response might have been to launch a few tomahawk missiles from navy ships in the northern arabian sea to hit those locations. As it turns out, our way would have been just as effective as YOUR way for ridding Saddam of the WMD's he never had, and it
**would have been about a half a trillion dollars cheaper,
**would have saved us 2639 dead American servicemen and woman and 19323 wounded American servicemen and women... and
**would NOT have set Iraq on a course towards the civil war it now finds itself in...and
**would not have allowed Iran to expand its influence throughout the region and flex its muscles the way it has in the absence of Saddam and in the absence of any sort of perceived moral high ground on the part of the US in middle eastern foreign affairs.
So if you are going to quote democrats, it's important to make those distinctions and to acknowledge the distinctions between your failed outcome and the alternative democrats proposed.
**would have been about a half a trillion dollars cheaper,
**would have saved us 2639 dead American servicemen and woman and 19323 wounded American servicemen and women... and
**would NOT have set Iraq on a course towards the civil war it now finds itself in...and
**would not have allowed Iran to expand its influence throughout the region and flex its muscles the way it has in the absence of Saddam and in the absence of any sort of perceived moral high ground on the part of the US in middle eastern foreign affairs.
So if you are going to quote democrats, it's important to make those distinctions and to acknowledge the distinctions between your failed outcome and the alternative democrats proposed.
Sir Evil
Megalocon, The Evil Dick
Howdy maine, I was anticipating your presence sooner or later on this one however I thought you could have gidtwrapped the spin a little better!
Do you remembers when billy claimed saddam to be a clear and present danger with wmd's or not? For whatever reason he took the actions he did or did'nt I am not here to dispute, cry about the monetary issue if you want, anyway you slice it the intel was pretty clear for those without selective memory for sometime.
Now a small suggestion, While your head is tilted so nicely so far to the left, slap the right side of your head, listen closely to the cement hitting the ground, regroup, and now see things a little more clearly, perhaps slightly more centered!....
maineman
Banned
I remember that many democrats said that if Saddam were to ever get his hands on WMD's he'd be a danger. Undisputed fact. If pigs had wings, they could fily... undisputed fact. get it?
And the intell was NEVER solid about Saddam's WMD's.... go back and look at the cobbled together stack of innuendo and conjecture that Colin Powell presented to the USSC.
and it's sort of sad that you said that I was crying about the monetary issue and avoided the senseless human loss that I was crying about and the loss of stature in the region that I was crying about and the rise of Iran that I was crying about. Talk about selective!
I'd tell you to slap the left side of your head, but when it's up your ass, I can only imagine that must be tough to do.
And the intell was NEVER solid about Saddam's WMD's.... go back and look at the cobbled together stack of innuendo and conjecture that Colin Powell presented to the USSC.
and it's sort of sad that you said that I was crying about the monetary issue and avoided the senseless human loss that I was crying about and the loss of stature in the region that I was crying about and the rise of Iran that I was crying about. Talk about selective!
I'd tell you to slap the left side of your head, but when it's up your ass, I can only imagine that must be tough to do.
Sir Evil
Megalocon, The Evil Dick
No, you wanna know what is real sad? the fact that you are selectively forgetting when your side of the spectrum stated that saddam had wmds, oh but the undisputed, clearly better man did'nt invade and because of it makes him ok,
the fact that the psts administrations were not part of the present day terrorism threat, What is really sad is the fact that the people of 911 died for no cause at all and people like yourself wanna see the facts oneway, and blame that too on this administration. Perhaps if your better man wasn't too busy copping a bj, and doing a clearly better job maybe we would'nt be where we are in the present day! Spin it anyway you want, I can still see it from a fairly centered perspective that you can't.... that is sad! also as sad is the fact that I have ever given you credit for being a somewhat centered thinking member here.....
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
Oh, you ain't seen nothin' yet. Prakosh is one of my all-time favorite posters.
Welcome, Prak!
maineman
Banned
I think that the democrats said he would be a threat if he ever got them...I don't recall any democrat saying definitively that Saddam was in possession of weapons of mass destruction.
I am not spinning anything. The war in Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11.... Dubya himself said that just last week. The war in Iraq was a war of choice, not necessity...I for one, think that AMerican presidents should only send our young men and women to die on the battlefield when they need to, not when they want to.
If Dubya had kept his eye on the ball and fought the enemy that attacked us instead of attacking Iraq and thus making us millions of new enemies, I would have supported those actions.
I am not spinning anything. The war in Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11.... Dubya himself said that just last week. The war in Iraq was a war of choice, not necessity...I for one, think that AMerican presidents should only send our young men and women to die on the battlefield when they need to, not when they want to.
If Dubya had kept his eye on the ball and fought the enemy that attacked us instead of attacking Iraq and thus making us millions of new enemies, I would have supported those actions.
Sir Evil
Megalocon, The Evil Dick
Whatever.....I guess the article I linked was just another made up story, I guess you have it all right, the rest is all false facades simply there for pure entertainment..
Bush admin lied about iraq having an active nuclear program and collaborative ties to al qaeda. Those were blatant lies, that was not supported by Democrats at large.
I think clinton fear-mongered about Saddams WMD capacity in the 1990s. Because, US policy was about keeping Saddam in his box. It wasn't really, strictly speaking, just about "disarming" him. Who really gave a shit if he had some mustard gas? That's not a stategic threat to us.
But there was never an attempt to lie us into a bloody war and occupation until the chimp ambled onto the scene.
maineman
Banned
Please pull a quote from your linked article that has Bill Clinton saying that Saddam had "weapons of mass destruction"
be careful
Sir Evil
Megalocon, The Evil Dick
You read the article, no? Why do you want me to pull a quote, so you can spin it to the way you see it? If you wanna see it for the only administration, the only politcal figures to make these claims then more power to ya. The iraq issue was hashed over and over before this administration came to be. They acted on it and therefore must be the only ones to ever of had this view of iraq.
You see it for whatever you would like, I'll choose to see it for what I like. Facts will remain though that many politicans made claims about iraq, some did at one time or another see it for the same purpose. You wanna make it fit your way of seeing it I'm cool with that......
maineman
Banned
you cannot pull a quote from your article that has Bill Clinton saying that Saddam had any WMD's. I made that assertion earlier and you replied:
"Whatever.....I guess the article I linked was just another made up story, I guess you have it all right, the rest is all false facades simply there for pure entertainment.."
I assumed by that quote that you were suggesting that the article in some way contradicted my statement. We both know that the linked article does NOT contradict my statement which begs the question, why did you write the above quote in the first place????
"Whatever.....I guess the article I linked was just another made up story, I guess you have it all right, the rest is all false facades simply there for pure entertainment.."
I assumed by that quote that you were suggesting that the article in some way contradicted my statement. We both know that the linked article does NOT contradict my statement which begs the question, why did you write the above quote in the first place????
Sir Evil
Megalocon, The Evil Dick
Ok, good for you! see it whichever way you would like, if you feel that billy never made his own asessment about iraqs weapon programs then see it for whatever it is that you to, I'm hardly telling you how to view something, just suggesting that many seem to view it another way.
yes, he did back in 1998, and he bombed a stupid pill factory because of it...SO WHAT? So what?
What's your POINT? Did he take us to f-ing war over it? Did he come before America and tell us he had not made up his mind yet about going to FULL FLEDGE F-ING WAR WITH 150,000 + American men and women WHICH LEAD TO KILLING 50,000-100m000 people of whom MOST were innocent and had done NOTHING TO US, while he had PLANS all along to send our sons and daughters and fathers and mothers and sisters in there?
I am telling ya Evil (Dick, to make you happy,
), you can post one quote after another of the clintons, kerry, reid or whoever the heck you want to post and I will POINT OUT TO YOU where these quotes ARE MOST CERTAINLY different than the statements of the President, the Vice president, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Rice etc.....Very different meanings and most certainly very different circumstances.
And yes, alot of congress was duped or they wanted to be duped and believe in their president.
I did not fall for it, but I know many friends that did, because they had not read as much as I had on the subject of saddam etc, where they just BELIEVED what they were told....fell for the damn war drums because of fear, and cowardice, imo....cowardly because they never took it upon themselves to question their government in times of crisis because their government will uses a crisis to the hilt to advance ideological beliefs.
that's what happened....and DECIET was the means used to do it.
care
Bill Clinton saying that Saddam had any WMD's
The Clinton-era National Intelligence Estimate (1999) was much more cautious about asserting whether Iraq had WMD. In fact, it went to pains to outline the lack of direct evidence suggesting it.
For some strange reason that all changed in October 2002, when the NIE was updated with much more ominous assertions, and clearcut statements of fact - with the caveats and qualifiers removed:
previous NIE had indicated - and this was still the general consensus of US intelligence agencies in early 2002 - that:
-The 1991 Gulf War, UN inspections, and subsequent military actions had destroyed most of Iraq's chemical, biological, nuclear and long-range missile capacity.
-There was no direct evidence that any chemical or biological weapons remained in Iraq, but agencies judged it likely that some stocks could still remain and that production could be renewed.
-As Iraq rebuilt its facilities, some of the equipment purchased for civilian use could also be used to manufacture chemical or biological weapons.
-Without an inspection regime, it was very difficult to determine the status of these programmes.
A marked shift, however, occurred with the October 2002 NIE. The findings became far more dramatic, specific and certain. This NIE judged that Iraq had 100 to 500 tons of chemical weapons "much of it added in the last year," that "all key aspects . . . of Iraq's offensive biological weapons (BW) programme are active and that most elements are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf War."
http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd78/78jc.htm
Sir Evil
Megalocon, The Evil Dick
I am telling ya Evil (Dick, to make you happy,
Very different meanings and most certainly very different circumstances.
care
The point is that the quotes I point out are there, the ones you will point out are there, so if you wanna selectively take it down memory lane and say how the cercumstances were different, we did'nt go to war then. we had only bombed a pill factory, the fact will remain that many figures on both sides of the lines that all draw so very well here, saw iraq as an issue.
You wanna say that iraq was no threat to us at all when it conveniently fits your argument, I say clinton stumpled upon this path himself, and for that I am autmoatically a neocon or whatever it is you wish to classify the opposing views as. Call it whatever you wanna call it to make you feel warm and fuzzy inside, and I am cool with that, I just see it differently, call me what you want for seeing it differently and I shall certainly be upset........NOT!.......
Sir Evil
Megalocon, The Evil Dick
I am telling ya Evil (Dick, to make you happy,
care
LOL, ya like that one too when I am not in agreeance with what you say?
You can certainly refer to me a dick, I do like that but something tells me before long you too will be claiming I am following your every post looking to stick my nose up your coochie.....
klaatu
Fusionist
Maybe a wee bit!
Hey .. Im acused of being a far right winger .. so how friggin partisan can one get ....