Saddam and Bin Laden link?

[kallend 2,117]

Quote

I find it laughable that someone like you, Kallend, who is always contending the Bush Administration is lying, would be so quick to believe this denial.

It is probably just a cover story Bush ordered the CIA to put out there after the story was leaked.

Maybe or maybe not. Lets not be so quick to believe the Government.

I believe the Bush administration lies (that's been proven already) AND is incompetent. Take your choice as to which explanation works for you.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[storm1977 0]

Quote

So if we never find them, you will become even more confident that they existed?

Yes...? Semantics bill. Don't spin.

Look, support or no support, we had just cause (legally) we are there, and we are staying for awhile. Did they have WMD, YES. They DID. Is there still some left? Who knows??? If Syria or Iran have them, plan for an invasion there....

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[storm1977 0]

Quote

I believe the Bush administration lies (that's been proven already) AND is incompetent. Take your choice as to which explanation works for you.

Show me a President who hasn't lied while in Office.

Incompetence is reletive. On what issues? Compared to who? Shit, I could say the same about you, or Clinton, or Reagan.

Someone in here made a comment that the Tabloids had this story... It can't be true etc...

Everyone is so freaking selective.... Hey, the tabloids broke the story about Rush, but no one said that can't be true.

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[billvon 3,090]

>Look, support or no support, we had just cause (legally) . . .

What law allows an invasion of a foreign country? You mean US law? Do me a favor - check out the constitution and tell me who's authorized to declare war.

In any case it's not a matter of law, it's a matter of who can stop us (which, right now, are very few countries.) If China attacked Hawaii because we are storing WMD's there even after the UN asked us not to, would you consider their attack legal?

>Did they have WMD, YES. They DID.

That's like giving a South Korean soldier a US gun, then shooting him because he had a gun. We sold him those WMD's; we supported him while he used them. Then we told him to get rid of them, and from all indications, he did. If you want to invade based on THAT no country in the world will feel safe from the US.

>Is there still some left? Who knows??? If Syria or Iran have them,
>plan for an invasion there....

If we show that we plan to invade anyone who opposes us, eventually someone who CAN stand up to us (China) will stop us. And they'll have a good reason - they'll want to stop the most dangerous country on the planet from taking over the entire Middle East. I'd rather not have it come to that personally. We have proven we are pretty good at diplomacy if we want to be. Diplomatic solutions are better than wars that leave tens of thousands dead - even if they make for cool videos.

[billvon 3,090]

>Hey, the tabloids broke the story about Rush, but no one said that
>can't be true.

Right, but when he admits it and checks himself into a clinic, that's a pretty good confirmation of the story.

[storm1977 0]

Quote

What law allows an invasion of a foreign country? You mean US law? Do me a favor - check out the constitution and tell me who's authorized to declare war

Yes, leagally... remember the cease fire they signed??????

Quote

We have proven we are pretty good at diplomacy if we want to be. Diplomatic solutions are better than wars that leave tens of thousands dead - even if they make for cool videos.

US policy is not to negotiate with terrorists... diplomacy got us where with SH????
Where with North Korea.

Are we going to cave in NK too. We can reward them for violating a treaty they signed?

That IMO is just stupid.

Just keep giving the spoiled brats what they want. Sure, that will help appease them for now.

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[billvon 3,090]

>Yes, leagally . . .

From the constitution:

Section. 8.
Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power:

Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

So I'll agree it's possible to declare war and meet the letter of the law of the US constitution. Could you show me the congressional declaration of war?

We have proven we are pretty good at diplomacy if we want to be. Diplomatic solutions are better than wars that leave tens of thousands dead - even if it's boring.

>US policy is not to negotiate with terrorists...

Bullshit. We used to FUND terrorists. We are currently allies with several countries with strong links to terrorism, including Saudi Arabia, which has far stronger links to 9/11 than Iraq did. We support anyone who will help us with our economy or our military plans. (Check out whether Uzbekistan, our ally, has ties to terror, or if they treat their own people humanely.)

>diplomacy got us where with SH????

So which war led us to victory over the USSR? How many nukes did it take? How many people did we have to kill to get Charles Taylor out of power? How about the Cuban missile crisis; did we solve that problem by starting World War Three?

Or did we find alternatives to all those problems?

Just before we invaded Iraq we had agreements from all the permanent members that they would support a deadline i.e. Saddam has 30 days to fully comply or we (the UN) invades and enforces the WMD ban. If we'd been willing to wait those 30 days then the US would just be one part of a force occupying Iraq - and we'd be losing fewer US soldiers.

And war got us where with Al Qaeda and Saddam, BTW? Is Iraq secure? Is Afghanistan democratic? Is Bin Laden captured? Has Al Qaeda been stopped? Is there less terrorism in the Middle East now? Have americans stopped dying? Have we won?

>Are we going to cave in NK too. We can reward them for violating a
> treaty they signed?

No; we should invade them and see if they really have nuclear weapons, right? That would be a much better plan than sitting around a table and arguing. That's so boring. After all, that last war we had with them worked out really well.

>Just keep giving the spoiled brats what they want.

Why not? The world does it for us. Who cares if they bitch and moan if we can get them to stop their nuclear program by giving them some food and oil? Both are a better deal, to me, than a few hundred dead american soldiers.

[kallend 2,117]

Quote

Quote

I believe the Bush administration lies (that's been proven already) AND is incompetent. Take your choice as to which explanation works for you.

Show me a President who hasn't lied while in Office.

Incompetence is reletive. On what issues? Compared to who? Shit, I could say the same about you, or Clinton, or Reagan.

Someone in here made a comment that the Tabloids had this story... It can't be true etc...

Everyone is so freaking selective.... Hey, the tabloids broke the story about Rush, but no one said that can't be true.

I've not seen any evidence that Gerald Ford lied. I doubt he could walk and lie at the same time.

Who would deny the Rush story when he admitted it.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

I find it laughable that someone like you, Kallend, who is always contending the Bush Administration is lying, would be so quick to believe this denial.

It is probably just a cover story Bush ordered the CIA to put out there after the story was leaked.

Maybe or maybe not. Lets not be so quick to believe the Government.

I believe the Bush administration lies (that's been proven already) AND is incompetent. Take your choice as to which explanation works for you.

***

Then how do you explain this? Note ALL these quotes were BEFORE Bush became President. Was he able to manipulate Intel even before that?

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.


Here's one of my all-time favorites:

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

[kallend 2,117]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I find it laughable that someone like you, Kallend, who is always contending the Bush Administration is lying, would be so quick to believe this denial.

It is probably just a cover story Bush ordered the CIA to put out there after the story was leaked.

Maybe or maybe not. Lets not be so quick to believe the Government.

I believe the Bush administration lies (that's been proven already) AND is incompetent. Take your choice as to which explanation works for you.

***

Then how do you explain this? Note ALL these quotes were BEFORE Bush became President. Was he able to manipulate Intel even before that?

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.


Here's one of my all-time favorites:

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

I'm unclear why you believe that Clinton, a proven liar (at least on matters of sex) has any relevance to Bush's lying or incompetence. If Bill or Hillary were President, then I'd worry about them. As it is, the current problem has a name, and it is George.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Tonto 1]

Of course there's a link!

Any idiot can tell there's a link!

The US supplied both Bin Laden and Sadam Hussein with weapons! There's your link. You're all old friends.

You guys are always quoting this "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" bullshit. They're not your friend. They're the enemy of your enemy. And as it turned out, they're your enemy too.

Both Bin Laden and Hussien are free.

Now suck it up and live with it.

t

It's the year of the Pig.

[b1jercat 0]

You're cracking me up Tonto. Ronnie Raygun made us lots of friends.

blues

jerry

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Of course there's a link!

Any idiot can tell there's a link!

Apparently not if you read some of the responses in this thread.

Quote

The US supplied both Bin Laden and Sadam Hussein with weapons! There's your link. You're all old friends.

Quote

You guys are always quoting this "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" bullshit. They're not your friend. They're the enemy of your enemy. And as it turned out, they're your enemy too.

Who is "you guys"? Can you quote where "you guys" said this?

Quote

Both Bin Laden and Hussien are free.

So were most of SH's henchmen immediately after the war. Most of them have been arrested. SH and OBL will be found eventually.

Quote

Now suck it up and live with it.

As will everyone who isn't a Muslim Extremist.

t

[Gravitymaster 0]

OH, aren't you lefties always yapping about how Bush lied about WMD and the reasons for going to war? I thought that was the Outrage of the Century.

From Hillarys' speech it appears she thought there was a link between SH and OBL. But hey, what could she know? She was only the Co-President and apparently, the smartest woman in the world.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

She was only the Co-President and apparently, the smartest woman in the world.

Huh? Smartest woman in the world?

By the way, I think you are confusing your links. On one side is the possible link between AQ and SH. Secondly there is the discussion about whether there is a link between SH and 911.

[billvon 3,090]

>From Hillarys' speech it appears she thought there was a link
>between SH and OBL.

And she was wrong. Fortunately she did not start a war that killed tens of thousands, and left hundreds of US servicemen dead.

You, or anyone, can have any opinion you want. You can think George Bush is the best thing since sliced bread, or you can think the world would be better off without him. It's a free country. But the instant you try to act on that thought and assassinate him, you go to jail (or, preferably, just get shot.)

Actions mean more than words. If you're going to run at the mouth, as politicians of both parties do, feel free. If you're going to kill tens of thousands be DAMN sure you've got your facts straight.

[kallend 2,117]

Quote

OH, aren't you lefties always yapping about how Bush lied about WMD and the reasons for going to war? I thought that was the Outrage of the Century.

From Hillarys' speech it appears she thought there was a link between SH and OBL. But hey, what could she know? She was only the Co-President and apparently, the smartest woman in the world.

What makes you think I admire Bill or Hillary Clinton? Have I ever written anything suggesting that I admire them? (My ex-wife admires Hillary. I disagree with her on almost everything).

I admit to thinking GWB is a self-righteous lying incompetent, but that doesn't mean squat concerning my opinion of the Clintons.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[storm1977 0]

Quote

So which war led us to victory over the USSR? How many nukes did it take? How many people did we have to kill to get Charles Taylor out of power? How about the Cuban missile crisis; did we solve that problem by starting World War Three?

Well, you are crazy if you want to compare SH to the USSR. Believe it or not the USSR was a great deal more rational than SH or OBL. SH and OBL would personally sacrifice themselves for their cause if they had to. I can't see Kruschev having done that.

The cuban Missile crisis was not solved through diplomacy.... What Cuban Missile Crisis are you talking about??????

The CMC was solve by the VERY REAL THREAT of full global nuclear war. I have NO doubt that JFK would have made that call if he had to. Actually we came VERY fucking close to NOT solving that issue. I would call that threat FORCE, not diplomacy.

Chris

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[billvon 3,090]

>Believe it or not the USSR was a great deal more rational than SH or OBL.

Kruschev: "We will bury you." If you go back to the days of McCarthyism, the godless communists had no scruples, no humanity, and no mercy. They were out to take over the world. They would destroy the US as soon as we showed any signs of weakness. And unlike SH, they had the power to do so.

If you had a choice between losing every major city in the US to a nuclear ICBM attack, vs losing another big building in a city due to a terrorist attack, which would you choose?

>The cuban Missile crisis was not solved through diplomacy.... What
>Cuban Missile Crisis are you talking about??????

A summary:
--------------------------------
On October 22, 1962, after reviewing newly acquired intelligence, President John F. Kennedy informed the world that the Soviet Union was building secret missile bases in Cuba, a mere 90 miles off the shores of Florida. After weighing such options as an armed invasion of Cuba and air strikes against the missiles, Kennedy decided on a less dangerous response. In addition to demanding that Russian Premier Nikita S. Khrushchev remove all the missile bases and their deadly contents, Kennedy ordered a naval quarantine (blockade) of Cuba in order to prevent Russian ships from bringing additional missiles and construction materials to the island. In response to the American naval blockade, Premier Khrushchev authorized his Soviet field commanders in Cuba to launch their tactical nuclear weapons if invaded by U.S. forces. Deadlocked in this manner, the two leaders of the world's greatest nuclear superpowers stared each other down for seven days - until Khrushchev blinked. On October 28, thinking better of prolonging his challenge to the United States, the Russian Premier conceded to President Kennedy's demands by ordering all Soviet supply ships away from Cuban waters and agreeing to remove the missiles from Cuba's mainland. After several days of teetering on the brink of nuclear holocaust, the world breathed a sigh of relief.
----------------------------------

In other words, Kennedy chose what you might term "appeasement" instead of an armed invasion of a communist country, and thus World War III was averted.


>The CMC was solve by the VERY REAL THREAT of full global nuclear
> war.

Agreed.

>I have NO doubt that JFK would have made that call if he had to.

He had a choice - invasion or some very aggressive diplomacy. I am glad he chose the latter.

> I would call that threat FORCE, not diplomacy.

Force - dropping bombs and killing people
Diplomacy - the use of words (including threats) instead of weapons to achieve your aims

[storm1977 0]

I beg to differ .... Invading Cuba was not an option. Remember the Bay of pigs... Failed. Miserably. I think JFK feared another failed invasion, and I think he knew Kruschev was bluffing. Firing a round over the bow of a Russian ship during the "Quarentine" is not diplomacy. It is bad aim...


I'll put $10 down that if JFK invaded Cuba, not one missile would have been launched. (nuke that is).

Chris

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[billvon 3,090]

>I beg to differ .... Invading Cuba was not an option.

It was an option he considered and discarded.

>Remember the Bay of pigs... Failed. Miserably.

Is it your position that if something fails of course it's not tried again? The germans failed miserably in the Great War. Didn't stop them from trying again. The russian invasion of Afghanistan failed miserably - but we invaded Afghanistan anyway. The North Koreans fought us to a standstill in our last war with them - but people here now talk about invading them again.

>Firing a round over the bow of a Russian ship during
>the "Quarentine" is not diplomacy. It is bad aim...

I'd say it's excellent aim, and it accomplished exactly what it was intended to. We have the most powerful military in the world, and we can use the threat of that force to accomplish a lot without killing anyone. It's probably the best use of that military. Much better to have a strong military that no one can mess with than having a middling military that can just _barely_ stop an invasion. Less people die if you have the stronger military because fewer people dare to test it.

>I'll put $10 down that if JFK invaded Cuba, not one missile would
>have been launched. (nuke that is).

I'd bet $10 on that, but I would't bet 350,000 lives on that. I'm glad Kennedy didn't either.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

>From Hillarys' speech it appears she thought there was a link
>between SH and OBL.

And she was wrong. Fortunately she did not start a war that killed tens of thousands, and left hundreds of US servicemen dead.

You, or anyone, can have any opinion you want. You can think George Bush is the best thing since sliced bread, or you can think the world would be better off without him. It's a free country. But the instant you try to act on that thought and assassinate him, you go to jail (or, preferably, just get shot.)

Actions mean more than words. If you're going to run at the mouth, as politicians of both parties do, feel free. If you're going to kill tens of thousands be DAMN sure you've got your facts straight.

And apparently you missed my point.
Clue: read the topic of the thread again.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

>From Hillarys' speech it appears she thought there was a link
>between SH and OBL.

And she was wrong. Fortunately she did not start a war that killed tens of thousands, and left hundreds of US servicemen dead.

You, or anyone, can have any opinion you want. You can think George Bush is the best thing since sliced bread, or you can think the world would be better off without him. It's a free country. But the instant you try to act on that thought and assassinate him, you go to jail (or, preferably, just get shot.)

Actions mean more than words. If you're going to run at the mouth, as politicians of both parties do, feel free. If you're going to kill tens of thousands be DAMN sure you've got your facts straight.

What do you think the President and Co-President Clintons response would have been if 9-11 had happened during the Clinton Administaration?

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>I beg to differ .... Invading Cuba was not an option.

It was an option he considered and discarded.

>Remember the Bay of pigs... Failed. Miserably.

Is it your position that if something fails of course it's not tried again? The germans failed miserably in the Great War. Didn't stop them from trying again. The russian invasion of Afghanistan failed miserably - but we invaded Afghanistan anyway. The North Koreans fought us to a standstill in our last war with them - but people here now talk about invading them again.

You can't compare then and now. PRNK's Military and economic strength dwarfs that of the U.S today. My guess is they wouldn't be able to sustain a very long war. I don't advocate invading PRNK but I don't think you can fairly compare the situation today to what it was 50 years ago.

• Quote

[Gravitymaster 0]

Not if you stay on topic.