billvon 3,116 #26 June 23, 2005 > The House passed H.J. Res. 114, to authorize the use of force > against Iraq by a vote of 296 to 133. Please quote the part of that resolution that requires going to war. It gave the president the power to go to war IF HE FELT IT WAS WARRANTED. His decision, his responsibility. I know, this is the "buck stops somewhere else" administration, but even you have to admit that he, not congress, decided to go to war. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #27 June 23, 2005 Quote>You could do exactly the same thing with Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice quotes and then have some statement at the end that says "Bush knew that his evidence was weak, but he decided to deceive congress and america to get a war he desperately wanted. Now he's lying to cover it up." I think it's called 80% of Speakers Corner. www.dropzone.com check it out, there's other stuff too. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ViperPilot 0 #28 June 23, 2005 How does it bash Democrats simply by showing quotes from prominent Democrats? I could care less what the people who made that slideshow think about Kerry or anyone else, I simply posted it here to show quotes from Democrats to back up my argument of how Bush wasn't the sole person to rely on this intelligence and hence think we needed to topple Saddam. I knew somone would get in a hissy fit over the site name and the fact that they didn't like the quotes, but would did you want me to, actually take time to type each quote down into a word document to make you feel better? Hell no, I don't have time for that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #29 June 23, 2005 QuotePlease quote the part of that resolution that requires going to war. It gave the president the power to go to war IF HE FELT IT WAS WARRANTED. His decision, his responsibility. I know, this is the "buck stops somewhere else" administration, but even you have to admit that he, not congress, decided to go to war. Only an idiot would vote to allow someone to go to war if you really didn't think it was needed. The wording of it is such that people could claim later exactly what you just said, "I never sent troops to war, I only gave the President permission to do it...I didn't think it was needed". If they didn't think it was needed, then they should have voted "NO". Bill do you really not see that they permitted it?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skymiles 3 #30 June 23, 2005 QuoteThis intelligence was not "obviously flawed" at the time, it was only proven flawed AFTER we had gone in and failed to unearth a WMD QuoteFor example, the document reporting of “yellow cake uranium from Africa” was a sloppy and obvious forgery. Quotethat we were in imminent threat of a nuclear attack in as little as 45 minutes QuoteShow me where/when Bush said those words and I'll believe you, hands down. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020928.html QuoteHe was contained, eh? If by containment you mean funneling millions of dollars to off-shore accounts, including those expunged by terrorists and corrupt UN officials. Then yes, he was contained. QuoteHe was a pain in the ass but, yes, he was contained. He was of little threat to us or his neighbors. QuoteWith over 10 years of Saddam laughing at the international community, defying over 15 UN resolutions and thus continuing his roundabout money laundering which funded corrupt officials and weapons research, how is it that America rushed to war? How is it that over 10 years of putting up with this tyrant and then finally acting is considered "rushing?" Please explain. QuoteBy your reasoning then, we should have invaded the former Soviet Union. That should have been a cake walk too. Phil Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ViperPilot 0 #31 June 23, 2005 Since you (bill) think Bush is an idiot, I'm assuming you're a Kerry fan. Even Kerry voted for war in 2002. So, even Kerry was among those who sent America to war. Kerry made the right choice in my opinion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #32 June 23, 2005 Read my last post.... or ignore it if it makes you feel better. This thread wasn't about who didn't think there were WMD's in Iraq... it's about who DID. It just so happens that many of the champions of the left who have railed against Bush for going to Iraq are the very same people who talked tough and thought Iraq was a threat just as Bush did. I have never suggested that there weren't people who thought there were no WMDs. Where do you get your material from??Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #33 June 23, 2005 >How does it bash Democrats simply by showing quotes from prominent Democrats? Watch the whole thing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IanHarrop 42 #34 June 23, 2005 You need to re-read my message and your reponse to me in an objective manner then perhaps you will see how things have gotten twisted."Where troubles melt like lemon drops, away above the chimney tops, that's where you'll find me" Dorothy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ViperPilot 0 #35 June 23, 2005 The 45 minute thing....close, but no cigar. "According to the British government, [Iraq] could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given." In this quote, Bush is saying that it is believed that Iraq has the technological capability to launch a missile within 45 min of the decision. This quote DOES NOT say that the US is in imminent threat of a nuclear attack. In fact, the word nuclear wasn't even mentioned. He is only arguing that this kind of technological ability in Saddam's Iraq is a danger to the entire world, including the US. You can still disagree with that statement though, it's your opinion. QuoteHe was a pain in the ass but, yes, he was contained. He was of little threat to us or his neighbors He was of little threat to the world when he continued to fund WMD research and terrorists? I can agree with the argument that he wasn't a DIRECT threat, but he certainly was an INDIRECT threat by way of providing monetary funds to the people who are direct threats to the US and most of the world. As long as he was providing that support, he WAS NOT contained. QuoteBy your reasoning then, we should have invaded the former Soviet Union. That should have been a cake walk too. Show me where the SU ignored over 15 UN resolutions against it. And I should have been more clear on "weapons research." I meant research done on WMDs by either terrorist networks, or people working with terrorist networks, in order to provide terrorists with WMDs. Sorry about the confusion. But, when did the Soviets do that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skymiles 3 #36 June 23, 2005 QuoteThe 45 minute thing....close, but no cigar. "According to the British government, [Iraq] could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given." In this quote, Bush is saying that it is believed that Iraq has the technological capability to launch a missile within 45 min of the decision. This quote DOES NOT say that the US is in imminent threat of a nuclear attack. In fact, the word nuclear wasn't even mentioned. He is only arguing that this kind of technological ability in Saddam's Iraq is a danger to the entire world, including the US. You can still disagree with that statement though, it's your opinion. QuoteOh my mistake, I forgot that it’s better to die from a biological or chemical attack than a nuclear one. Likewise, it will be comforting for the mother of a US solider to know that it was a Sunni IED that killed her son rather than a Syrian IED. Big difference, I know. Hype is hype, distortion is distortion, lying is lying, and dead is dead. You are just splitting hairs now. I understand that the Bush administration has to play this word game in order to cover up its incompetence. Why do others play along? Phil Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #37 June 23, 2005 Ooookay... What changed? What part of my posts that I haven't explained to you do you insist on taking issue with? What's twisted about the fact that many of the same people who blame Bush for the WMD issue, thought the very same about it in 2002 and before? How does the existence of OTHER people's opinions that there never were any WMD's change the fact that Clinton, Hillary, Gore, Kerry, Kennedy, Boxer, Clark and others indeed DID think that Iraq was a serious threat? No matter how much you take it personally, the fact is that Bush wasn't the only one on the WMD boat. His shipmates just jumped overboard after the fact to make themselves look prescient when running in an election. What is your point?Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #38 June 23, 2005 QuoteHype is hype, distortion is distortion, lying is lying, and dead is dead. You are just splitting hairs now. I understand that the Bush administration has to play this word game in order to cover up its incompetence. Why do others play along? Phil Do you not admit that Kerry, Berger, Both Clintons, Clark, Edwards...And 77 Senators and 296 Reps voted for it as well?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ViperPilot 0 #39 June 23, 2005 QuoteI understand that the Bush administration has to play this word game in order to cover up its incompetence. Why do others play along? How does stating that Iraq had the technological capability to launch a missile 45 min after decision equate to Bush playing word games to cover incompetance. Consider rewriting your post so it actually makes sense. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IanHarrop 42 #40 June 23, 2005 That fine. You read what was said one way - I read what was said another way. We're not going to agree on what was said."Where troubles melt like lemon drops, away above the chimney tops, that's where you'll find me" Dorothy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ViperPilot 0 #41 June 23, 2005 Kind of a side topic, but still pretty related. Why is it that some of you think going into Iraq was such a horrible idea, but think it was fine to go into Bosnia or Somalia? I realize I may be speaking in somewhat general terms, but I have seen many people hate Iraq, but were totally fine with Bosnia/Somalia (until it went bad). Guess what, in all three we tried or are trying to help people. That was the mission and that is the mission. So, what's the problem with this one? Are the Iraqi people simply not worth it? Or is it that the previous two campaigns were under the Clinton Administration? Or is there another reason? Enlighten me... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skymiles 3 #42 June 23, 2005 QuoteDo you not admit that Kerry, Berger, Both Clintons, Clark, Edwards...And 77 Senators and 296 Reps voted for it as well? QuoteI can’t speak for them. But it is now apparent he lied to all of us in order to promote his perverse agenda which I still don’t fully understand. Phil Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ViperPilot 0 #43 June 23, 2005 What lie did Bush "apparently" tell us? Is it the WMD intel, because if that's it, then I suggest you go all the way to beginning of this post and click on the link. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skymiles 3 #44 June 23, 2005 QuoteKind of a side topic, but still pretty related. Why is it that some of you think going into Iraq was such a horrible idea, but think it was fine to go into Bosnia or Somalia? I realize I may be speaking in somewhat general terms, but I have seen many people hate Iraq, but were totally fine with Bosnia/Somalia (until it went bad). Guess what, in all three we tried or are trying to help people. That was the mission and that is the mission. So, what's the problem with this one? Are the Iraqi people simply not worth it? Or is it that the previous two campaigns were under the Clinton Administration? Or is there another reason? Enlighten me... QuoteI was against the Somalia campaign. Unlike Bosnia and Kosovo, there was no clear geographical or ethnic/religious distinction between the victims and victimizers. Clinton too should have done his homework and realized that military intervention in Somalia would result in urban gorilla warfare similar to what has evolved in Iraq. We must learn from history. Sometimes we can help by military intervention and but most times we make it worse. We were able to help the Muslims of Kosovo because it was a unique situation. If anything, British history should have taught us that an occupation of Iraq was doomed to failure in spite of our so called good intentions. Consider yourself enlightened. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skymiles 3 #45 June 23, 2005 What lie did Bush "apparently" tell us? Is it the WMD intel, because if that's it, then I suggest you go all the way to beginning of this post and click on the link. QuoteSome people might think that the cherry picking, the omission, the hyping, and the distortion of facts is not lying. But I’m going to have the balls to call them a liar. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ViperPilot 0 #46 June 23, 2005 QuoteUnlike Bosnia and Kosovo, there was no clear geographical or ethnic/religious distinction between the victims and victimizers I guarantee you couldn't tell the difference between kroats, muslims, and serbs. They all looked the same to someone who wasn't from the region. So there was not a clear distinction between them, except for maybe military uniform, but that was not always the case. QuoteSometimes we can help by military intervention and but most times we make it worse. Well, I think we did help in Kosovo. So why do you think we're not helping in Iraq? Oil production is up quite a lot. Iraq has now grossed over $30 billion in oil revenue since we began occupation and helped the economy get back on line. Electrical output is up considerably, phone subscribers has reached almost 1 million and cellphone subscribers had reached over 2.3 million. In addition to that, over 600 schools have been built/rebuilt/refinished. So, is the US occupation not helping at all and making Iraq worse? You tell me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ViperPilot 0 #47 June 23, 2005 QuoteSome people might think that the cherry picking, the omission, the hyping, and the distortion of facts is not lying. But I’m going to have the balls to call them a liar. Well, going back to the actual topic of this thread, then in your case you're calling all of those politicians, including Kerry, the Clintons, Kennedy, etc. all liars. Which is fine if you want to. Plus, the intel Bush went off of was only proven to be wrong after the invasion, so where was the distortion of facts to make a case to go to war? Seems to me everyone took those intel reports as undistorted, unhyped fact...the point is that Bush should not be condemned for going to war that many politicians supported initially using the same intel Bush did. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #48 June 23, 2005 QuoteRight. A page titled "scaryjohnkerry" contains a fact-based argument, and not a politically motivated diatribe. Yeah, and ABC, CBS and NBC always tell the truth. You shouldn't judge the veracity of material based solely upon who presented it. Just ask Dan Rather. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tonto 1 #49 June 24, 2005 Hey Tunaplanet! How you been dude! tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eaglenrider 0 #50 June 24, 2005 Plus, the intel Bush went off of was only proven to be wrong after the invasion, so where was the distortion of facts to make a case to go to war? __________________________________________________ Sure ,Bub, That's how it was.., if it makes you feel better. It's hard to realize you've been duped. Thing is that before Colin Powell adressed the UN , he was reported to have thrown the report and his hands up in the air and said,"this is bullshit". Thing is, In Feb 2002 , Colin Powell had just told the world that Saddam Husseign was no threat to his neighbors. Intel wasn't bad.., It was fabricated. Blues, Cliff Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
