Iraq war
This letter has not been edited.
Irwin,
Bush has stated he doesn't put much time into thinking about Bin Laden, he isn't even looking for him. Supposedly Bin Laden is in Pakistan but we can't go into or invade a soveriegn nation, of course unless it is Iraq and had nothing to do with 9/11 or Al Qaeda. Bush and his cronies are in power for one reason only and that is to take as much of the US treasury as they can while helping out his corporate buddies to do the same. Of course according to some you must be a US hating Liberal coward for questioning anything Bush does.. Prepare for the name calling.....
Posted by Mike D. on August 22, 2007 04:02 PMI would just like to ask two questions before the name calling starts.
What was the reason for invading Afganistan?
What was the reason for invading Iraq?
Posted by Larry on August 22, 2007 04:06 PMMy name says it all...
Posted by blah blah blah on August 22, 2007 04:10 PMLarry,
The reasons I understood was we invaded Afghanistan to get Al Qaeda and Bin Laden becasue of 9/11. There was about 100% of support of the American people for this invasion.
Iraq, the reasons I understood was originally WMD's, however there were weapons inspectore already in Iraq telling us there were none. However we went in anyway, then it morphed into removing a terrible dictator and finally morphing into having a democracy in Iraq. Had we stayed the course in Afghanistan and gotten Bin Laden I believe Bush would have been a very popular president. But we took our eye off the ball and changed course and this divided America.
Posted by Mike D. on August 22, 2007 04:24 PMI divided America by poisoning the well in the mid 90s, by getting my minions to obsess about Bill Clinton's sex life and getting my buddy Rush to turn Liberal into a dirty word. I just love myself so bad, and now I'm going to make millions pandering to cynical rednecks!
Death to America!
Long Live the Republican Party!
Totalitarianism NOW!
Hey Karl,
Haven't heard from you for a while was wondering where you went...
Posted by Mike D. on August 22, 2007 04:57 PMMike D.,
I heard he was going to play the Pillsbury Dough boy in the live-action movie. It's called "Libs Hate American Biscuits"! Basically one too many liberals push in his belly and he snaps-- taking out Iraq, Iran, Syria, India, Turkey, and a couple of resort hotels in Cancun. It will be followed up quickly with the sequel "Libs Hate Biscuits II: Republican Boogaloo", where liberals are waterboarded using cookie dough.
Mike D - There were inspectors in Iraq, the problem was Saddam wasn't letting them do the inspections.
Posted by KW on August 22, 2007 05:11 PMBut I believe we recently finished the 4-year long search for WMD. And what did we find?
Drum roll, please.......
Nothing!
Posted by Tbone on August 22, 2007 05:22 PMDan,
I hope this movie is released nation wide, sounds terrific..
Posted by Mike D. on August 22, 2007 05:37 PMMike D,
Americans are often divided on the issuess. There's nothing new about that. In fact, honest debate over our differences is part of our strength.
The problem here though is that there are some odious vermin crawling around on the page trying to divide America by fabricating the facts as in;
"Iraq, the reasons I understood was originally WMD's, however there were weapons inspectore already in Iraq telling us there were none. However we went in anyway"
Personally I don't think it will work because America is too strong to be divided by lies.
What do you think?
Posted by James Jones on August 22, 2007 06:03 PMI was and am against us going into Iraq, but trying to be correct here
There were (7) reasons sited for going into Iraq, of which WMD's were 1 of those 7. Congress voted overwhelmingly on those 7 to go into Iraq.
You can beat the hell out of the admin and congress all you want....hell impeach. I dont care, but how about doing it with some facts that fit the picture rather than use soundbite sections as if we were all flipping political consultants (fit your fav here) on a damn Sunday talkshow.
Find Solutions and use all the facts to make a point. It will go a lot further in helping us get out of this sh&^t hole that we are in.
Mike D.-
Are you still under the impression that Bush personally strapped on the explosives that "brought down" the towers?
Nothing you say will ever be taken seriously until you retract your previous ridiculous comments.
It truly is a sad day when over a half of self described "progressives" either believe Bush was behind 911 or "aren't sure".
What the hell is wrong with you freaks?
Posted by Get Real on August 22, 2007 06:56 PMbwr-
I believe there was a total of 23 "where as's" concerning invading Iraq.
Only seven of those involved WMD's.
Posted by Get Real on August 22, 2007 07:02 PMGet Real,
What subject are you trying to discuss on this post? And please list the 23 where as's concering the invasion of Iraq. If I'm mistaken about Bush and Powell stating Iraq was an eminent threat please educate me. I was always under the impression we had to invade or Saddam was either going to attack us and we would see mushroom clouds, (according to Rice) or they were going to sell the weapons. Was I not given the same info as you? And please elaborate on what you find rediculios...
Posted by Mike D. on August 22, 2007 07:20 PMI.R.A.Q. - International Recruitment for Al Queda.
Gift wrapped and presented on a silver platter by George W. Bush.
Bin Laden thanks you Mr. President.
Posted by Liam on August 22, 2007 08:19 PM"Iraq, the reasons I understood was originally WMD's, however there were weapons inspectore already in Iraq telling us there were none. However we went in anyway"
Personally I don't think it will work
posted by James
HOw is this a fabricated statement? This is the story that I was fed. Can you explain your position?
Posted by just sayin' on August 22, 2007 08:56 PMMike D.-
The subject I brought up was your credibility on ANYTHING considering your past stated beliefs insinuating Bush was behind 911.
That should also explain , what I found , as you put, "rediculios".
Would you like to save face now and admit your blatantly asinine conspiracy assertions were "misunderstood "or should I re post your "thought provoking ,critical thinking " comments from the other day?
As far as the war resolutions-
Count them up yourself.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
just sayin
The following
THE SECURITY COUNCIL, 27 JANUARY 2003:
AN UPDATE ON INSPECTION
Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC, Dr. Hans Blix
was submitted about a month before the invasion. Here are a few excerpts:
I begin by recalling that inspections as a part of a disarmament process in Iraq started in 1991, immediately after the Gulf War. They went on for eight years until December 1998, when inspectors were withdrawn. Thereafter, for nearly four years there were no inspections. They were resumed only at the end of November last year.
Resolution 687 (1991), like the subsequent resolutions I shall refer to, required cooperation by Iraq but such was often withheld or given grudgingly. Unlike South Africa, which decided on its own to eliminate its nuclear weapons and welcomed inspection as a means of creating confidence in its disarmament, Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance – not even today – of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace.
Chemical weapons
The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed.
Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tonnes and that the quality was poor and the product unstable. Consequently, it was said, that the agent was never weaponised. Iraq said that the small quantity of agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.
UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared. Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared.
There are also indications that the agent was weaponised. In addition, there are questions to be answered concerning the fate of the VX precursor chemicals, which Iraq states were lost during bombing in the Gulf War or were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq.
Biological weapons
I have mentioned the issue of anthrax to the Council on previous occasions and I come back to it as it is an important one.
Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.
Missiles
I turn now to the missile sector. There remain significant questions as to whether Iraq retained SCUD-type missiles after the Gulf War. Iraq declared the consumption of a number of SCUD missiles as targets in the development of an anti-ballistic missile defence system during the 1980s. Yet no technical information has been produced about that programme or data on the consumption of the missiles.
I have touched upon some of the disarmament issues that remain open and that need to be answered if dossiers are to be closed and confidence is to arise.
And here is the link:
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm
Based on a plain reading of Mr. Blix report, the statement that
"there were weapons inspectore already in Iraq telling us there were none"
is nothing more than propaganda.
Differences of opinion are to be expected. However the debate is of no value when lies are produced as facts.
Get Real,
Please quote where I stated Bush was behind 9/11. What I said was I had some questions regarding 9/11. One was a few years ago Payne Stewarts private jet veered off course, within 20 minutes jet fighters were escorting the doomed plane. Why were no jets scrambled when 4 major airliners went off course? Why were military exercises going on at the same time during the attack? And why couldn't we find the black boxes from the airplanes but we found a passport of one of the terrorists? Now if this implicates Bush perhaps you have information you could share with us. Also, you have no questiona at all regarding 9/11? With the little investigating that was done you are completely satisfied? Why did building 7 fall? and why on Fox news did someone say they decided to pull that building? That is a demolition term used when they bring buldings down with explosives. Now, not once did I say Bush was involved. I can't help it if you construe this as implicating him. These are questions I have regarding that day. I'm not satisfied with the answers I've been given. If you can help clear these up for me I will listen with an open mind willing to put these questions to bed.
Mike D,
Personally I don't think it will work because America is too strong to be divided by lies.
What do you think?
Posted by James Jones on August 22, 2007 06:03 PM
Posted by James Jones on August 23, 2007 06:49 AMJames:
Saddam was walking the line between convincing the U.N. that he had gotten rid of his weapons, and convincing his neighbors in the region that he could still defend himself.
That is why he wasn't forthcoming about the fact that he had by and large disarmed his WMD post Gulf War.
Posted by Charles B on August 23, 2007 07:17 AMCharles B,
That's not what Mike D posted. He posted that the weapons inspectors verified that the WMD were disarmed.
That is a lie.
Posted by James Jones on August 23, 2007 08:14 AMJJ:
"That's not what Mike D posted. He posted that the weapons inspectors verified that the WMD were disarmed.That is a lie."
But it's not a lie to say that they were still in Iraq doing their job when they were pulled.
Can you say with certitude that they wouldn't have completed their inspections to the satisfaction of their mandate had they been given more time?
Posted by Charles B on August 23, 2007 10:54 AMirwin,For the last time, we are fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq.Al Qaeda is a terrorist group responsible for the trade center attack.Get it!
Posted by Keith on August 23, 2007 11:34 AMCharles B,
No that's not a lie but you can't ignore the fact that they had been "doing their job" for nearly 10 years and were still asking formore time.
It was Bush's judgement that Saddam posed a threat that could no longer be tolerated and so he decided, with Congressional authorization this was not a rogue act, to invade.
Reasonable people can, and do, question both Bush's and the Congress' judgement. History will be the final arbiter.
Meanwhile, we should tell the truth about the facts extant when Bush, and Congress, made their decision. Lying about the conditions always clouds the issue.
Posted by James Jones on August 23, 2007 11:49 AMJames Jones,
I really don't understand your post regarding America is too smart to be divided by lies.
Are you saying that I was lying by saying we were invading Iraq because of WMD's? That isn't the main reason we invaded, becasue Saddam had WMD's and was about to use or sell them? Please eloborate on what you feel are the lies..
Jonesy,
Bush has been "doing his job" in Iraq for some years now too. He hasn't accomplished anything, of curse - although he has several times declared that his "mission" was/is "accomplished"; and he's asking for still more time, as well as more money, and blood, and lives; presumably to, what? . . . get the job done? . . . or just waste on more futile and foolish floundering around? Are we suposed to "ignore the fact"; and just go on throwing away our own most precious resources, the lives of our youth, until he comes up with . . . whatever it might be he decides he needs next, perhaps?
A goodly number of folks have tried to "tell the truth about the facts extant" back when Bush invaded Iraq. Every time they present a fact, someone comes along to either deny the fact itself, or offer to explain it away, by reason of some other propaganda interpretation of what the fact "ought to be".
You're quite right, "Lying about conditions always clouds the issue". On the other hand, Jonesy, your own record for telling the truth is not all that great. So, just who is doing more to "cloud the issue" than you are doing yourself?
Doesn't it come down to what you wrote in the second paragraph above: "It was Bush's judgment"?
And having lied - about having reasons, derived from Intelligence sources - both to Congress and to the people, thereby suckering Congress into agreement, it was Bush's decision to invade Iraq. Just as it is Bush's judgment that we must keep on keeping on in a quagmire of his making today.
Contemporary reasonable people have already arrived at those conclusions. Why do we have to go on sacrificing American lives while waiting on "history" of some unspecified future date to be an arbiter?
Your current letter in the RMN is one of just another jingoist cheer-leader for the War-Is-Wonderful-And-Shooting-People-Is-Fun crowd who got us into this mess in the first place; and who cannot even come up with enough imagination to propose a way out. And that's sad; expecially since your are the one for whom IMMAGINATION is the rule of how things "ought to be".
Posted by Old Grouch on August 23, 2007 01:37 PMMike D,
Here is the lie
Iraq, the reasons I understood was originally WMD's, however there were weapons inspectore already in Iraq telling us there were none. However we went in anyway"
If you will scroll up to 9.20 you will find the truth contained in the Blix report just prior to the invasion.
Posted by James Jones on August 23, 2007 02:23 PMJJ:
"No that's not a lie but you can't ignore the fact that they had been "doing their job" for nearly 10 years and were still asking formore time."
Wrong.
Saddam had just let the inspectors back in because of the pressure he felt after Congress voted to authorize the use of force which was, by the way, the purpose of the authorization in the minds of many of those who voted for it.
They simply hadn't had time to do their job when Bush pulled them out.
He was going to war no matter what and if you were honest you would admit that.
Posted by Charles B on August 23, 2007 06:22 PMCharles,
"Saddam had just let the inspectors back in because of the pressure he felt after Congress voted to authorize the use of force which was, by the way, the purpose of the authorization in the minds of many of those who voted for it."
As the Geico Caveman would say "WHAAT"?
Was this your exceptional ESP has researched or is there proof to this statement? The proof should be identified directly after actions against Iraq started, not a few months later after sh&^%t started to hit the fan with what was going on.
I never approved of us going into Iraq, but this is the lamest crap I have seen yet. There are many great arguments to defend your postion and you use this? This is lame, even for you. Step up to the plate man!
Posted by on August 23, 2007 08:16 PMCharles B,
I will honestly admit that I don't think you can read legislator's minds. In fact, I don't think you can ready anyone's mind.
I am sure you think you can and at some point your imagined gift will be called on to support your position.
I just don't believe it.
Saddam could have demonstrated compliance within months if he wanted to.
Posted by James Jones on August 24, 2007 06:07 AMAh! Jonesy!
How wonderful! You don't think that Charles B can read anyone's mind. Yet you go on to give us the statement: "Saddam could have demonstrated compliance within months if he wanted to." Which is a wonderful example of carnival side-show mind-reading, if there ever was one. And not only that, but it's a wonderful example of a form of seance without even having to use a Ouija Board - knowing what was/is in the mind of a dead man.
Or, on the other hand, if that wasn't "mind-reading" - for you to know what Saddam could have done if he wanted to - it does serve as a wonderful example of your own preference for sheer imagination over any attempt to deal with the mundane world of historical facts.
Oh! What whiz of a whiz you always is!
Posted by Old Grouch on August 24, 2007 02:05 PMSo OG you approve of Charles Statement? Lot of BS statements on this thread but that one took the cake. Choked on a beer reading that horsecrap.
Posted by on August 24, 2007 06:59 PMOld Grouch,
No,mind reading was never required to undersatnd what your favored mass murderer was up to. One thin about Saddma, he was never particulaly subtle.
So it was pretty obvious when 6-7 years of inspections did not confirm compliance. Even accounting for the fact that this was the UN, 6-7 mnths would have been more than enough if Saddam had cooperated.
When he expelled the inspectors from the Country even you might have developed an inkling that he did not intend to cooperate.
So no Grouch, mind-reading was not required with Saddam. He had a way of expressing himself through his actions that made his intent plain.
There was never a need to call upon Chrales B's clairvoyance.
You need to get a grip.
Posted by James Jones on August 25, 2007 09:26 AMYeah,Saddam kick out the inspectors,we had intelligence that Al qaeda was getting a safe haven in Iraq,wehad to go in knowing we just got attack on our soil because of no action in the previous adm.After going in Iraq we found out that because oil for food shame that Saddam pocketed 24.5 billions dollars that he used for his personal enrichment and was going to use these funds for buying and producing weapons.He was a sworn enemy of the U.S.plus he was starving his people to death.And we also found out the officials in the UN were involve.This war was well needed but shoud of been fought in 98'but clinton didn't take action like he didn't against Al Qaeda.
Posted by Keith on August 25, 2007 11:34 AMThe bottom line is that the Democrats and their friends in the media are helping the terrorists win the war.Without their support of the terrorists we would have won this war already.They are the reason that so many more of our soldiers have died.The terrorists know that they can count on their friends in the Democrat party so they are encouraged to keep fighting.Just the bottom line.
Posted by An American on August 26, 2007 08:51 AMThe bottom line is that the idiotic ramblings of An American are recruiting new Democrats and Independents daily as more Republicans are seeing the light and making like Rumsfeld, Rove and now Gonzolez and leaving the good ship SS George Bush ( nah, not a ship its a dingy).
Posted by Thanks 4 the help on August 27, 2007 07:09 AMAn American,You ever feel you are surrounded by a bunch of idiots?
Posted by Keith on August 27, 2007 04:48 PMthanks 4 the help,Why is the support of the worse congress ever,dem.control congress is losing approval daily because of the lack of support for our troops and because of there incompetence.Plus they lied about everything they were going to do if they got elected.People like An American and myself knew these guys were liars because we spend the extra time to find out the facts.
Posted by Keith on August 27, 2007 08:20 PM