| Author | Message | ||
     Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 1794 Registered: 7-2004  |
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BUSH?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFA ULT&CTIME=2006-03-21-09-02-57 "We all recognized that there is violence, that there is sectarian violence. But the way I look at the situation is, the Iraqis looked and decided not to go into civil war." He makes it sound as if the Iraqis, over a friendly poker night, sat down and decided that civil war, eh, what's the point? I'd feel a lot better about the direction of the war, and our ability to succeed, if our commander-in-chief just wasn't blowing smoke out his •••. Also notice that he conceeded the fighting will last beyond his presidency...this man is altogether scary and should be put out to pasture. He will go down as one of the worst world leaders of humankind. | ||
| Innisowen Citizen Username: Innisowen Post Number: 1746 Registered: 3-2004 |
The thing to key in on is GWB's frequent use of the words "insurgency," "sectarian violence,", etc. In any other person's lexicon, those two expressions are synonyms for "civil war." Every eye on Iraq (except the President's, his war team, and 30 year generals who don't want to risk losing parts of their military pensions) sees that civil war is occurring, regardless of what nouns or phrases you try to use to mislead the public. One Iraqi official was quoted this week as saying: "Seeing 60 people murdered a week across the country... if that isn't civil war, then god only knows what civil war is." | ||
| The SLK Effect Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 1123 Registered: 10-2005 |
And RL is an expert on civil war why? | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 1999 Registered: 8-2003  |
it's 60 people a day. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 13096 Registered: 1-2003  |
SLK, pretend I posted what RL posted. Now please tell me where you disagree with it. | ||
| cjc Citizen Post Number: 5397 Registered: 8-2003 |
RL -- Bush said the war on terror (and that includes Iraq) would likely go past his two terms a long, long time ago. If the violence in Iraq was more widespread and not confined largely to Baghdad and it's outlying areas with advancing armies or militias trying to take and control territory with firmly drawn sides, I'd say there was a civil war. Could it happen? Yes. Is it happening? No. | ||
| Innisowen Citizen Username: Innisowen Post Number: 1747 Registered: 3-2004 |
Tom Reingold: SLK seems to shoot from the lip, as they say. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 960 Registered: 10-2004  |
$500,000,000.00 Dollars for our new embassy in Iraq. Permanent, extremely large military bases equipped with all the comforts of home. Billions in dollars of cost and no way we leave Iraq anytime soon. bases map and descriptions But we are not occupiers of Iraq. We are welcomed. Sure we are. | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 1796 Registered: 7-2004 |
My concern, cjc, is that Bush doesn't seem to think it "could" happen, as you do, and therefore we will once again be perilously unprepared for events that might occur in the future. Absolutely no foresight. The "War on Terror" is devised to go on indefinitely. As I believe Tom Reingold pointed out recently, there cannot be a war on terror because terror is a strategy, not an enemy. As for the "War in Iraq" Bush, as recently as his State of the Union, implied that troops levels would decrease as early as this year. In fact, they are increasing. For once, I'd like Bush to level with the American people. But he is entirely incapable of doing so. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 4584 Registered: 5-2001 |
500 years from now, there will be classes of people who are marginalized and politically powerless. They wll resort to tactics that will be branded as "terrorism." The War on Terror has no reasonably defined endpoint and it should be declared over. The War on al Qaeda should continue in its place. | ||
| Twokitties Citizen Username: Twokitties Post Number: 406 Registered: 8-2004 |
Reality isn't the strong suit of this administration and, yes, it is dangerous. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 13101 Registered: 1-2003 |
As for the "War in Iraq" Bush, as recently as his State of the Union, implied that troops levels would decrease as early as this year. In fact, they are increasing. Saying one thing and doing the exact opposite seems to be a winning political strategy. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5400 Registered: 8-2003 |
RL -- he sent in 700 troops from Kuwait for some Muslim pilgrimmage as I read. That's a big deal in the big picture? We're at 133K, down from 163K during the December elections. If there's an election in the next year, it's likely an influx of US troops might happen there too. Iraqis are controlling security in 1/2 of Baghdad. Iraqis are more and more the tip of the spear in operations there. True, they're getting killed, as are insurgents and terrorists. Iraqis are assuming more and more responsibility and stepping up every day. | ||
| bettyd Citizen Username: Badjtdso Post Number: 157 Registered: 12-2005 |
Anyone see Cheney on Face the Nation? He was asked to respond to Senator Kennedy's statement that the US should not have gone into Iraq. Cheney said "After they (Al Qaeda) hit us and killed 3,000 of our people we said enough is enough. We're going to aggressively go after them." Four and a half years later and he is still peddling the same nonsense, equating Iraq with 9/11 and Al Qaeda. Problem for him is nobody's buying it anymore, even in the heartland. This man has absolutely no humility or shame. No wonder his poll numbers are in the teens. | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 1797 Registered: 7-2004 |
cjc: Was that last post ripped directly from whitehouse.gov? | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5401 Registered: 8-2003 |
Actually, whitehouse.gov stole it from me. | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 1798 Registered: 7-2004 |
Ah, that does make sense. (Check out whitehouse.com...) | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 2000 Registered: 8-2003 |
there's a reason the violence is mainly centered in and around Baghdad. it's because that's where the people are. Almost 25% of the Iraqi population lives within the city of Baghdad, and according to the U.S. State Department website:
That's why the claims that the country is mostly safe are bogus. We'll hear that only 4 or 5 or 6 provinces are the site of violence, and the rest of the country is tranquil. That's because there are very few people living in the tranquil parts of the country. People can choose to call it "sectarian violence" instead of civil war if it makes them feel better, but when 2000 people a month are getting killed in a country with less than 10% of the population of the U.S., it's pretty serious business. | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 2645 Registered: 5-2004  |
Betty, and yet, did our esteemed fourth estate go after Cheney for that comment, or did they simply let it stand? | ||
| Guy Supporter Username: Vandalay Post Number: 1675 Registered: 8-2004  |
Here is what Cheney actually said on FTN. "And the terrorists came to believe not only could they strike us with impunity, but if they hit us hard enough they could change our policy, because they did in Beirut in 1983 or Mogadishu in 1993. We changed all that on 9/11. After they hit us and killed 3,000 of our people here at home we said enough is enough. We're going to aggressively go after them. We'll go after the terrorists wherever we find them. We'll go after those states that sponsor terror. We'll go after people who can provide them with weapons of mass destruction. " http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/26/ftn/main1346210.shtml | ||
| bettyd Citizen Username: Badjtdso Post Number: 158 Registered: 12-2005 |
Rastro: They let it stand. Guy: Saudi Arabia trained most of the hijackers in their madrassas. Two of them were from the UAE. And the UAE was one of the few countries that recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan and supported them. Did we aggressively go after them? No, Bush and Cheney were going to allow a UAE company to run our ports. Again, Cheney is still linking Iraq with 9/11 and Al Qaeda. We all know there was no connection. | ||
| Guy Supporter Username: Vandalay Post Number: 1676 Registered: 8-2004 |
The Admin never said that Iraq was involved in 9-11. Their position is that because of 9-11 the status quo in Iraq was no longer acceptable. betty you must differentiate between state sponsors of terror and terrorists who happen to be of a specific nationality. Zarqawi being Jordanian is a good example. | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 1799 Registered: 7-2004 |
Guy: You're simply wrong about that. All along Bush and Cheney have gone out of their way to make clear that Saddam and Al Qaeda were in cahoots. Look it up. Man, you've been unimpressive lately. | ||
| bettyd Citizen Username: Badjtdso Post Number: 160 Registered: 12-2005 |
The status quo in Iraq was it was totally contained, was not a threat, had no WMD's, and was a mere shell since the Gulf War of 91, with no capability to do us any harm. | ||
| Guy Supporter Username: Vandalay Post Number: 1677 Registered: 8-2004 |
RL, Bush never made a case that Saddam was involved in 9-11. That may be unimpressive, but it's a fact. betty, post war intelligence shows that they were a threat. | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 1801 Registered: 7-2004 |
Bush administration quotes linking Iraq and al-Qaeda The Associated Press Comments by President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice alleging links between al-Qaeda and Iraq under Saddam Hussein: 2002 Rice, Sept. 25: "There clearly are contacts between al-Qaeda and Iraq that can be documented; there clearly is testimony that some of the contacts have been important contacts and that there's a relationship here. ... And there are some al-Qaeda personnel who found refuge in Baghdad." Bush, Oct. 7: "We know that Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy — the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al-Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade" and "we've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases." 2003 Bush, State of the Union address, Jan. 28: "And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaeda." Bush, Feb. 6: "Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al-Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al-Qaeda" and "Iraq has also provided al-Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training." 2004 Cheney, Jan. 21: "I continue to believe — I think there's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi government. I'm very confident that there was an established relationship there." Cheney, June 16: Saddam Hussein "had long-established ties with al-Qaeda." | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 4586 Registered: 5-2001 |
Guy, the semantics of Cheney's statement are pretty clear. To quote your earlier quote, with added emphasis Unless you're saying that Iraq is totally unrelated to this quote, then there is a case being made that Saddam was involved in 9/11. Um, what post-war intelligence shows a threat, or at least a threat that was singular enough for us to go to war there rather than a dozen or so other countries with similar capabilities. | ||
| Innisowen Citizen Username: Innisowen Post Number: 1749 Registered: 3-2004 |
RL, Guy won't believe your references because none of them apparently was cited by Fox News. In the "old days," we had the Encyclopedia Brittanica. Today the "alert mind" gets its information from Fox News Channel, then listens to Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, Coulter (that man in the girl suit), and Ingram for their daily dose of disinformation. | ||
| dave23 Citizen Username: Dave23 Post Number: 1537 Registered: 5-2001 |
RL, You've got to put your Clinton goggles on when reading Guy's posts. Bush never made the case that Saddam was involved in 9/11. Yes, he and others alluded, implied, suggested, hinted, shaded and expressed understanding of the public's perception that Saddam was involved. But, as Guy, says, Bush never "made the case." They executed perfectly a political ploy that got them reelected (albeit at the expense of this country's security). | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 1802 Registered: 7-2004 |
Yes, Guy is right in that Bush and Cheney never said outright that Saddam was involved in 9-11, but as the quotes in my last post show they tried desperately to connect Saddam to Al Qaeda. They are a bunch of manipulating liars, hellbent on war even before they felled the towers. To deny it is to live with your head up your you-know-what. | ||
| Guy Supporter Username: Vandalay Post Number: 1678 Registered: 8-2004 |
Gentlemen , the connection between Al Qaida and Iraq is well documented. The extent can be debated. Iraq was a state sponsor of terror that was not directly involved in 9-11. That is the Bush admin position. dave, I can only say what I took out of the admins statements. I never got the impression that Iraq was involved in 9-11. There is evidence he was involved in the first WTC bombing. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 4587 Registered: 5-2001 |
Bush, at this morning's press conference. Emphasis added. What is it about this person that Guy et al will swallow such outright lies from him? It's simply incredible. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 13112 Registered: 1-2003 |
If it's terrorism we're after, why not go for the hotbeds? There's genocide going on in Somalia and the Congo, more than in the Middle East. How silly of me. Why ask why? | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 1803 Registered: 7-2004 |
I have the distinct impression going to war was NOT a difficult decision for Bush. | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 1804 Registered: 7-2004 |
Olbermann (yesterday): "Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda in the same sentence separated by seven words. Sept. 11th and Saddam Hussein -two sentences later, separated by six words. In a moment Craig Crawford joins me to discuss the fundamental remaining question. Who does the President think he's F'n kidding?" My answer: People like Guy and ajc. So F'n sad. | ||
| bettyd Citizen Username: Badjtdso Post Number: 161 Registered: 12-2005 |
Bush and Cheney have just mentioned Iraq and 9/11 in the same sentence in every speech since 9/12/01. But they weren't trying to make a connection were they? How was Iraq a threat? Was one of those missiles that could travel 90 miles going to increase its range by thousands of miles? Was it that mobile biological weapons lab that turned out to be for helium weather balloons? Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator (from the day he took power and during the days Rumsfeld and Cheney viewed him as an ally, not just since 9/11), who wanted to hold on to his power and his palaces. He was a secular leader who did not want Al Qaeda or radical Islam in his country because it would have brought instability. He had no military power to threaten anybody after his country was demolished in the first Gulf War. As we approached Bhagdad in 2003 the tanks guarding the city were mere hulls, put there only to look imposing. The only thing that could have removed him from power and his little dictatorial world was for him to attack the US, or assist in one. He knew that. Iraq was never, ever, ever going to attack us. If Bush had come before the country and said we should remove him from power because he is a brutal dictator and our goal should be to use our military to free the Iraqi people from tyranny, then the country could have debated that. The answer would have been no. That became an after the fact rationale when it became clear there were no WMD's. We were told he was an imminent threat and that we can't wait for the mushroom cloud. That was either a lie or, as the line goes now, faulty intelligence. Either way it wasn't good. Iraq was totally contained after the first Gulf War and was a true paper tiger. | ||
| dave23 Citizen Username: Dave23 Post Number: 1538 Registered: 5-2001 |
Guy, You're a sly one.  | ||
| Guy Supporter Username: Vandalay Post Number: 1679 Registered: 8-2004 |
betty, if only the UN had read your post before passing resolution 1441. dave, I followed this every step of the way since 2002. I never got the impression of Saddam's involvement. I did think that Colin Powell's appearance at the UN was pathetic. Robert , Rule #1 Don't quote Keith Olberman . | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 1805 Registered: 7-2004 |
Helen Thomas sure made him look like the stuttering, lying, ignorant fool that he is... | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 1807 Registered: 7-2004 |
"Robert , Rule #1 Don't quote Keith Olberman ." Or, what, Fox Security is going to come after me?  |
