| Author | Message | ||
     Nohero Citizen Username: Nohero Post Number: 4300 Registered: 10-1999  |
After. See, the inspectors went to Iraq, and found nothing, so we had to invade, and then we found out that there was nothing for the inspectors to find. | ||
| Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 1522 Registered: 1-2003  |
Strawberry, I have the answer to the question you posed in the subject of this thread. "What the hell is wrong with liberals?" They need medication, therapy, and real world experiences. Unfortunately, they won't get any of that because they refuse to even acknowledge their problem, and feel that the NYT gives them the world without having to leave home. Not all of them mind you, but the lefty extremists on MOL... definetly. | ||
| sbenois Citizen Username: Sbenois Post Number: 13071 Registered: 10-2001  |
See, if there were no WMD, why were the inspectors there? I think Bush deserves a rather lenghty round of applause tonight. | ||
| Nohero Citizen Username: Nohero Post Number: 4302 Registered: 10-1999 |
"See, if there were no WMD, why were the inspectors there?" Well, now you're making it sound like an Abbott and Costello routine. Nevertheless, the Duelfer report, and the brand-new CIA report, indicate that there were no WMDs at the start of the war. Mr. Janay - I'm not sure who you're refering to ... | ||
| Dave Moderator Username: Dave Post Number: 5141 Registered: 4-1998  |
You know, those "extremists" who think that war should be a last resort. | ||
| Guy Supporter Username: Vandalay Post Number: 536 Registered: 8-2004 |
If anybody cares here is the Duelfer (thanks Notehead for the spellcheck ) Report. http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/ Then read the Senate Resolution authorizing force. http://hnn.us/articles/1282.html Nohero continues to point to stockplies of WMD as the main reason for invading Iraq and since they have not been located , Saddam posed no threat. Nothing could be farther from the truth. | ||
| Bobkat Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 7471 Registered: 5-2001 |
Guy, the main reason most Americans, and probably the Senate, favored the invasion was the WMD arguement. I doubt, and I have said this before, that Bush would have gotten Senate approval for the war without WMD as a threat. Usually, revisionist history doesn't come out for at least ten years, but this seems to be different. | ||
| Guy Supporter Username: Vandalay Post Number: 537 Registered: 8-2004 |
You may be right Bob, but if you read the Senate Resolution WMD capabilities carried a much weight as stockpiles and both posed threats. Iran is considered a threat and they don't even have a nuclear bomb yet. | ||
| joeltfk Citizen Username: Joeltfk Post Number: 77 Registered: 8-2001  |
At the risk of being redundant, I'm going to reiterate something I posted earlier. We know two things: 1) That Americans supported the war because they were told Sadaam had WMD -- not just capabilities. Without the WMD argument, there would have been no war. 2) That there are no WMD in Iraq. So now we went to war and sent 1400 U.S. citizens to their deaths to give them a free election, apprently. If you put those two together, then it's clear that it doesn't matter much who knew or didn't know. Someone must be held responsible for making the errant decision to go to war. The ends so far don't come close to justifying the sacrifice. If there were no WMDs and you used the best intelligence in the world fairly to find them, then the best result you should have gotten was "Maybe." Yet, Bush made it a certainty. How does one come to a certainty if it turns out to be false? Because he WANTS to believe it, or if the facts were purposely MISREPRESENTED. This is clearly what happened, and people should be in the streets voicing their disapproval. If a major company misrepresented the truth or misunderstood it to make a disastrous acquisition with the most seirous of consequences, how long do you think it would take for the CEO to get fired, regardless of personal culpability. If a football team made strategic decisions and misrepresentations that cost the whole season, how long do you think the coach would last, regardless of personal culpability. History will prove George W. Bush to be the most incompetent President of the last 100 years (Nixon was merely the most corrupt). I'm just sorry so much of this country has been self-blinded by religion, arrogance, ignorance, selfishness, and bigotry to know better. | ||
| Guy Supporter Username: Vandalay Post Number: 538 Registered: 8-2004 |
Joel, at the risk of also being redundant I will point to the Senate Resolution as the rationale for war. At this point in time history may very well view the Democratic Party the way you view GWB. | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 804 Registered: 7-2004 |
Guy: you're wrong. Thomas Friedman made a great point in today's Times (while giving the president kudos on the recent election in Iraq). It is possible to root for an Iraqi democracy and all that will mean for the U.S., while at the same time deploring the deceit and mismanagement of how we got there. As there is still much work to be done, the Bush adminsitration lies and incompetence do not bode well. Too much money and lives were necessary to reach this point, and both are not sustainable (except if you're Janay, where millions of people can die, as long as it's not him). But now Iraq is bigger than Bush, and, as Friedman says, other countries need to step up to the plate as well as the Iraqis taking greater control of their own fate. None of this, however, should give Bush a pass for his truly awful handling of the run-up to war...and all that Joel mentions in the above post. (As for the Senate Resolution, they acted based on false information given to them by the president...a slam dunk, right?) | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 4446 Registered: 10-2001  |
slam dunk was Tenet's comment. Tenet of course was the CIA director under Clinton (and Bush).. Libs, even when they whine they get their facts wrong. | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 805 Registered: 7-2004 |
Straw: once again missing the point. Neo-con extremists, as dumb as a sack of hammers. | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 4447 Registered: 10-2001 |
that's because you have no point and your party has no platform.. | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 806 Registered: 7-2004 |
Ah, neo-con extremists, as stupid as we know they are... | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 4448 Registered: 10-2001 |
libs, reduced to calling real Americans "stupid". Yes, Americans are stupid according to libs. Stupid because they refuse to listen to Ted Kennedy, and Al Sharpton. libs, powerless and pathetic. | ||
| joeltfk Citizen Username: Joeltfk Post Number: 80 Registered: 8-2001 |
No offense, but IMHO stupid people are the ones who reduce real Americans to "libs". | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 4449 Registered: 10-2001 |
Real Americans are Americans who as opposed to you love America. From what you've been writing lately (a poor impression of the over rated Jon Stewart show by the way), you hate America. As a result, we can pretty much discount everything you say since it's not rational. | ||
| Guy Supporter Username: Vandalay Post Number: 539 Registered: 8-2004 |
Joel, who were the people who called Americans stupid for electing GWB. Liberal media types and Democratic politicians. | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 808 Registered: 7-2004 |
Straw: get some new material, man. Really, can you try a little harder please? The real "strawberry problem" is that you have no imagination. Of everything you can use to attack Democrats, the best you got is "powerless" and "pathetic" over and over again? Responding with "boring" (as you will predictably do to this post). Seriously, man, there's more original put downs in the recipe section. |
