More trouble for Cheney

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

But, my point is that blame for pursuing all avenues to rid SH of them cannot be put solely on the Bush Administration - the UN and the Clinton and first Bush Administrations must share in that blame.

Of course all the blame falls on them. Don't try to sell me that ****. They're the ones who invaded. Clinton did not. The United Nations did not. Whether or not Clinton had all of the same intel (which he did not), he did not act on that intel by invading the country and slaying it's citizens. The Bushbots took all of the lies & bull****, packaged it up for mass consumption, and then went about trying to sell it to the world as a respectable bill of goods. The fact that they knew all of it was a bunch of lies just makes it all the more abhorrent.

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Where they differ to me is the Bush Administration used 9/11 as a springboard to invade Iraq.

And did you read the article I posted about Bush requesting a report on Saddam's supposed ties with Al Qaeda a mere two days after 9/11? The report came back and contained the exact opposite of what they started saying to rally support for the war. Saddam had no ties with Al Qaeda. Of course, Bush won't release it in any form. Wouldn't even give it to the 9/11 commission.

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I agree with the general point that after 9/11, SH was a loose cannon that had to be dealt with because, again, the world thought he had WMD and 9/11 demonstrated the terrorists were not scared to come here and use them or other methods to hurt us.

I think that's utter ****. I'm sorry, but you are not going to sell me on this "They thought there were weapons" ****. The administration knew there were none. This is ****ing Iraq, a country crippled by sanctions and without the ability to wipe their own asses without the rest of the world knowing whether they used Scotts or a generic brand.

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I would have, however, let the inspections conclude and gone from there. Of course, W could not do this because it was very apparent the inspections would turn up no WMD and the lone peg on which to hang the war hat would be removed. In other words, if W had said "Hey America, I am going to take us to a costly war to remove this really really bad guy," he would not have been able to sell that no matter how much Americans stupidly and blindly hated (and still hate) people from that part of the world.

Precisely. Why let the inspections continue? It wouldn't have yielded the results Bush wanted and if he let them continue any further, he risked losing some of the support he had to invade. That demonstrates to me that they had knowledge of there not being any weapons.

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I do not know the extent of Powell's culpability in the exxageration of the evidence or in the termination of the inspections. Personally, I think that as the Sec. of State and not the head of the CIA, etc., he is not as complicit as you do, but clearly he is on some level.

He can lick my crack. Anyone who would sell out their own integrity like that in order to bomb innocent people isn't worth my pissing on if they were on fire. He's as complicit in blowing off the arms of children as the actual bomb that was used is. It's unforgivable.

[DavidMn]

Originally Posted by dissention

Of course all the blame falls on them. Don't try to sell me that ****. They're the ones who invaded. Clinton did not. The United Nations did not. Whether or not Clinton had all of the same intel (which he did not), he did not act on that intel by invading the country and slaying it's citizens. The Bushbots took all of the lies & bull****, packaged it up for mass consumption, and then went about trying to sell it to the world as a respectable bill of goods. The fact that they knew all of it was a bunch of lies just makes it all the more abhorrent.



And did you read the article I posted about Bush requesting a report on Saddam's supposed ties with Al Qaeda a mere two days after 9/11? The report came back and contained the exact opposite of what they started saying to rally support for the war. Saddam had no ties with Al Qaeda. Of course, Bush won't release it in any form. Wouldn't even give it to the 9/11 commission.



I think that's utter ****. I'm sorry, but you are not going to sell me on this "They thought there were weapons" ****. The administration knew there were none. This is ****ing Iraq, a country crippled by sanctions and without the ability to wipe their own asses without the rest of the world knowing whether they used Scotts or a generic brand.



Precisely. Why let the inspections continue? It wouldn't have yielded the results Bush wanted and if he let them continue any further, he risked losing some of the support he had to invade. That demonstrates to me that they had knowledge of there not being any weapons.



He can lick my crack. Anyone who would sell out their own integrity like that in order to bomb innocent people isn't worth my pissing on if they were on fire. He's as complicit in blowing off the arms of children as the actual bomb that was used is. It's unforgivable.

Once again, you stick to your guns. God lova ya for that. The world needs more people like you with conviction.

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by chiliD

Methinks Ol' Dubya has fallen off the wagon and is taking a good swack at the ol' bottle again. And, maybe even snortin' some Peruvian Fairy Dust, too.
To still think he can initiate his totally inappropriate programs, he'd HAVE to be.

In a CNN poll last nite viewers were asked if they thought Bush's plan for dealing with border security was comprehensive and made sense. 98% said no.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

. . . I think that's utter ****. I'm sorry, but you are not going to sell me on this "They thought there were weapons" ****. The administration knew there were none. This is ****ing Iraq, a country crippled by sanctions and without the ability to wipe their own asses without the rest of the world knowing whether they used Scotts or a generic brand . . . .

I am not the one selling it. The UN is and was and passed many resolutions saying so and mostly unanimously. Again, for over a decade, they had been killing in the name of these WMD via Oil for Food, no fly zones, etc. If you can show that is an erroneous statement - let's see it. So, the world thought they were there and must share in some of the blame for W adhering to that line of thought, though I readily agree W took the killing in their name to a much higher level. In the end, if you think there were no WMD (from when exactly I am unsure) - then the world has been wrong for over a decade.

[DavidMn]

Originally Posted by dissention

Of course all the blame falls on them. Don't try to sell me that ****. They're the ones who invaded. Clinton did not. The United Nations did not. Whether or not Clinton had all of the same intel (which he did not), he did not act on that intel by invading the country and slaying it's citizens. The Bushbots took all of the lies & bull****, packaged it up for mass consumption, and then went about trying to sell it to the world as a respectable bill of goods. The fact that they knew all of it was a bunch of lies just makes it all the more abhorrent.



And did you read the article I posted about Bush requesting a report on Saddam's supposed ties with Al Qaeda a mere two days after 9/11? The report came back and contained the exact opposite of what they started saying to rally support for the war. Saddam had no ties with Al Qaeda. Of course, Bush won't release it in any form. Wouldn't even give it to the 9/11 commission.



I think that's utter ****. I'm sorry, but you are not going to sell me on this "They thought there were weapons" ****. The administration knew there were none. This is ****ing Iraq, a country crippled by sanctions and without the ability to wipe their own asses without the rest of the world knowing whether they used Scotts or a generic brand.



Precisely. Why let the inspections continue? It wouldn't have yielded the results Bush wanted and if he let them continue any further, he risked losing some of the support he had to invade. That demonstrates to me that they had knowledge of there not being any weapons.



He can lick my crack. Anyone who would sell out their own integrity like that in order to bomb innocent people isn't worth my pissing on if they were on fire. He's as complicit in blowing off the arms of children as the actual bomb that was used is. It's unforgivable.

BTW when are you getting a talk show on one of these cable telly channels. I would be alot more entertained by you than alot of these old farts!!!

[dissention]

Originally Posted by DavidMn

BTW when are you getting a talk show on one of these cable telly channels. I would be alot more entertained by you than alot of these old farts!!!

As soon as they offer. I'll put Nancy Grace and her squawking to shame.

[DavidMn]

Originally Posted by dissention

As soon as they offer. I'll put Nancy Grace and her squawking to shame.

What would you call your program, and who would be your first guest? Lemme guess, a certain prime time CNN anchor?

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I am not the one selling it. The UN is and was and passed many resolutions saying so and mostly unanimously.

I was clearly talking about this administration, but you must have missed that in your zeal to play devil's advocate or King of Argumentation yet again. Again, whether or not the United Nations thought he had weapons, the Bush administration invaded. They did not have the support of the UN, they had no coalition to speak of, and went about it unilaterally. Let's not even get into how they possibly violated international law as a member of the UN that completely disregarded rules outlined in the UN charter. Daniel Webster must have been spinning over in his grave when the administration invoked the words "imminent threat."

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Again, for over a decade, they had been killing in the name of these WMD via Oil for Food, no fly zones, etc. If you can show that is an erroneous statement - let's see it.

And you seem to think I'm excusing that?

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

So, the world thought they were there and must share in some of the blame for W adhering to that line of thought, though I readily agree W took the killing in their name to a much higher level. In the end, if you think there were no WMD (from when exactly I am unsure) - then the world has been wrong for over a decade.

Of course anyone who thought there were weapons has been wrong. And this administration knew there were no weapons. That is my point. They suppressed intel that proved that assertion and puffed up intel that contradicted it so that they could invade. End of story.

And I don't think they had any weapons to speak of since the early nineties.

[Rickypt]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

In a CNN poll last nite viewers were asked if they thought Bush's plan for dealing with border security was comprehensive and made sense. 98% said no.

That's because it's something his handlers threw together over the weekend and that he doesn't understand himself. It's nothing more than an attempt to deflect attention from the failures and scandals while trying to appease his base. When times go bad, when times go rough, go after the Mexicans.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

. . . And I don't think they had any weapons to speak of since the early nineties.

Then why did the world think to the contrary? I mean that is some pretty heavy competition to your opinion

Also, I draw no distinction between W's falsely premised invasion of Iraq and Clinton's killing thousands if not millions via starvation and bombs - all in the name of the same WMD. I mean killing is killing. But, yes, W went a big step further than Clinton, though that step is meaningless to those who died over the last 15 or so years.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Then why did the world think to the contrary? I mean that is some pretty heavy competition to your opinion

It's not just my opinion, there are many who didn't believe Saddam had weapons. And if you think everyone truly believed that Saddam had those weapons, you're a fool. Our own leaders knew he didn't have them, for christ's sake.

Also, I draw no distinction between W's falsely premised invasion of Iraq and Clinton's killing thousands if not millions via starvation and bombs - all in the name of the same WMD. I mean killing is killing. But, yes, W went a big step further than Clinton, though that step is meaningless to those who died over the last 15 or so years.

I agree to an extent and, as you know, I'm not a fan of Clinton and find him to be just as murderous as the Bushbots. But I find the impact of an actual invasion of Iraq to be a bit more devastating than that of airstrikes. This is something that will never be "won" and people are going to look back at this as a mess of monumental proportions. We've f*cked things up in the Middle East beyond repair.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

It's not just my opinion, there are many who didn't believe Saddam had weapons. And if you think everyone truly believed that Saddam had those weapons, you're a fool. Our own leaders knew he didn't have them, for christ's sake . . . .

I am speaking of the UN resolutions and the terror commited under them. I use the word terror because if those resolutions were fabricated, which I think you think they were, then it is terrorism.