i hate George Bush!

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Again, after 9/11, the rules changed.

Nope. Before Shrub even took office, Cheney sent memos demanding all the information available on Iraq. How telling is that when it's coupled with Clarke's book and O'Neill's book? They were intent on going to Iraq, began drafting a war plan for Iraq before 9/11, then used 9/11 as a springboard to go to war with Iraq. They even went so far as to imply that Saddam was linked to al-Qaeda. 48% of Americans still believe that Saddam funded al-Qaeda.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

But my point is you have no facts to support that. How do you know that it was not part of the plan for him to stay there? Plus, HELLO - he is a politician, which = a liar. Name me one that has not lied.

I'm talking about his story, Jason. Every time he tells it, it changes. Those are all the facts you need. And we should excuse his lies becaus he's a politician and they do it anyways? C'mon.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Again,what was the alternative? Also, the facts to me suggest that with a little luck, over the next year or two control of Iraq will be in the hands of the Iraqi people.

.

I repeat: NO LEGISLATURE.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

Nope. Before Shrub even took office, Cheney sent memos demanding all the information available on Iraq. How telling is that when it's coupled with Clarke's book and O'Neill's book? They were intent on going to Iraq, began drafting a war plan for Iraq before 9/11, then used 9/11 as a springboard to go to war with Iraq. They even went so far as to imply that Saddam was linked to al-Qaeda. 48% of Americans still believe that Saddam funded al-Qaeda.

Again, the official US policy was regime change. So, of course they had a plan to remove him IN COMPLAINCE WITH THE EXISTING POLICY After 9/11, the US could no longer afford to risk puting up with SH open defiance of the UN and France and Russia were bribed into blocking the US' actions. Please state how that is incorrect.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

I repeat: NO LEGISLATURE.

It does no good, darling.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

I'm talking about his story, Jason. Every time he tells it, it changes. Those are all the facts you need. And we should excuse his lies becaus he's a politician and they do it anyways? C'mon.

It does not change everytime. He has been pretty clear about what happened. My point about all politicians lying was that they do and we should not be surprised when they do it. Again, do you have any concrete proof that him staying in that classroom was not part of the plan to move him to another secure location. No, you do not. I rest my case

[estranged4life]

Originally Posted by dontlookdown

Has there been a more destructive arrogant President in the last 50 years?

...I'm notta crook (Insert double handed "peace" signs")"-Richard "Tricky Dicky" Nixon

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

It does no good, darling.

That is because I am correct. The June 30 coucil is a transition body that will see to the elections that will hopefully take place next year. I just do not get how you all want this to fail. If it succeeds - won't that be a good thing?

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Again, the official US policy was regime change. So, of course they had a plan to remove him IN COMPLAINCE WITH THE EXISTING POLICY After 9/11, the US could no longer afford to risk puting up with SH open defiance of the UN and France and Russia were bribed into blocking the US' actions. Please state how that is incorrect.

Yeah, we went to war because Saddam didn't comply with UN resolutions. The policy was regime change, but it had practically been abandoned. This administration went in with the intent to go to war. There's no way around it. Don't you find it suspicious that Iraq was their highest priority before even entering office???

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Please. We never did that and you know it. Albeit, we are not stopping the opium trade.

Again, what should we have done in Afganistan. i am all ears!!!!

Well for starters, how about a rebuilding effort to stimulate the economy and create jobs? We're talking about a place that has no infrastructure. Al Qaeda may have been camping in Afghanistan but I think we all know where their money comes from by now-Saudi Arabia.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

That is because I am correct. The June 30 coucil is a transition body that will see to the elections that will hopefully take place next year. I just do not get how you all want this to fail. If it succeeds - won't that be a good thing?

You're killing me.

No one wants it to fail. It's just common sense that tells us that democracy will not work in the Middle East. It simply won't. Wish all you want, but the rosiest of views won't disguise this mess. And any transitional body with Chalabi in it is a farce.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by dissention

Yeah, let's see what happens in a year when Chalabi is siphoning the money of the Iraqi people into Swiss bank accounts.

Meet the new boss...same as the old boss.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Well for starters, how about a rebuilding effort to stimulate the economy and create jobs? We're talking about a place that has no infrastructure. Al Qaeda may have been camping in Afghanistan but I think we all know where their money comes from by now-Saudi Arabia.

The same people that are in bed with Bush?! Say it ain't so!



I just say screw it all. We got Libya to give us 50 tons of mustard gas, mission accomplished.

Oh wait, Bush lied about that. It was only 22 tons. Dammit, you can't win!

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

Yeah, we went to war because Saddam didn't comply with UN resolutions. The policy was regime change, but it had practically been abandoned. This administration went in with the intent to go to war. There's no way around it. Don't you find it suspicious that Iraq was their highest priority before even entering office???

Clinton and Albright have stated on more than one occasion that the policy of regime change was in effect. I think that they were worried about SH because the Clinton Adminsitration had essentially stopped the pressure in that they allowed SH to oust the UN inspectors.

Again, I am not saying that w did not want to go to war with Iraq. He did. I am just saying that you make it sound like it was this vast conspiracy, when it was not. It was longstanding US policy.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Meet the new boss...same as the old boss.

And don't tell me that Bush won't get some of that money, too. Why else would they give Chalabi free reign? Heck, why not make Ollie North his right hand?