On 9/11, a Telling Seven-Minute Silence

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Dissention bringing it was not fair?

No, your inference wasn't fair. The fact of the matter is that Iraq posed the same threat as North Korea, Syria, Iran, and a slew of other countries, which is to say not much of a threat at all, just some hot air. But we didn't invade those countries and we shouldn't have invaded Iraq.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Dissention bringing it was not fair?

I mean come on - that argument is brought up all of the time. I think if these other people present a threat to us, like the world thought SH did, then we should take them out. If that is unfair, so be it.

You were creating a straw man argument.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

He had no viable airforce. You're just dancing now. How was he going to attack the US mainland?

Ask Putin - he said it. I am just saying I cannot imagine Putin out right lying. I mean he has too much to lose by doing so. But I readily admit he has not supported his statement and W's adminsitration is not screaming it at the top of their lungs. I mean if they can prove this, W will win the election by a landslide. But, something is going on there because Rove is not doing so. We need to find out more becuase it does not make sense now.

BTW - SH had no trouble attacking Isreal in the first Gulf War and he had some of those same missles. I mean if Al-Q can make a truck bomb and use it to blow up a military dorm. I am unsure why SH could not do the same. But, it would not IMO fit in with his method of ruling. I just do not see him as doing that. But and again, why would Putin say it. I just do not get it.

BTW - that non viable air force was violated the no fly zones. So, clearly he had some air power. AND - their ground forces attacked and/or fired upon our planes in the no fly zones. So, clearly although SH did not possess any great military power, he had some. To say he did not is factualy incorrect.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

No, your inference wasn't fair. The fact of the matter is that Iraq posed the same threat as North Korea, Syria, Iran, and a slew of other countries, which is to say not much of a threat at all, just some hot air. But we didn't invade those countries and we shouldn't have invaded Iraq.

But those countries are not in violation of the numerous UN reolutions to disam and prove they have. SH was and did not. The situation is different with Iraq. Just ask Billy C. He'll tell ya so. In fact, he did in his interview on Sunday. Please tell me how I am wrong here

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

But those countries are not in violation of the numerous UN reolutions to disam and prove they have. SH was and did not. The situation is different with Iraq. Just ask Billy C. He'll tell ya so. In fact, he did in his interview on Sunday. Please tell me how I am wrong here

As I've stated all along, Saddam was not in breach of the resolutions. He was had no weapons and allowed inspections whenever they wanted to inspect. I don't care what anyone else said, Clinton and Kerry included. They don't speak for me, yet you seem to think they do and that I blindly agree with everything they say.

Saddam had no weapons, NONE. He was not in breach of UN resolutions.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

That's just the thing though. Bush wasn't even at the school when the first plane hit. Let me say it again. He wasn't at the school when the first plane hit. He hear about it and decided to go to the school anyway. He failed us, all of us on that day. PLENTY of people know it. Plenty more are going to know it.

Oh Strandie...I didn't catch your response to this.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

As I've stated all along, Saddam was not in breach of the resolutions. He was had no weapons and allowed inspections whenever they wanted to inspect. I don't care what anyone else said, Clinton and Kerry included. They don't speak for me, yet you seem to think they do and that I blindly agree with everything they say.

Saddam had no weapons, NONE. He was not in breach of UN resolutions.

Then why did the UN find him in breach on more than one occasion? Again, facts are facts. Here is a link to UN Security Council Resolution 1441 - http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/G...df?OpenElement

Any Questions?

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

But those countries are not in violation of the numerous UN reolutions to disam and prove they have. SH was and did not. The situation is different with Iraq. Just ask Billy C. He'll tell ya so. In fact, he did in his interview on Sunday. Please tell me how I am wrong here

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in624848.shtml

And what about Saddam Hussein?

“When you were President, you said the same thing as President Bush, that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction,” Rather tells Mr. Clinton. “George Bush eventually invaded Iraq. You didn't. Did you make the right decision? And why didn't you make it?”

“The first President Bush, after the first Gulf War, made a decision that rather than overthrowing Saddam Hussein, the important thing was to contain his aggressive impulses. So, sanctions were imposed on Iraq and the inspections process was started,” replies Mr. Clinton.

“Now when I became president in '93, I inherited that system. I actually thought it made pretty good sense. We had done a lot of good with those inspections. We uncovered more chemical and biological agents and other prohibited materials in the inspections process and destroyed them than were destroyed in the Gulf War.”

President Clinton points out that when Hussein kicked U.N. weapons inspectors out of Iraq in 1998, he ordered a four-day bombing raid, but was unable to find out how many if any chemical and biological weapons were destroyed in those attacks. He says that the current President Bush should have pushed harder for new inspections.
“In terms of the launching of the war, I believe we made an error in not allowing the United Nations to complete the inspections process. Now, having said that, we are where we are,” says Mr. Clinton. “And I think the most important thing now is for all of us to support a stable, peaceful, and pluralistic Iraq. And it looks to me like the administration is moving in that direction.”

Does he agree with President Bush that the world is safer in terms of terrorism because U.S.-led forces invaded Iraq?

“Let me say this. I think the Iraqis are better off with Saddam gone, if they can have a stable government,” says Mr. Clinton.

“There have been more terrorists move into Iraq in the aftermath of the conflict. I still believe, as I always have, that the biggest terrorist threat by far is al Qaeda and the al Qaeda network. And that the biggest long term destructive threat is the significant volume of chemical and biological agents all over the world that are not yet secure.”

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

That's just the thing though. Bush wasn't even at the school when the first plane hit. Let me say it again. He wasn't at the school when the first plane hit. He hear about it and decided to go to the school anyway. He failed us, all of us on that day. PLENTY of people know it. Plenty more are going to know it.

I was wrong, you were right about he was not reading when the first plane hit.

This issue has been in the media for a long time. People just do not embrace it. I do not know why. They just do not. I am not making this up. But, you all get all up in arms when I point it out. Maybe they will after seeing this new MM movie. Only time will tell.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in624848.shtml

And what about Saddam Hussein?

“When you were President, you said the same thing as President Bush, that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction,” Rather tells Mr. Clinton. “George Bush eventually invaded Iraq. You didn't. Did you make the right decision? And why didn't you make it?”

“The first President Bush, after the first Gulf War, made a decision that rather than overthrowing Saddam Hussein, the important thing was to contain his aggressive impulses. So, sanctions were imposed on Iraq and the inspections process was started,” replies Mr. Clinton.

“Now when I became president in '93, I inherited that system. I actually thought it made pretty good sense. We had done a lot of good with those inspections. We uncovered more chemical and biological agents and other prohibited materials in the inspections process and destroyed them than were destroyed in the Gulf War.”

President Clinton points out that when Hussein kicked U.N. weapons inspectors out of Iraq in 1998, he ordered a four-day bombing raid, but was unable to find out how many if any chemical and biological weapons were destroyed in those attacks. He says that the current President Bush should have pushed harder for new inspections.
“In terms of the launching of the war, I believe we made an error in not allowing the United Nations to complete the inspections process. Now, having said that, we are where we are,” says Mr. Clinton. “And I think the most important thing now is for all of us to support a stable, peaceful, and pluralistic Iraq. And it looks to me like the administration is moving in that direction.”

Does he agree with President Bush that the world is safer in terms of terrorism because U.S.-led forces invaded Iraq?

“Let me say this. I think the Iraqis are better off with Saddam gone, if they can have a stable government,” says Mr. Clinton.

“There have been more terrorists move into Iraq in the aftermath of the conflict. I still believe, as I always have, that the biggest terrorist threat by far is al Qaeda and the al Qaeda network. And that the biggest long term destructive threat is the significant volume of chemical and biological agents all over the world that are not yet secure.”

True, but he does not say he would not have gone to war. He says bhe disagreed with the timing of it. He says this in the cnn article I quoted earlier. AND - you all think W made the whole WMD issue up anyway, Clinton does not. He and Kerry repeatedly have said SH had to go because he and his WMD were a menance to the world. Then, Clinton says W did the right thing in pressing the Iraq issue because after 9/11 the US could not afford the possibility that SH had these WMD and could pass them on. Clinton specifically notes he is going againt the left by making these statements. Moreover UN Resolution 1441 finds SH in material breach. Yet, you all refuse to acknowledge this and instead still insist the whole WMD issue was a red herring W created to go to war with Iraq.

AND - I have said it before and will say it again, the 1998 airstrikes brought the US to the brink of all out war. It was widely recognized at the time that if SH responded by firing missles at Isreal and Isreal responded in kind, a huge war would break out. So, Clinton almost took us to all out war. I am thankful it did not happen that way - but the risk was there.

[gldstwmn]

[QUOTE=strandinthewind]True, but he does not say he would not have gone to war. He says bhe disagreed with the timing of it. He says this in the cnn article I quoted earlier. AND - you all think W made the whole WMD issue up anyway, Clinton does not. He and Kerry repeatedly have said SH had to go because he and his WMD were a menance to the world. QUOTE]

Why would he say he wouldn't have gone to war? He answered the quesiton and said he thought the UN Inspectors should have been allowed to finish their job. We don't know what would have happened if they did. Neither does he. Only a fool would conjecture like that. He's sitting in the White House. You referenced the Sunday night interview, so here it is.
I never said they made up the WMD's, I said I always thought they (being the current administration) knew that they weren't there. Please don't put words in my mouth to build your Bush apologist/enabler arguments and excuses.

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Then, Clinton says W did the right thing in pressing the Iraq issue because after 9/11 the US could not afford the possibility that SH had these WMD and could pass them on. Clinton specifically notes he is going againt the left by making these statements. Moreover UN Resolution 1441 finds SH in material breach. Yet, you all refuse to acknowledge this and instead still insist the whole WMD issue was a red herring W created to go to war with Iraq.

Here is the quote from Clinton which you are misrepresenting in your post: "I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over," the former president said.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

AND - I have said it before and will say it again, the 1998 airstrikes brought the US to the brink of all out war. It was widely recognized at the time that if SH responded by firing missles at Isreal and Isreal responded in kind, a huge war would break out. So, Clinton almost took us to all out war. I am thankful it did not happen that way - but the risk was there.

It lasted for three days. We had him cornered for many months before that. He wasn't going to be able to do anything.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Here is the quote from Clinton which you are misrepresenting in your post: "I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over," the former president said.

I agree and have not stated anything but that. He is not saying he would not have gone to war nor is he disagreeing with the premisis of the the war - the WMD issues. He is just disagreeing with the timing. He thinks, as I do, that W rushed to war. AND, we have now come to know that that rush to war was done without proper preparation of your troops. There is evidence that the guardsmen in the prisons were not trained to do that job and look at the price we have paid. W needs to be removed for that. His judgement in the rush to war is what I am against.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

THE CARLYLE GROUP JUST BOUGHT LOEW'S MOVIE THEATERS!

Carlyle goes to the movies
Jeff Clabaugh
Staff Reporter
District-based investment firm The Carlyle Group is one of three investors that have agreed to buy Loews Cineplex Entertainment from Onex Corp. and Oaktree Capital Management for $1.46 billion.


The buyout is being led by Bain Capital, an investment firm started in 1984 by Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney. Spectrum Equity Investors is also part of the buyout team.

Loews is the third largest movie theater chain, with about 200 Cineplex operations worldwide. It operates 17 theaters in the Washington area. The company, founded by Marcus Loew in 1904, started life as a nickelodeon in New York. At its peak, it had 365 locations.

The Carlyle Group has more than $17 billion in assets under management. Last month it agreed to buy Verizon's Hawaiian business for $1.6 billion.

Carlyle was founded in 1987. Its directors have included former President George Bush, Collin Powell, James Baker and former British Prime Minister John Major.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

AND - I have said it before and will say it again, the 1998 airstrikes brought the US to the brink of all out war. It was widely recognized at the time that if SH responded by firing missles at Isreal and Isreal responded in kind, a huge war would break out. So, Clinton almost took us to all out war. I am thankful it did not happen that way - but the risk was there.

I could be wrong, but as I remember, the airstrikes lasted for only four or five days. Hardly the brink of war, my delusional friend. AND - the public VEHEMENTLY disapproved of any sort of war with iraq in '98.