• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama considering military strikes after Christmas Day aircraft plot

Misinformation. Most thought Saddam had some left over wmds, not that he was growing and gathering as Bush claimed. And Atta did not train in Iraq.

German intelligence officials say they have evidence that the suspected ringleader of the 11 September terrorist attacks trained in Afghanistan in 1999 and 2000, according to a US newspaper report.

BBC NEWS | Americas | Atta 'trained in Afghanistan'

The Habbush letter, or Habbush memo, is a handwritten message dated July 1, 2001, which appeared to show a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq's Saddam Hussein government. It purports to be a direct communication between the head of Iraqi Intelligence, General Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti, to Saddam Hussein, outlining mission training which Mohammed Atta, one of the organizers of the September 11 attacks, supposedly received in Iraq. The letter also claims that Hussein accepted a shipment from Niger, an apparent reference to an alleged uranium acquisition attempt that U.S. President George W. Bush cited in his January 2003 State of the Union address.

The letter has been widely considered a fabrication since it was first made public in December 2003. In 2008 journalist Ron Suskind claimed that the White House ordered the CIA to create the forgery. Two of Suskind's sources denied having knowledge of anyone in their chain of command ordering the forging the letter[1]. Former CIA officer Philip Giraldi alleged that the Pentagon was behind the forgery. The controversy that erupted as a result of Suskind's allegations has so far led to an investigation by the House Judiciary Committee.[2]

(snip)

Doubts

Investigative journalist Michael Isikoff spoke with current and former US officials, including an Iraqi document expert who was at that time reviewing thousands of Operation Iraqi Freedom documents, all of whom deemed the letter a probable fabrication.[9] "The problem with this, say U.S. law enforcement officials, is that the FBI has compiled a highly detailed time line for Atta's movements throughout the spring and summer of 2001 based on a mountain of documentary evidence, including airline records, ATM withdrawals and hotel receipts. Those records show Atta crisscrossing the United States during this period—making only one overseas trip, an 11-day visit to Spain that didn't begin until six days after the date of the Iraqi memo."

Isikoff continued: "Ironically, even the Iraqi National Congress of Ahmed Chalabi, which has been vocal in claiming ties between Al Qaeda and Saddam's regime, was dismissive of the new Telegraph story. 'The memo is clearly nonsense,' an INC spokesman told Newsweek."

Habbush letter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


As for Kay:

On 23 January 2004, the head of the ISG, David Kay, resigned his position, stating that he believed WMD stockpiles would not be found in Iraq. "I don't think they existed," commented Kay. "What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last Gulf War and I don't think there was a large-scale production program in the nineties." In a briefing to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Kay criticized the pre-war WMD intelligence and the agencies that produced it, saying "It turns out that we were all wrong, probably in my judgment, and that is most disturbing." [1] Sometime earlier, CIA director George Tenet had asked David Kay to delay his departure: "If you resign now, it will appear that we don't know what we're doing. That the wheels are coming off."[1]

Iraq Survey Group - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As for your list. Saddam had been neutered for years. He was not a treat at the time of the invasion. Nor was he doing anything that would justify the cost.

You mean "Slam Dunk" Tenet? So let me see if I have this straight, your sources are accurate but anything that is contrary is false?

You can continue to believe what you want but for some reason cannot explain what Saddam Hussein did with the BILLIONS he got from the Oil for Food Program

By the way, Wasn't Tenet appointed by the Clinton Administration? And as for the Niger Statement doesn't British intelligence stand by their statement? Then weren't there a lot of reports outside of the Bush Administration that claimed Atta trained in Iraq?

What this just goes to show is there still is a lot of confusion about the actual facts regarding Iraq yet here we are 7-8 years after the fact and you still want to arguing that issue? With all the problems facing this country is this the best use of your time?
 
Last edited:
You mean "Slam Dunk" Tenet? So let me see if I have this straight, your sources are accurate but anything that is contrary is false?

You can continue to believe what you want but for some reason cannot explain what Saddam Hussein did with the BILLIONS he got from the Oil for Food Program

You have to use accurate sources. You didn't link yours, so I can say what source you're using. But, I did link mine.

As for Tenet's comment, remember, it wasn't that Saddam had wmds that was a slam dunk. Even Bush knew the evidence wasn't there (if we take the entire conversation), but that it was a slam dunk that it would work as a rationale. And it did work. People caught the fever and went right over the cliff with Bush.

Saddam wanted power. he had that. Money gives you power. Nor does anyone I know of think Saddam was pouring is OFF money into wmds or anything of the kind. He lived quite well in a country suffering and crumbling under sanctions. You leap to a conclusion not supported by evidence, again.
 
You have to use accurate sources. You didn't link yours, so I can say what source you're using. But, I did link mine.

As for Tenet's comment, remember, it wasn't that Saddam had wmds that was a slam dunk. Even Bush knew the evidence wasn't there (if we take the entire conversation), but that it was a slam dunk that it would work as a rationale. And it did work. People caught the fever and went right over the cliff with Bush.

Saddam wanted power. he had that. Money gives you power. Nor does anyone I know of think Saddam was pouring is OFF money into wmds or anything of the kind. He lived quite well in a country suffering and crumbling under sanctions. You leap to a conclusion not supported by evidence, again.

What we do know is that there was pressure to have the sanctions removed and that support for sanctions was crumbling. There is no way that sanctions could have held forever. Had those sanctions been removed Saddam Hussein had the power and the money to reconstitute his WMD program and there is nothing the west could have done to prevent it. Saddam Hussein with WMD was unacceptable.
 
You have to use accurate sources. You didn't link yours, so I can say what source you're using. But, I did link mine.

As for Tenet's comment, remember, it wasn't that Saddam had wmds that was a slam dunk. Even Bush knew the evidence wasn't there (if we take the entire conversation), but that it was a slam dunk that it would work as a rationale. And it did work. People caught the fever and went right over the cliff with Bush.

Saddam wanted power. he had that. Money gives you power. Nor does anyone I know of think Saddam was pouring is OFF money into wmds or anything of the kind. He lived quite well in a country suffering and crumbling under sanctions. You leap to a conclusion not supported by evidence, again.

First of all, I apologize for responding to Boo on this thread as my response has nothing to do with the thread topic.

Secondly, a question, Boo, do you have Bush derangement syndrome that would have you and others divert from the topic of the thread to make this about GW Bush again and again and again? You really need to get over it and focus more on the problems we have today. I really shouldn't have responded with the information I posted and should have posted the links but since this thread isn't about Iraq I will save those links for another day.
 
Many overestimate how much democracy matters to OBL (who wanted Saddam out as much as we did) and his side.
Saddam ran a secular dictatorship. OBL believes in a theocratic regime based on shariah law. It's not hard to understand why OBL wanted Saddam out.

And overestimate just how much freedom and improvement the Iraq people are actually seeing.

The degree of freedom is irrelevant to the point at hand. The point is that there is now a constitution and elections and man made law all of which OBL despises. Merry Christmas, OBL. Just what you always wanted.
 
Saddam ran a secular dictatorship. OBL believes in a theocratic regime based on shariah law. It's not hard to understand why OBL wanted Saddam out.



The degree of freedom is irrelevant to the point at hand. The point is that there is now a constitution and elections and man made law all of which OBL despises. Merry Christmas, OBL. Just what you always wanted.

But he despised Saddam as well. Nothing different here. The form of the Iraqi government was not a major concern with him, or anything that would change what he wanted. It's still a Christmas gift in terms of his goals. In terms of his goals, what you see as a victory is something that really is irrelevant.
 
But he despised Saddam as well. Nothing different here. The form of the Iraqi government was not a major concern with him, or anything that would change what he wanted. It's still a Christmas gift in terms of his goals. In terms of his goals, what you see as a victory is something that really is irrelevant.

I am really glad you have nothing to do with the security of my family or anyone else. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" and Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden want you dead. Saddam Hussein had the money and the location to do the most damage. He was a great partner with Bin Laden.
 
I am really glad you have nothing to do with the security of my family or anyone else. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" and Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden want you dead. Saddam Hussein had the money and the location to do the most damage. He was a great partner with Bin Laden.

Wow, good to pull up a saying as if it meant something. Care to show they worked together? No one else has been able to show that. If you're going to claim they worked together, I think you should show the evidence that Bush never could.
 
Wow, good to pull up a saying as if it meant something. Care to show they worked together? No one else has been able to show that. If you're going to claim they worked together, I think you should show the evidence that Bush never could.

Who said they worked together? I said they had the same goals. What part of the enemy of my enemy is my friend do you not understand. Both had a hatred for Israel and the United States. Saddam Hussein paid money to suicide bomber families for murdering Israelis. Abu Zarqawi came to Iraq from Afghanistan and was actually killed their by our military.

You are just like the Obama Administration, when you find a smoking gun you will claim it was caused by Global warming.
 
Who said they worked together? I said they had the same goals. What part of the enemy of my enemy is my friend do you not understand. Both had a hatred for Israel and the United States. Saddam Hussein paid money to suicide bomber families for murdering Israelis. Abu Zarqawi came to Iraq from Afghanistan and was actually killed their by our military.

You are just like the Obama Administration, when you find a smoking gun you will claim it was caused by Global warming.

No, they didn't have the same goals. While both probably had no love lost for us, Saddam was about staying in power. OBL wanted to wage war with us and remove us from Islamic lands. He needed to get us to a place where he could hurt us. Saddam would have preferred we left him alone.
 
The form of the Iraqi government was not a major concern with him, or anything that would change what he wanted.
So says you. OBL says otherwise.
 
Slow up there, Zyph.

According to someone who was there, candidate Bush was saying "IRAQ!" two years before 9/11.

Oh, but there's more...

Again, according to someone who was there, President Bush was saying "IRAQ!" at his very first security meeting, well before 9/11

So, y'know, I'm just sayin'...

Yes, wonderful job refuting the end statement of my sentence while completely disregarding context. :roll: Amazing job. What I said:

"First, Bush waited 2 years after 9/11 before doing anything with Iraq so its not like he woke up the night after and said "IRAQ!""

What you countered

"so its not like he woke up the night after and said "IRAQ!"

See, countering the second part without taking it in context is kind of pointless. He didn't wake up and go "IRAQ" and we invaded it.

Unless you have some link showing me how we invaded Iraq 2 years earlier than we actually did.

I'd love to see that link.

Otherwise, no, Bush waited 2 years after 9/11 before jumping up invading Iraq.
 
Yes, wonderful job refuting the end statement of my sentence while completely disregarding context. :roll: Amazing job. What I said:

"First, Bush waited 2 years after 9/11 before doing anything with Iraq so its not like he woke up the night after and said "IRAQ!""

What you countered

"so its not like he woke up the night after and said "IRAQ!"

See, countering the second part without taking it in context is kind of pointless. He didn't wake up and go "IRAQ" and we invaded it.

Unless you have some link showing me how we invaded Iraq 2 years earlier than we actually did.

I'd love to see that link.

Otherwise, no, Bush waited 2 years after 9/11 before jumping up invading Iraq.

Now you have gone and "done it" confused Glinda with facts. Those with BDS hate that and prefer instead to live in their little world of conspiracy and misery.

there is no evidence that Bush started talking about invading Iraq after taking office but that won't change the minds of those who always want to divert from the current situation in this country to the past. It is easier placing blame on the past than accepting the failures of the present.
 
Now you have gone and "done it" confused Glinda with facts. Those with BDS hate that and prefer instead to live in their little world of conspiracy and misery.

there is no evidence that Bush started talking about invading Iraq after taking office but that won't change the minds of those who always want to divert from the current situation in this country to the past. It is easier placing blame on the past than accepting the failures of the present.

Conservative, you should probably check facts before you comment on someone else.

I did not say that Bush didn't start TALKING about it, I said he didn't DO it. There is evidence that at the very least it was possible Bush had considered it prior to being elected and after being elected. That said, the sources are questionable in regards to motives and even more without full context of the situation at the time they were stated they're rather hollow quotes. However, I've made no comment as to whether or not Bush had desires or statements of wishing to go into Iraq. I'm only stating that its not like Bush invaded Iraq immedietely following 9/11.
 
Conservative, you should probably check facts before you comment on someone else.

I did not say that Bush didn't start TALKING about it, I said he didn't DO it. There is evidence that at the very least it was possible Bush had considered it prior to being elected and after being elected. That said, the sources are questionable in regards to motives and even more without full context of the situation at the time they were stated they're rather hollow quotes. However, I've made no comment as to whether or not Bush had desires or statements of wishing to go into Iraq. I'm only stating that its not like Bush invaded Iraq immedietely following 9/11.



Any incoming President would talk about any potential problem in the world with Iraq being part of that discussion. Afterall they have been shooting at your planes since the end of the Gulf War. You correctly pointed out that he didn't invade Iraq until 2003 or 1 1/2 years after 9/11 and that is the fact lost by most with BDS.
 
And you're right. OBL did not think it would be Iraq. He wanted it to be Afghanistan.

And he just got Obama to throw 100,000 more troops there..correct? How diesn't that wok out? But, you won't see Scheuer..or yourself(you personally support this Afghan surge) will make the Christmas gift or playing right into Osama Bin Laden's hand here because both of your position are founded on politics and anti-Bushism.

Now, as for iraq and Afghanistan, Afghanistan made since. You can not find anywhere where I opposed Bush in Afghanistan.

It made sense.....to invade Afghanistan like Osama wanted us to? And I can find where you opposed Bush in Afghanistan, you mentioned often, JD, that his policy on taking prisoners was unethical and against your moral compass. You opposed his imprisoning terrorists, denied him decisions on what to do with those terrorists, and claimed for the length of the Bush Presidency that Gitmo...not the terrorist infested Taliban regime was the world's worst eyesore. No Sir, I can find where you opposed Bush in Afghansitan.

Obama is right to focus there. But, no I don't support the surge there. It is the same problem of trying to nation build instead of practically addressing the problems.

Told me on WS that you did.

I think you misunderstand his job. He criticized Clinton for a reason. He did not make command decisions, but we did know such an attack was coming.

To be perfectly fair, Osama snuck 19 terrorists into this country and attacked us on 9-11-01. I actually think it was Scheuer who misunderstood his job. He was focusing on killing Osama abroad, he missed the fact that Osama was trying to kill us here. Oh, I'll agree he was not given proper info, the the agencies weren't sharing info, that much was clear. But, Scheuer missed this boat, reality shows us this much.

but that merely allowing agencies to share information might well have.

And who wasn't Scheuer sharing with?

He was an active agent at the time. He could not give his name. He later resigned because he felt so strongly about this and has spoken publicly repeatedly.

I feel strongly about it as well. The reason I cannot fathom anyone now taking this incompetent seriously. You do remember his blatherings about Iraq giving access to the Arabian Peninsula to al-Qaeda? Yes?

I don't follow your point. Was Scheuer given the power to make decisions one who to kill? Largely you don't seem to understand the role analysts and decision makers.

Don't know. What I do now is that Osama did sneak 19 terrrorists under our noses to kill thousands and that it could have been prevented on several levels. But, the 96-99 head of the OBL desk at the CIA should have known something. And this theory of easier to kill him in Afghanistan....does anyone still believe that much less him? C'mon!:(
 
OBL wanted to wage war with us and remove us from Islamic lands.

Wanted us in Afghanistan...correct. Where Obama has just sent 100,000 more troops, does this 'goal' of Osama's..of wanting to hurt us, isn't Obama then falling right into Osama's hands?

Secondly...and Conservative, this is where Boo's argument disintegrates....did Bush's invasion of Iraq "remove us from Islamic lands?" Did it lessen influence on Islamic lands? How could this be a Christmas gift if he wanted us out of Iraq?

I mean his entire 1998 Fatwa declaring war against the US is about Iraq, he HATED the fact that we were in Iraq, this idea is was a Christmas gift giving them somewhere to attack us, al-Qaeda wasn't in Iraq! They already had a plethora of arenas to attack us, we were already in Iraq flying no fly zones, already in Yemen, the Gulf States, steaming in and out of the Strait of Hormuz, remember...it was our presence in the ME at all Osama was offended by, obviously al-Qaeda already had gifts to attack, both US military and embassy/civilian targets.

He needed to get us to a place where he could hurt us.

We were already in Iraq and...can you give us proof this was what he wanted? Do you have his writings or is this Scheuer's guess? In other words, does Osama, through words to his own or us, mention this strategy? At all?

Saddam would have preferred we left him alone.

Osama also preferred we leave Iraq alone.
 
Again...from Osama Bin Laden's 1998 Fatwa......declaring war on the US....rather than reading the incompetent Scheuer, read Osama Bin Laden word for word.

No one argues today about three facts that are known to everyone; we will list them, in order to remind everyone.

First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.

Sound like he wants us anywhere near Iraq? Sounds more like he's offended we've already been there for "seven years". Sound like he's needing someone to attack? Already saying we're occupying Islam's holiest places but...needing us to come to Iraq so as to attack us? Uhhhh....yeah.

If some people have in the past argued about the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it.

Some of them actually thinking this occupation of the Peninsula a Christmas gift for yourself and other Jihadists...Big Bin!

The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but they are helpless. Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation.

Spoken like a true believer and absolute proof he would NOT have considered our invasion in 2003 a "Christmas Gift."

So here they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors.

What? We're bringing Xmas gifts Osama...like Scheuer and Boo said, we invaded to give you someone to attack....not annihilate your people or humiliate them...we come bearing gifts.:mrgreen:

Third, if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there.

See, the Bush invasion was actually a gift for Israel which saw Saddam Hussein dead. And the larger enemy....the Iranians....this Iraq invasion was their absolute disaster. The Iranian's worst fears...a self determining society, a loss of confidence in the Mullahs...is now their leadership's reality. Two self-determining republics that were once oppressive dictatorships or worse...are now self-determining governments, a brutal assault on militant Islam underway. Israel, is the Xmas gift receiver here.

The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel's survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula.

Again, a man begging for occupation and invasion. Christmas gift theories aside, you need to do homework afore suggesting such silly analysis. I can offer some great reads.
 
Last edited:
Yes, wonderful job refuting the end statement of my sentence while completely disregarding context. :roll: Amazing job. What I said:

"First, Bush waited 2 years after 9/11 before doing anything with Iraq so its not like he woke up the night after and said "IRAQ!""

And I gave multiple sources that say you're wrong; Bush was "doing something" about Iraq well before 9/11.

See, countering the second part without taking it in context is kind of pointless. He didn't wake up and go "IRAQ" and we invaded it.

Unless you have some link showing me how we invaded Iraq 2 years earlier than we actually did. I'd love to see that link.

A. You're spitting all over your computer screen.

B. I never said anything about "invading" – that's your strawman. Please reread my comments and note that the word isn't there.

Otherwise, no, Bush waited 2 years after 9/11 before jumping up invading Iraq.

:rofl Trying to semanticize your way out of it, eh? ;)




Sincerely, though, dude... exceedingly pathetic attempt. You're usually better than this.
 
And I gave multiple sources that say you're wrong; Bush was "doing something" about Iraq well before 9/11.



A. You're spitting all over your computer screen.

B. I never said anything about "invading" – that's your strawman. Please reread my comments and note that the word isn't there.



:rofl Trying to semanticize your way out of it, eh? ;)




Sincerely, though, dude... exceedingly pathetic attempt. You're usually better than this.

Have you ever had any leadership skills or responsibilities? Why wouldn't a leader not talk about or potentially plan an action against a country that violated the cease fire agreement after the Gulf War and kept shooting at our planes in the no fly zone, had WMD using them on his own people?

It does appear that there are a lot of naive people here that helped get us into the problem in the first place. When you have dictators like Saddam Hussein those dictators have to be in just about every discussion and it is better being proactive vs. reactive in all dealings with these insane leaders.
 
Why wouldn't a leader not talk about or potentially plan an action against a country that violated the cease fire agreement after the Gulf War and kept shooting at our planes in the no fly zone, had WMD using them on his own people?

Read the quotes in post #48.

It does appear that there are a lot of naive people here that helped get us into the problem in the first place.

True. Reagan putting Saddam in power was the start. Then Rummy and Bush I gave Saddam loans, military intelligence, and weapons (including WMD). Then Cheney insisted that it was wise to "start a small war" and pinhead Dubya agreed.

:roll:
 
Read the quotes in post #48.



True. Reagan putting Saddam in power was the start. Then Rummy and Bush I gave Saddam loans, military intelligence, and weapons (including WMD). Then Cheney insisted that it was wise to "start a small war" and pinhead Dubya agreed.

:roll:

Please seek help for your BDS. You have been brainwashed and that brainwashing makes you look foolish. Support for Saddam Hussein in the region was due to the problems we had with Iran or did you forget they took over our embassy which is an act of war?

Reagan had nothing to do with putting Saddam Hussein in power

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein]Saddam Hussein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Cheney did not insist on starting a small war nor did Bush start the war until over two years after taking office and 1 1/2 years after 9/11.

You just cannot bring yourself to give Bush any credit at all for the aftermath of 9/11 and keeping us safe for 7 years after 9/11. That is a sickness and simply diverts from the real problems we have today. How does any of this relate to the thread topic? Typical diversion.
 
And I gave multiple sources that say you're wrong; Bush was "doing something" about Iraq well before 9/11.

He was not doing anything in regards to invading it. Talking about it off handedly, before 9/11 even happened, is not equivilent of going into Iraq over 9/11 or even legitimately planning Iraq right after 9/11.

A. You're spitting all over your computer screen.

Amazing, you can not only see THROUGH the internet, but you apparently see into an alternative dimension in which things happen differently than in reality. This is a rather impressive talent you have. Perhaps you should talk to FOX to see if they’ll make a reality show based around it.

B. I never said anything about "invading" – that's your strawman. Please reread my comments and note that the word isn't there.

You’re trying to build a strawman right now, so I figure you’d know what it means, but apparently you don’t.

No, you didn’t say anything about “invading”…which was exactly my point. You disproved something I didn’t say, unless you take HALF of a sentence out of context. I was talking about invading. The person I was responding to talked about “invaiding”. THAT was the discussion. THAT was the context of my statement.

You not saying anything about “invading” wasn’t me creating a strawman, that was the entire basis for my complaint with your pathetic attempt at “debunking” me. You “debunked” half of a sentence by taking it completely out of context due to your desire to NOT address “invading”, which is directly what I WAS addressing.

YOU created the strawman, when you tried to prove me wrong by “proving” that Bush talked about Iraq at some nebulus point prior to invading…which I never denied, I was speaking specifically about invading which was obvious in the context and if you had addressed my entire sentence.

:rofl Trying to semanticize your way out of it, eh? ;)

Not at all. Its just that you apparently are getting pissy that you and those thanking you little high-five party is being busted up due to, you know, reality and that the strawman you built up and began to wallop on was exposed as the dummy it was. Its not my fault I have to point out the context of what was said because you failed to address it at all and then immediately claimed victory…that’s yours. If you had actually dealt with what I said, instead of what you decided you had a better case against, this wouldn’t have had to happen.

Sincerely, though, dude... exceedingly pathetic attempt. You're usually better than this.

Thanks for the reassurance…but nothing pathetic about it. You’re just upset because you tried to “disprove” something I never claimed and are upset cause I called you on it.

Which, looking at your time line above, isn't surprising. You're a rabid hyper partisan that can't see past "con" and has a world view completely twisted by ideology. You bag on about Reagan, Bush, Cheney, and Bush again and how horrible they are but of course mention nothing about Clinton's half assed efforts there or his policy of regime change that he put no bite behind and left his successors to deal with. You don't have the ability to judge things from an impartial position or through actual facts because you're more interested in scoring political points and attempting to land punches on the other side regardless of what you have to do to do so.

I won't sit here and say the Bush Administration didn't make blunders with Iraq. I won't sit here and say that Bush was thinking about Iraq before he was elected. I won't even say that if 9/11 didn't happen he wouldn't have found a way to go in. I may not believe all of that is true, but I can see it being possible. What I will sit here and say though is that anyone trying to say that he immedietely drove us into war with Iraq after 9/11 instead of going after the true enemies, the Saudis, is grossly mistaken and completely factually incorrect and will argue that till kingdom come, which is what I've done here. Bush waited 2 years after 9/11 to attack Iraq. I don't care what definition you want to use, there's none that equates 2 years to almost immedietely.
 
Last edited:
Read the quotes in post #48.



True. Reagan putting Saddam in power was the start. Then Rummy and Bush I gave Saddam loans, military intelligence, and weapons (including WMD). Then Cheney insisted that it was wise to "start a small war" and pinhead Dubya agreed.

:roll:

Post 48 states that two years prior to 9/11 Bush was "Talking" about invading Iraq. Now I live in TX but didn't know our national guard here was that strong and could do that without authorization from the Govt. 2 Years prior to 9/11 GW Bush was Governor of TX. Now were that true, do you honestly think it would take 2 years to make that happen after he took office?

Post 48 also talks about the "ghostwriter" making these claims. There is no confirming evidence that any of this happened as described. Suggest you get confirmation that is a lot more current but more importantly stop diverting from the topic of this thread.
 
Read the quotes in post #48.



True. Reagan putting Saddam in power was the start. Then Rummy and Bush I gave Saddam loans, military intelligence, and weapons (including WMD). Then Cheney insisted that it was wise to "start a small war" and pinhead Dubya agreed.

:roll:

Don't forget that Bush Jr talked about invading Iraq welllll before he stole the presidency.

Two Years Before 9/11, Candidate Bush was Already Talking Privately About Attacking Iraq, According to His Former Ghost Writer

Two years before the September 11 attacks, presidential candidate George W. Bush was already talking privately about the political benefits of attacking Iraq, according to his former ghost writer, who held many conversations with then-Texas Governor Bush in preparation for a planned autobiography.

"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said to me: 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He said, 'If I have a chance to invade�.if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency." Herskowitz said that Bush expressed frustration at a lifetime as an underachiever in the shadow of an accomplished father. In aggressive military action, he saw the opportunity to emerge from his father's shadow. The moment, Herskowitz said, came in the wake of the September 11 attacks. "Suddenly, he's at 91 percent in the polls, and he'd barely crawled out of the bunker."

That President Bush and his advisers had Iraq on their minds long before weapons inspectors had finished their work - and long before alleged Iraqi ties with terrorists became a central rationale for war - has been raised elsewhere, including in a book based on recollections of former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill. However, Herskowitz was in a unique position to hear Bush's unguarded and unfiltered views on Iraq, war and other matters - well before he became president.
See: Two Years Before 9/11, Bush was Already Talking About Attacking Iraq

THIS is "The ends justify the means" truth on why Bush and his thugs did everything they did to get us into Iraq.

It really is just this simple.
 
Back
Top Bottom