PDA

View Full Version : The Lies That Bind Us to Iraq



MrClean
02-08-2004, 12:31 AM
This is a link to an article by Robert Scheer, a Nation contributing editor, and also a contributing editor and columnist for the Los Angeles Times.

The Lies That Bind Us to Iraq (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040216&s=scheer0203)

Disclaimer: I personally thought this was an excellent article. Some, however, may find it to be slanted and biased and an unfair attack on a president they love. Then again, some may be totally apathetic toward the article, get bored, fall asleep while reading, and not be able to remain focused long enough to complete it. This will all depend on each individual reader.
Thank you and have a nice day.

Peace
MrClean
out

DolphinDevil28
02-08-2004, 11:53 PM
It absolutely cracks me up that you liberals just keep trying to paint the capture of Saddam Hussein as a bad thing.

And don't hand me this "lie" crap. There was a UN resolution on the table stating that Saddam must be taken out of power and captured. This resolution dated all the way back to when Clinton was in office. HE SIGNED IT AND AGREED TO IT. CIA intellegence was saying even back then that Saddam either had WMD's or had a program to get them. Clinton knew it. The only difference between Slick Willy and GW in this case is that George W. Bush took action, something that Democrat Presidents don't know how to do, unless it covers up a scandal.
Besides, if there are no WMD's, why oh why did Saddam not allow UN inspectors to search???
The world is a much safer place today with Saddam out of power, and the liberals just can't stand the fact that a Republican did something that has been needing to be done.

DeDolfan
02-09-2004, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by DolphinDevil28
It absolutely cracks me up that you liberals just keep trying to paint the capture of Saddam Hussein as a bad thing.

And don't hand me this "lie" crap. There was a UN resolution on the table stating that Saddam must be taken out of power and captured. This resolution dated all the way back to when Clinton was in office. HE SIGNED IT AND AGREED TO IT. CIA intellegence was saying even back then that Saddam either had WMD's or had a program to get them. Clinton knew it. The only difference between Slick Willy and GW in this case is that George W. Bush took action, something that Democrat Presidents don't know how to do, unless it covers up a scandal.
Besides, if there are no WMD's, why oh why did Saddam not allow UN inspectors to search???
The world is a much safer place today with Saddam out of power, and the liberals just can't stand the fact that a Republican did something that has been needing to be done.

If ya really want som'n to really crack you up......... bush's approval is falling so much that he'll have to turn Saddam loose and then catch him again !!

DolphinDevil28
02-09-2004, 07:23 PM
Hey! That was almost funny!

DeDolfan
02-10-2004, 12:38 PM
Glad you "approve" !! :D

PhinPhan1227
02-10-2004, 01:06 PM
Originally posted by DeDolfan


If ya really want som'n to really crack you up......... bush's approval is falling so much that he'll have to turn Saddam loose and then catch him again !!

Coming back up, and one should consider the time frame. The incumbants numbers ALWAYS go down during the other guys Primaries. All the public is hearing 8 hours a day is the Dems viewpoint. Those numbers should go up once the campaign kicks off on both sides.

DeDolfan
02-10-2004, 05:08 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227


Coming back up, and one should consider the time frame. The incumbants numbers ALWAYS go down during the other guys Primaries. All the public is hearing 8 hours a day is the Dems viewpoint. Those numbers should go up once the campaign kicks off on both sides.

"Should" is true, but boy George has dug himself a pretty good hole and it will be uphill all the way. i voted for him in 00 but doubt that I would again tho.

Section126
02-17-2004, 09:36 AM
If it's Bush versus Ketchup Boy.....it's over........Bush will win.

FFiB
02-17-2004, 11:00 AM
Originally posted by DolphinDevil28
It absolutely cracks me up that you liberals just keep trying to paint the capture of Saddam Hussein as a bad thing.

And don't hand me this "lie" crap. There was a UN resolution on the table stating that Saddam must be taken out of power and captured. This resolution dated all the way back to when Clinton was in office. HE SIGNED IT AND AGREED TO IT. CIA intellegence was saying even back then that Saddam either had WMD's or had a program to get them. Clinton knew it. The only difference between Slick Willy and GW in this case is that George W. Bush took action, something that Democrat Presidents don't know how to do, unless it covers up a scandal.
Besides, if there are no WMD's, why oh why did Saddam not allow UN inspectors to search???
The world is a much safer place today with Saddam out of power, and the liberals just can't stand the fact that a Republican did something that has been needing to be done.

The UN resolution you are referring to clearly states the use of force as last resort and only after it has been proven that Saddam posses WMDs which would enact this section of resolution 1441.

The US claimed that the US Inelligence and British Intelligence brought proof that Saddam has had WMD. Mr Blix stated that every picture they received they went after, every report they received was physically checked out in Iraq. No WMD had been found.

While the UN was in agreement to enforce that resolution most member states (of the security council) requested more time. The US went on its own declaring the congress act of war against terrorism by saying Iraq had an established network of AQ terrorist, declared Iraq a threat to the US, its interest and its security and added the goal "of liberation of the Iraqi people.

Now a year later, the US cowers back to the UN to get money and people, no WMDs have been found, no Iraqi terror network had been found, and the Iraqi people did not "welcome us with flowers". Well, these may not be lies in the eyes of Bush-whackers, maybe just a different reality.

At this point I would not even include the regular Republican voter into the Bush-whacker category. The only ones in that category are those who are blindly follow Georgie boy and no matter what he does or says it can not be wrong.

The facts are on the table: no WMDs found eventhough the US is roaming Iraq freely for a year; no AQ terror network had been found; and most Iraqi people are disgruntled by the fact that the US is looking out for its own interest rather than the Iraqi's people interest; the Iraq effort cost us currently between 4 and 9 billion dollars/ months; american soldiers die (530 so far) and get hurt (over 2,000) in a war for no reason and under false pretence.

ohall
02-17-2004, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by FFiB


The UN resolution you are referring to clearly states the use of force as last resort and only after it has been proven that Saddam posses WMDs which would enact this section of resolution 1441.


Tell me short of removing all possiblity of Saddam hiding things from inspectors how would you do that?

I think it's clear Saddam thumbed his nose at the UN and the world, and the many countries in this world had enough and they went into remove what was then a clear and present danger to world peace.

If Saddam was left alone in a matter of months he would have been supplying terrorist with WMD. Or would you rather gamble and hope he would never do such a thing? How many 9/11 like attacks before it's OK to go in and root out the real source of terrorism. That being the $ to supply their War on Democracy world wide.

And yes I know like 95% of all the ppl on the air planes on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia. However Saddam was paying Palestinians for homicide bombings in Israel, how long before he started paying Al Qaeda for 9/11 attacks and supplying them with WMD?

Oliver...

DeDolfan
02-17-2004, 02:08 PM
Originally posted by Section126
If it's Bush versus Ketchup Boy.....it's over........Bush will win.

Not that I put much faith in any polls, but haven't you seen the latest one this AM?

PhinPhan1227
02-17-2004, 02:24 PM
Originally posted by DeDolfan


Not that I put much faith in any polls, but haven't you seen the latest one this AM?

It'll be a close fight...but also bear in mind that the challenger always picks up at least 5-10 points during his Primaries since he's getting so much air time and attention while the incumbant is not.

DeDolfan
02-17-2004, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by ohall


Tell me short of removing all possiblity of Saddam hiding things from inspectors how would you do that?

I think it's clear Saddam thumbed his nose at the UN and the world, and the many countries in this world had enough and they went into remove what was then a clear and present danger to world peace.

If Saddam was left alone in a matter of months he would have been supplying terrorist with WMD. Or would you rather gamble and hope he would never do such a thing? How many 9/11 like attacks before it's OK to go in and root out the real source of terrorism. That being the $ to supply their War on Democracy world wide.

And yes I know like 95% of all the ppl on the air planes on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia. However Saddam was paying Palestinians for homicide bombings in Israel, how long before he started paying Al Qaeda for 9/11 attacks and supplying them with WMD?

Oliver...

Oliver, Fibby went ont o say that the wMDs were nOT found and no links to Al-Qada were found either. Therefore, at the time, Iraq was not a clear and present danger to us. granted, the intel was false and has been proven and that's why alot of politicians, mostly Dems, changed their positions about the war. Powell was in front of the uN showing all the pics of iraqi jets spraying "some liquid" which he said was believed to be chemical agents. could have been since I could not imagine what else a war plane would be doing sprying a liquid. BUT, how old was the pic? i don't reacll any mention of that or such. Anyway, it has been shown that the whole premise for war was not as it seemed. iraq was not an immediate threat. In any event, IMO, you did err in one word you used....... in a matter of months he would have been supplying terrorist with WMD........... I think a better word for "would" proably may be "could" instead, since he had no WMDs or terrorists ties at the time. This is not to mean that he couldn't or wouldn't have sometime in the future. yes, i think Sadaam needed to be ousted but the whole problem is, is that it was just done under "false pretenses" and should have waited. Did Bush do it in this matter intentionally? I don't think so. All the bad intel got him into a bad situation simply because the intel was not verified. Bush IS guilty of acting too hastily for sure and for that it could possibly cost him a second term.

PhinPhan1227
02-17-2004, 02:38 PM
Al-Quida links are/were tenuous. However, Saddam DID have links to terrorist groups. There was a training facility found, and he was paying the families of suicide bombers. As for Al-Quida...doesn't it strike anyone as funny that they were able to move into the country in such large numbers just when the US attacked? Pretty good coordination concidering there were no existing links.

FFiB
02-17-2004, 03:23 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Al-Quida links are/were tenuous. However, Saddam DID have links to terrorist groups. There was a training facility found, and he was paying the families of suicide bombers. As for Al-Quida...doesn't it strike anyone as funny that they were able to move into the country in such large numbers just when the US attacked? Pretty good coordination concidering there were no existing links.

So, they were moving in our country as well....as they wanted to.

What does that mean? Nadda.....

Almost every islamic government has links to terrorists....do we invade them all?

As a matter of fact the foreign minister of Qatar send money to AQ at one time...yet that country was our HC for operations related to the Iraq war.

Go figure.....

Bush clearly linked Saddam to 9/11...and that was not true.

FFiB
02-17-2004, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by DeDolfan


Oliver, Fibby went ont o say that the wMDs were nOT found and no links to Al-Qada were found either. Therefore, at the time, Iraq was not a clear and present danger to us. granted, the intel was false and has been proven and that's why alot of politicians, mostly Dems, changed their positions about the war. Powell was in front of the uN showing all the pics of iraqi jets spraying "some liquid" which he said was believed to be chemical agents. could have been since I could not imagine what else a war plane would be doing sprying a liquid. BUT, how old was the pic? i don't reacll any mention of that or such. Anyway, it has been shown that the whole premise for war was not as it seemed. iraq was not an immediate threat. In any event, IMO, you did err in one word you used....... in a matter of months he would have been supplying terrorist with WMD........... I think a better word for "would" proably may be "could" instead, since he had no WMDs or terrorists ties at the time. This is not to mean that he couldn't or wouldn't have sometime in the future. yes, i think Sadaam needed to be ousted but the whole problem is, is that it was just done under "false pretenses" and should have waited. Did Bush do it in this matter intentionally? I don't think so. All the bad intel got him into a bad situation simply because the intel was not verified. Bush IS guilty of acting too hastily for sure and for that it could possibly cost him a second term.

The intel was clear...always was...nothing changed. It was a possibility but no 100%. Rummy-cube, Wolve-owitz and gang presented it like it was 100% proven.
They were hoping that somewhere they would find a bomb with bio/chem warhead...just one.

FFiB
02-17-2004, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by ohall

Tell me short of removing all possiblity of Saddam hiding things from inspectors how would you do that?

Hide what? There was nothing to hide. Didn't your heroic president clearly state that we exactly know where they are...those WMDs. We are in that country for a year now...nothing. Inspectors could not find anything because there was nothing.


Originally posted by ohall
I think it's clear Saddam thumbed his nose at the UN and the world, and the many countries in this world had enough and they went into remove what was then a clear and present danger to world peace.


UN sanctions actually worked for the most part. It essentially prevented Saddam from stockpiling those WMDs again.
Do you actually know what a clear and present danger is?
The guy didn't even have a scud missile left to fire.


Originally posted by ohall
If Saddam was left alone in a matter of months he would have been supplying terrorist with WMD. Or would you rather gamble and hope he would never do such a thing? How many 9/11 like attacks before it's OK to go in and root out the real source of terrorism. That being the $ to supply their War on Democracy world wide.

Are you actually reading facts? Months? The guy was years away if even that.
9/11 will therefore give you the right to invade Cuba now right? Cuba has links to terrorists. He violates human rights as well. So why not.....


Originally posted by ohall
And yes I know like 95% of all the ppl on the air planes on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia. However Saddam was paying Palestinians for homicide bombings in Israel, how long before he started paying Al Qaeda for 9/11 attacks and supplying them with WMD?

OK, now you admit that he didn't pay AQ. What is it now? If he didn't pay AQ it pretty much destroys the government's point 2: established link to the AQ network.

Section126
02-17-2004, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by DeDolfan


Not that I put much faith in any polls, but haven't you seen the latest one this AM?

in 1988 at this time....DuCACA was almost 20 points ahead of Bush Sr.

I don't remember a President DuCACA...............

DeDolfan
02-17-2004, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by FFiB


The intel was clear...always was...nothing changed. It was a possibility but no 100%. Rummy-cube, Wolve-owitz and gang presented it like it was 100% proven.
They were hoping that somewhere they would find a bomb with bio/chem warhead...just one.

Exactly! Just a lot of wishful thinking on their part!!

Section126
02-17-2004, 04:52 PM
Okay......I am now convinced.......lets put Hussein back in power.

ohall
02-17-2004, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by FFiB


Hide what? There was nothing to hide. Didn't your heroic president clearly state that we exactly know where they are...those WMDs.

This is silly. If you actually think there was not a WMD program you are living in a fantasy world. Syria and other countries have his WMD. France, German and Russia bought Saddam their buddy enough time to move everything he needed to move.

It's a fact he had them, and he used. For me I think OUR President did the correct thing, because Saddam had shown he was a mad man and he could have easily sold or given those WMD to terroist.

If some of you want to think that would never take place, more power to you.

Oliver...

ohall
02-17-2004, 05:06 PM
Originally posted by Section126
Okay......I am now convinced.......lets put Hussein back in power.

Bush is damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't.

I have no doubt these guys would ask if we were hit by WMD from Saddam why Bush didn't do something about it?

Some ppl are too transparent IMO.

They are so political, they care more about fighting over lil things, rather than admitting this country has every right to defend itself. After 9/11 historical rules changed. In time these ppl will get that. The War on terror does not follow normal guidlines of engagement.

Oliver...

FFiB
02-17-2004, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by ohall


This is silly. If you actually think there was not a WMD program you are living in a fantasy world. Syria and other countries have his WMD. France, German and Russia bought Saddam their buddy enough time to move everything he needed to move.

It's a fact he had them, and he used. For me I think OUR President did the correct thing, because Saddam had shown he was a mad man and he could have easily sold or given those WMD to terroist.

If some of you want to think that would never take place, more power to you.

Oliver...

woulda, shoulda, coulda,....you make Bush proud.

It is a fact that he used them...in the 80s (when we were still his ally).

Since 91 UN sanctions literally prohibited him - financially and physically - to produce them. They had a tight lid on him via UN sanctions and inspections. THAT IS A FACT.

But you know it is not the question if he could had them. We all can have bio/chem weapons. Just search the net and you find instructions somewhere. FACT is that the President said: Saddam has WMDs. He didn't say it once, he said it numerous times. He didn't say "he could have them". This administration claimed that he HAD WMDs and they knew where they were. THAT was the premise to go to war.

So, where are they? President Bush lied to the american people. One year later, that is crystal clear.

Plus, France, Germany and Russia are not Saddam's buddies. If that were so then the majority of countries on this globe would have been "Saddam's buddy".

No, you got exposed and embarrassed by your blind faith. He embarrassed you. You believed a liar and put all your faith in him and now you can't backstep.

FFiB
02-17-2004, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by ohall


Bush is damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't.

I have no doubt these guys would ask if we were hit by WMD from Saddam why Bush didn't do something about it?

Some ppl are too transparent IMO.

They are so political, they care more about fighting over lil things, rather than admitting this country has every right to defend itself. After 9/11 historical rules changed. In time these ppl will get that. The War on terror does not follow normal guidlines of engagement.

Oliver...

No Bush is only damned for doing it his stubborn way. The "me..and only me"...that's why he is damned. He is also damned because so far he send over 500 soldiers to their deaths because of a self serving war started out of selfishness, greed and stubborness.

The war on terror and the war on Iraq are not even remotly connected.

Section126
02-17-2004, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by FFiB


The war on terror and the war on Iraq are not even remotly connected.

That is about the Dumbest **** ever posted on this forum.

FFiB
02-17-2004, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by Section126


That is about the Dumbest **** ever posted on this forum.

OK....

proof to me the connection of 9/11 and AQ to Iraq.

proof to me that terrorism in Iraq threatened us.

Please stay with the pre-war times.

If I am so dumb you then can bring evidence that Iraq was connected to 9/11, to AQ and presented an immediate threat to us.

Section126
02-17-2004, 06:26 PM
You are not dumb.....I said that statement is dumb.......

Changing the culture in the middle east is a huge victory in the war on terror......

Getting rid of Iraq in the middle east is the equivalent of having got rid of the USSR in eastern europe in 1947.

FFiB
02-17-2004, 06:30 PM
Originally posted by Section126
You are not dumb.....I said that statement is dumb.......

Changing the culture in the middle east is a huge victory in the war on terror......

Getting rid of Iraq in the middle east is the equivalent of having got rid of the USSR in eastern europe in 1947.

Got rid of the USSR in 1947?
What history book did you read?

Plus the USSR and Iraq are no comparison at all?

My goodness.....

Section126
02-17-2004, 06:32 PM
I said it is the equivalent of HAVING got rid of the Soviet Union.......It was an example.......I was a history major in college.

Booting Saddam out and putting Democracy in can have a positive affect on the culture that is intent on killing us all...............GET IT?

PhinPhan1227
02-17-2004, 07:28 PM
Originally posted by FFiB


Got rid of the USSR in 1947?
What history book did you read?

Plus the USSR and Iraq are no comparison at all?

My goodness.....

Ok...now my head is spinning. I haven't seen a comment like that since Mr Murder thought that "changing faces like Michael Jackson" referred to Latoya. And amazingly again, FFib comes back and Mr Murder disapears. Why is it that this board never had more than one left wing voice at any one time? You want conspiracy theories? Chew on THAT one.

PhinPhan1227
02-17-2004, 07:32 PM
Originally posted by FFiB


woulda, shoulda, coulda,....you make Bush proud.

It is a fact that he used them...in the 80s (when we were still his ally).

Since 91 UN sanctions literally prohibited him - financially and physically - to produce them. They had a tight lid on him via UN sanctions and inspections. THAT IS A FACT.

But you know it is not the question if he could had them. We all can have bio/chem weapons. Just search the net and you find instructions somewhere. FACT is that the President said: Saddam has WMDs. He didn't say it once, he said it numerous times. He didn't say "he could have them". This administration claimed that he HAD WMDs and they knew where they were. THAT was the premise to go to war.

So, where are they? President Bush lied to the american people. One year later, that is crystal clear.

Plus, France, Germany and Russia are not Saddam's buddies. If that were so then the majority of countries on this globe would have been "Saddam's buddy".

No, you got exposed and embarrassed by your blind faith. He embarrassed you. You believed a liar and put all your faith in him and now you can't backstep.


Fact- he used some and some were destroyed.

Fact- there were still tons unaccounted for(per the UN inspection teams)

Fact- Even at worst case estimates you're only talking a few tractor trailers worth of material. Enough to do tremendous damage,

Fact- Given the time he was allowed prior to the invasion, he could have hidden those supplies, or driven them out of the country.

Iraq is the size of California. There are a LOT more cops in California than there are soldiers in Iraq. And yet people manage to hide and move MANY times the amount of drugs in California as weapons we're looking for in Iraq. So if we can't find that crap in our own back yard, why do you think it's unlikely we can't find them in a partially hostile country? Or do you think there are also no drugs in California?

ohall
02-17-2004, 07:41 PM
Originally posted by FFiB


woulda, shoulda, coulda,....you make Bush proud.

So, where are they? President Bush lied to the american people. One year later, that is crystal clear.


Leave the immature stuff out of this, would ya. The President has my respect, outside of that there is no cal for BS like that.

You are asking civilized questions like where the WMD are. What you and others continue to ignore is we play by the rules and these types mad men do not. There are host of countries near to Iraq that could possibly, more than likely do have the large scale WMD programs within their borders that use to reside in Iraq.

There is no possible way for anyone outside of the ppl who are suspected that could answer that. Then again those ppl are not going to tell the truth. I for one would not appreciate a President that took thei word in things like this. That would truely be offensive and unforgiveable.

Bush did not lie. Not even in the polls do Americans believe that. They do think right now because of the liberal press the President stretched the truth. That is a far cry from being a liar. I saw several polls that all said most Americans believe the President stretch the truth, molded the intlligence to make the case for War, but those same poles all said 75% of Americans trust and believe this President. I think explains what is going on here.

Try keeping the rhetoric down. If you keep coming from over the top I know I'm going to get tired of ducking. :D Try being more rational about his debate, the 3rd grade name calling directed at our leaders won't do your side of this argument any good.

Oliver...

ohall
02-17-2004, 07:45 PM
Originally posted by FFiB


No Bush is only damned for doing it his stubborn way. The "me..and only me"...that's why he is damned. He is also damned because so far he send over 500 soldiers to their deaths because of a self serving war started out of selfishness, greed and stubborness.

The war on terror and the war on Iraq are not even remotly connected.

If any of that were true I would be with you. However thankfully none of that is true. This President did what he did for you and me. In time even ppl like you will get that.

Just like Reagan when he was President no DEM's took him seriously. Not until he left office did almost every American realize what a GREAT President they just had.

Not to the same extent, because Bush is no Reagan, but we are darn lucky to have such a brave and single minded President leading us at this time of War. I'd hate to see where we'd be with a DEM President like Gore or even Kerry. It's a scary thought.

Oliver...

ohall
02-17-2004, 07:53 PM
Originally posted by FFiB


OK....

proof to me the connection of 9/11 and AQ to Iraq.

proof to me that terrorism in Iraq threatened us.

Please stay with the pre-war times.

If I am so dumb you then can bring evidence that Iraq was connected to 9/11, to AQ and presented an immediate threat to us.

Saddam up until recently, some War stopped him from doing this for even longer. :D but he was paying Palestinians homicide bombers to kill innocent ppl in Israel. After 9/11, the rules changed, and the risk level for countries like Iraq changed. If Saddam was willing to pay for Palestinians to kill innocent Israeli citizens why wouldn't he give or sell his establish WMD to them? IMO it’s not a far leap of logic to think he was going to do that.

Before the War there were several ex-AQ being housed and living on Iraqi soil. They were hosted and taken care of by Saddam, they were his guests.

Now for today there is AQ in Iraq and the leaders there are calling for a holy War in the hopes that democracy will not reach Iraq and their ppl. Obviously things like this don't scare you. Obviously none of us before 9/11 would think terrorist with box cutters could do so much harm with a hi-jacked air plane.

I for one am very glad we have a President who is not willing to gamble with yours or my life.

Oliver...

ohall
02-17-2004, 07:54 PM
Originally posted by FFiB


Got rid of the USSR in 1947?
What history book did you read?

Plus the USSR and Iraq are no comparison at all?

My goodness.....

Now I see the problem. You honestly do not think Iraq was a threat.

Oliver...