Do You Believe Kerry?

On the issue of "immenent threat," that is so often misquoted by those uninformed:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

Click to expand...

Bush did not say there was an imminent threat, but rather that some (the Democrats, historically) would prefer to wait till a threat is imminent (ie: Atlanta is sitting under a mushroom cloud).

What were the conditions Bush laid out for Saddam?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html

"If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people."

Click to expand...

Did Saddam choose to disclose his WMD? No, in fact, he was to do so under UN supervision, but refused for twelve years to account for his WMD.

Did Saddam end suppot of terrorism? No, he continued to provide direct financial support to Palestine by rewarding the families of suicide bombers with $25,000 each.

Did Saddam end the torture of his people? No, he continued to torture and persecute his people up till the end. This disputes the claim above that Bush did not care about the welfare of Iraqis, when clearly it was one of the five conditions Saddam *could* have chosen to abide by, but did not.

Did Saddam fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve issues with his Kuwait invasion, as required by Security Council resolutions? No, he did not.

Did Saddam end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program? No, and as is being reported this week, it appears that there was mass corruption in the oil for food pogram within the UN. As the scandal continues to develop about the UN and it's role in taking kickbacks from Saddam in the oil for food program, there is no doubt we will learn even more about the corruption of the UN and leaders of other countries that were bought out.

These were the conditions Saddam chose to ignore to prevent war. Saddam made the decision not to cooperate, Bush made the decision to force him to.

Let's visit the WMD issue. If Bush lied about WMD, he did so long after Democrats have been supposedly lying about it. Let's take a look at the Democrats that were convinced Saddam had WMD:

http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php

Low and behold, we have John Kerry pesuading Clinton to go to war because HE thought there were WMD:

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

Click to expand...

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

Click to expand...

Hillary thought there were WMD:

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

Click to expand...

Hillary also seemed to think there was a link to Al Queada. The link to Al Queada is certainly present in Iraq today in their efforts kill innocent Iraqis. Hillary was correct on this one.

Here's a good one:

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

Click to expand...

How can we forget Al Gore?

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

Click to expand...

Surely not Nancy, say it isn't so:

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

Click to expand...

What does Bill Clinton think about all this?

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

Click to expand...

My point here is, WMD and Iraq has been around for a long time and there is no question that Democrat leaders have believed Iraq had WMD long before Bush presented it as one of five conditions for Saddam to avoid war.

In all five cases, Saddam chose not to cooperate with the UN (and we are starting to see the corruption behind that) or with the five demands to avoid war.

Kerry won't win full stop

Wade, you are exactly right!

Wade and Wesley, I understand your points of view, but you are merely repeating Republican rhetoric.

"Republican rhetoric"? Just because some Republicans are saying it doesn't mean we don't actually believe it? Or did you mean we are basically reading from a script?

Besides, there is nothing wrong with quoting people. In fact, it can really be a strong way to show an opinnion.

Also, Demicrats ALWAYS use "Republican rhetoric" as an excuse when they are trying to get off-topic because they KNOW that they've been cornered with facts. Well, they have other stupid things they say, like that woman on NPR that always says stuff like, "Listen to him, isn't that the weirdest vioce?!" I mean, the way someone looks or sounds really shouldn't matter. For people who "don't discriminate", you sure do a whole lot of name calling and political correctness towards minorities only.

Republicans do the same when they're cornered with facts.

Let me respond to some of wade's comments.

A semantic argument about 'imminent threat' doesn't change anything. Bush led everyone to believe Saddam was involved with Al Qaeda and responsible for 9/11 and would definitely stage an attack on the US unless we took him out.

The terms Bush laid out for Saddam are totally irrelevant. The issue was whether GW can be trusted? Is he a liar? Which he is.

What Hillary thought is also irrelevant. She's not the President. She didn't order the war. It would be relevant if she was President.

The 'link to Al Qaeda' Wade referred to is a totally different link. The link the BUSH administration tried to fabricate was between Saddam himself and Al Qaeda operatives working together to harm US citizens. This has STILL not been proven.

As I mentioned previously, the administration has changed its tune many times depending on what's convenient , on what the actual justification was for going to war - sometimes its WMD's, sometimes its humanitarian cause (protecting Iraqis, other people in the region,etc). In each case the argument doesn't hold up.

Don't think I believe Bush is the ONLY person to be held accountable. He's not. There are many people who were involved in this. (Including Tony Blair).

Does anyone remember Powell's presentation at the UN? The crystal clear pictures of where the WMDs were? He was so sure that of those that he didn't give them to the inspectors to go look where the arrows were pointing. He was so sure of those that after we occupied the country we couldn't find them ourselves!

Oh Corruption isn't it a beauty

Bravo Evil and Rambo! Finally some facts in this thread

What facts.It is all opinions.It is just politics.Clinton thought Saddam had wmds too.It was a intelligence failure.But back on the topic of the thread I don't believe Kerry.He is just another politician.

Evilhaider,

Thanks for your comments and civil debate.

I would be interested in knowing which of the facts I posted you might think are incorrect. I tried to post factual information, other than the little comments like "Oh no, not Nancy, say it isn't so" which was a bit of humor.

I'm surprised no one took note of Cohen's comment, he knew exactly where WMDs were. Some speculate they were moved around so much, it would have been impossible to find. David Kay's final reported noted they had infact inspected about 10% of the known weapoons arsenal sites, leaving 90% still unchecked. Regardless, Democrats, as well as many other countries around the world thought Iraq had WMD, including John Kerry.

The terms Bush laid out for Saddam are totally irrelevant.

Click to expand...

When we look closely at the five simple conditions Bush laid out, in fact, the UN had also laid out, I'm left wondering which one of those five might be irrelevant? The conditions are relevant.

They are relevant in every respect when presenting the case that Bush didn't care about the Iraqi people, yet one of five conditions laid out was for Saddam to stop murdering and killing his people.

They are relevant when presenting a claim it was all about WMD, yet only one of the five demands was concerning WMD.

They are relevant when asserting Bush lied by saying there was an immenent threat, when the record shows his comments were not that.

What Hillary thought is also irrelevant.

Click to expand...

Hillary has a lot of influence in the Democrat party. One might suggest what she had to say is irrevelant, however, keeping in mind her powerful position in the Democrat party and that her husband was President, coupled with ALL the comments from Democrats over the years (including Kerry urging Clinton to go to war with Iraq over WMD) is not irrevelant. If in fact Bush was lying, there were many before him that were as well.

The 'link to Al Qaeda' Wade referred to is a totally different link. The link the BUSH administration tried to fabricate was between Saddam himself and Al Qaeda operatives working together to harm US citizens. This has STILL not been proven.

Click to expand...

If a link was proven that Saddam and Al Qaeda had a relationship, would it change your mind?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp

Don't think I believe Bush is the ONLY person to be held accountable. He's not. There are many people who were involved in this. (Including Tony Blair).

Click to expand...

Agreed, to a point. Saddam is "accountable." There are people who miss Saddam and wish he were still in power murdering, torturing, raping and dumping people in mass graves.

Five relatively easy demands were presented to Saddam and he chose to ignore them. It was his choice. I can't help but wonder which of those five demands were the most difficult for him. As we are seeing with the UN scandal of corruption and how a vote can be bought with money, it's obviously not this one:

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

Click to expand...

No, we are not safer. If the eastern/muslim nations thought and reacted like us (US), we may have gained some ground in Iraq. As I stated before, we do not understand their culture and they do not understand our culture. Our presence in the region is resented by many, if not most, of the people there. As a result the radical fringe groups are encouraged and supported. Some of this support even comes from governments that claim to be freindly to the West, yet do little to ferret out the financial support for the fringe elements.

Have you ever walked up to a dog that appeared to be friendly and have it snap at your hand when offered in friendship? Did you, could you understand that?

The five conditions for Saddam that Bush laid out are irrelevant because Bush had his own personal agenda for going to war with Iraq. An unspoken agenda that, I feel, most people in this country knew about and quietly supported. WMD was secondary at best - an excuse.

Originally posted by Wade
Evilhaider,

Thanks for your comments and civil debate.

I would be interested in knowing which of the facts I posted you might think are incorrect. I tried to post factual information, other than the little comments like "Oh no, not Nancy, say it isn't so" which was a bit of humor.

I'm surprised no one took note of Cohen's comment, he knew exactly where WMDs were. Some speculate they were moved around so much, it would have been impossible to find. David Kay's final reported noted they had infact inspected about 10% of the known weapoons arsenal sites, leaving 90% still unchecked. Regardless, Democrats, as well as many other countries around the world thought Iraq had WMD, including John Kerry.



When we look closely at the five simple conditions Bush laid out, in fact, the UN had also laid out, I'm left wondering which one of those five might be irrelevant? The conditions are relevant.

They are relevant in every respect when presenting the case that Bush didn't care about the Iraqi people, yet one of five conditions laid out was for Saddam to stop murdering and killing his people.

They are relevant when presenting a claim it was all about WMD, yet only one of the five demands was concerning WMD.

They are relevant when asserting Bush lied by saying there was an immenent threat, when the record shows his comments were not that.



Hillary has a lot of influence in the Democrat party. One might suggest what she had to say is irrevelant, however, keeping in mind her powerful position in the Democrat party and that her husband was President, coupled with ALL the comments from Democrats over the years (including Kerry urging Clinton to go to war with Iraq over WMD) is not irrevelant. If in fact Bush was lying, there were many before him that were as well.



If a link was proven that Saddam and Al Qaeda had a relationship, would it change your mind?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp



Agreed, to a point. Saddam is "accountable." There are people who miss Saddam and wish he were still in power murdering, torturing, raping and dumping people in mass graves.

Five relatively easy demands were presented to Saddam and he chose to ignore them. It was his choice. I can't help but wonder which of those five demands were the most difficult for him. As we are seeing with the UN scandal of corruption and how a vote can be bought with money, it's obviously not this one:

Click to expand...

Wade:

For one, the 'semantic argument' that I mentioned. As I said, the tone and the way they repeated the 'threat' was in fact meant to mislead Americans (and everyone else) that Iraq was planning to stage an attack on American soil (in cahoots with Al Qaeda). Remember I mentioned Tony Blair? He was going around saying Iraq had the capability to deploy weapons in 45 mins and some time later when asked, he really did not know what that meant or couldn't back that up with any facts. Bush and Blair together exaggerated many claims in order to seek the public approval for the war.

The reason I said Bush's terms that were laid out were because who the heck is Bush to lay out these terms? The so called 'leader of the free world'? I don't believe he meant any of the terms he said. I believe he was going along with that sort of as a PR strategy in order to appease those who would think he's rushing to war. He went to war with a more personal agenda than was let on. The reason I believe this is simple: there are many other countries that are violating many UN resolutions and killing/persecuting their own people, their neighbors,etc, however no ultimatum was issued to any of them. I hate to bring this up since its a different debate altogether but there have been many UN resolutions against Israel which have all been voted against by the US and died. Israel is in fact in violation of many laws. Each one of those 'terms' could also be applied to Israel. They should also be forced to follow the laws. There are many other such examples. It is exactly this sort of selective reasoning and trying to gain a 'moral high ground' that makes me believe that Bush's terms were irrelevant. We have to realize, irrespective of what Saddam may have thought of himself, he IS mortal. He would've died sooner or later. History has taught us that when people are oppressed, they do find a way to overcome and it would have been a matter of time. Yes, it does seem selfish but like I said, since when does the US care about the welfare of the Iraqis? The humanitarian element just doesn't exist.

While I do believe that Hillary's voice is heard and she has some influence within the democratic party, as I said already, it's irrelevant what she believed. Simply because she was not in the position of command to start this war. Just because she also believed something doesn't put Bush in the right. If he lied, he lied. Just because someone else echoes the lie (whether knowingly or unknowingly) doesn't make it the truth.

I skimmed that article you posted. I dont realy think it would change my mind if there was a link proved NOW that a link existed. The reason being that 'the link' was drummed up to get justification for war. They KNEW at that time it did not exist and they MADE UP evidence to make it seem as though it did so that people would go along with the war. If there is a link proven now, it doesn't change the fact that all the stuff previously was still a lie, because they KNEW there was no link and now somehow a link just turned up. (For example, the supposed meeting between Mohammad Atta and Saddam's regime which later was reported never actually took place) Hope you understand what I'm getting at. As for that article you posted, it's supposedly talking about a 'secret memo' - who's to say that memo wasn't made up? You remember those claims about some centrifuge tubes purchased from Africa to enrich Uranium ? First off, not only could it not be proved that those tubes were for Uranium, they also later found those documents to be a forgery.

As for the oil-for-food program scandal, which was intertwined with the sanctions enforced by US and UK, I don't doubt it. I also doubt that this is the first time US has heard of it. They probably knew it was going on for a while but chose to ignore it. As I mentioned previously, if they really cared about the welfare of the Iraqis , why would they do this? Impose sanctions and these rules which they KNEW Saddam was finding ways around and it was just hurting the commoners?

It is because of all these reasons that I believe Bush is a liar and unfit for office. Think about it. We brought Clinton to impeachment? For what? Infidelity? Adultry? Making someone lie under oath so he could get away with it w/o his wife finding out? We thought he was a horrible example for a president because of that? While I'm not saying Clinton was perfect otherwise or never got himself involved in other illegal matters, there's clearly (to me) a lot more about Bush to dislike, and tahts why I want him kicked from the office.

Yeah, it all must be about semantics, nothing more. I guess it makes no difference that this was the first preemptive war in American history?

Evilhaider,

My point is not convince you to be for or against the war. That's a personal decision everyone makes. Some people make that decision based on logical facts, some people make it based upon personal feeling regardless of facts, and, yet, some people make it based upon religious beliefs.

My point in posting was to correct either the intentional misinformation, or the lack thereof. You make some assertions that factual information prove otherwise. I think it's fair to bring those to light and correct. However, I surely won't attempt to persuade anyone into believing it was right or wrong. I can debate facts, but when we get into debating theories and personal beliefs, well, that's subjective at best.

I've corrected the misinformation you've presented numerous times. Not seeing any objection to those, then I can assume there are no issues with those.

When people present false claims to support their position, it's a disservice to everyone. I can appreciate someone's passion on a subject, whether I agree or disagree. I have no doubt there are some people who view Saddam for all the crimes he committed against Iraqis as a hero. It's sad, but, it's true.

We brought Clinton to impeachment? For what? Infidelity? Adultry?

Click to expand...

Perjury.

To comment on the rest of your last post would be purely opinionated at this point. Because the majority of your post is based upon your personal opinions and theories. I don't agree with them personally, but they are your opinions and you are certainly entitled to them.

I know you're not trying to convince me to lean one way or other and neither am I trying to convince you. All the positions I have taken have been based on logical facts. I haven't made any assertions that factual information proves otherwise. I explained very clearly why I believe what I do based on the facts. I havent presented any misinformation and neither have you corrected any of it. How some people view Saddam has no bearing on our conversation. Majority of my post was refuting what you claimed was factual which I infact believe is not factual and is more opinionated/belief based, and as you said you are certainly entitled to that as well.

Bush has accomplished SO many things during his term so far.

- Free over 60 million people in the Middle East from the rule of a Tyrant
- Women and girls can now go to schools and get jobs, a right they did not have under Osama/Saddam
- Fixed several flaws in the CIA and FBI
- Has helped to bring about a rebound in our econemy after 9/11

While I do not agree with Bush on issues like immigration (I say no more immigrants for 5 years to give us time to fix the system), however, my personal safety is so much more important to me that it outweighs our differences.

Originally posted by Evilhaider
All the positions I have taken have been based on logical facts. I haven't made any assertions that factual information proves otherwise. I explained very clearly why I believe what I do based on the facts. I havent presented any misinformation and neither have you corrected any of it.

Click to expand...

Actually I corrected a number of errors you made. I even went so far as to post credible information to back them up. Conspiracy theories and opinions are nice, but unless you have something to back them up, they don't hold a lot of credibility in debate.

Most of what you assert is simply an opinion that is derived from personal, political (and more than likely), religious basis (having viewed some of your other posts here). And it is just that, opinion. However, where I have corrected you, I have chosen to do so with facts and credible links to back them up. Your counters are for the most part simply opinion and conspiracy theories.

You claimed Bush said the threat was immenent, as do many that are misinformed, and I showed where that was not the case. You assert there was no al qaeda link, I showed where there was. You claim the war was about WMD, I showed were it was one of five reasons. You claim Bush didn't care about Iraqis but I again backed it up where he did by showing one of the conditions of war.

You further claim that "this, that, the other" doesn't matter. That would be convenient, for you, but these things do matter. You simply cannot make up your own rules about what does and doesn't matter because it would show your positions in a negative light. I suppose you could, but I suggest it won't get you very far :D

Suffice to say, I now understand what is driving your position. And your positions are fine, until they are factually incorrect as noted in previous posts.

Wade I understand where you are coming from but I really think I explained my reasoning for everything and it should be evident why I said what I said.

I honestly dont believe you posted anything to correct any errors I have made.

Let me put it this way:

All of my opinions I backed up with WHY they were my opinions. I made absolutely no conspiracy theories.

Regardless of what my other posts may have been I left all that out in this thread and so your claim that my positions were due to other reasons would be wrong.

As for the 'imminent threat' thing. What I said about that was NOT opinion. That IS fact. I mentioned TWICE that a 'semantics' argument about the ACTUAL wording doesn't change anything - which is exactly a fact. If you support Bush you can say it this way, which would make the fact that he didn't use the words 'imminent threat' an OPINION, and your opinion, not a fact. Just because you quote that section doesn't mean its a fact. WHen I rebutted this, I very clearly gave my reasons. I said that you have to take that particular excerpt in context - in the context of a larger picture where a whole lot of other statements, accusations, etc were made. I gave the example of Tony Blair using the '45 minute' argument to show that there was an 'imminent threat' and Bush obviously was backing him up on this. So as I mentioned, the absense of those 2 words together does not mean he didn't say that - it just means he didn't say it EXACTLY like that. This is not an opinion, it's a fact.

I asserted there was no Al Qaeda link. You showed me a website. However it was one website. I said that its certainly possible but it's not enough to count as good evidence. Even to this day there has been no conclusive proof that such a link exists. I hardly think one report can be counted on as fact. Because I honestly believe, that if a conclusive link HAD EVER been established, then that would have been on the news 24 hrs/day on every major news channel regardless of the ideological leanings of that news entity.

I dont believe you can point out a single conspiracy theory in anything I have mentioned.

I said Bush didn't care about the Iraqis. You point to 'one of the conditions' - but I say does that one condition REALLY mean he cares about the Iraqis? It's your interpretation based on that one condition that he DOES care, which again is an opinion, not a fact. I pointed out that if the US did care about the Iraqis, then those sanctions which were doing nothing to deter Saddam's regime would have been taken out, which is my opinion, and I was clear about it being my opinion.

It is based on all these facts combined that I said what Bush's terms were did not matter. I hardly said 'this that and the other'.
And yes, I cannot makeup my own rules, and by that same token, neither can you.

You claimed that Hillary exerts a lot of control/influence over the Democratic party, which I said I agree with you on to some extent, but again that's an OPINION on both of our parts, because neither of us can say that for a fact. I went further to explain WHY exactly her opinions/beliefs on this issue were irrelevant, which should be crystal clear after what I typed.

So by looking at all this, from where I sit, you really have not presented ANY facts besides the one link, and everything else has been your own opinion. And if you think you understand what's driving my position, then I'd have to say that you misunderstand because if you really read my comments you'd see my line of reasoning for everything that I've said and it didn't have to do with anything but the facts. You have yet to prove anything I've said as incorrect - at least with evidence. You've tried to prove it's incorrect with your opinions, but like you said that doesn't get you very far. If anything, it seems I've corrected a lot of the errors that you made by explaining my reasoning thoroughly behind each point

Thanks for your continued civil debate.

I had to go back and pull out some of your quotes. Addressing "imminent threat" you originally posted:

Oh, and by the way, pointing to the WMD argument is not an 'excuse'. The fact that he said Iraq was an *imminent threat* to the US was a lie.

Click to expand...

I have supplied a link to the speach in which you assert this. You have since claimed:

I mentioned TWICE that a 'semantics' argument about the ACTUAL wording doesn't change anything

Click to expand...

The bottom line is, he didn't say it and it is often used as a misquote.

Just because you quote that section doesn't mean its a fact.

Click to expand...

Just because you feel it isn't cannot change history and what Bush's words were. History shows us, that the words WERE used completely differently than your opinion shows. Opinion is fine, but when we look at Bush's words, they are very clear. And yes, when I quote what Bush did say, it does make it correct. He did not say it in the manner you suggested, even though you might think he did.

I asserted there was no Al Qaeda link. You showed me a website. However it was one website. I said that its certainly possible but it's not enough to count as good evidence.

Click to expand...

Would it matter how many web sites were presented? If you don't want to accept it as evidence, then you simply will not. One, two, many websites could show something that would dispute someone's claim. But if that person doesn't want to believe, it, they simply choose not to. You said it doesn't count as good evidence. What is good evidence? How much does there need to be? You made no stipulation about how much evidence there needs to be and you further said it would not matter. But, evidence is shown. If you choose not to accept it, that is again, your choice, but evidence is presented. You've made no stipulation about how much needs to be presented, your claim was that no evidence existed. It is you choice in determing how much you personally feel is warranted to make it enough.

Your assertion is that Bush did not care about the Iraqi people. I presented where one of the conditions of war with Saddam was that he stop terrorizing his people. That is not enough. OK, again, that is your choice. However, I would counter argue that if Bush was to go to such drastic measures to layout five simple conditions for Bush to avoid war, and one of them was this, I do believe it is enough to show there was some concern, which you say was not there. Again, you can counter it, but it does show Bush was concerned enough about the Iraqi people to have given this as one of the conditions. You may not accept it, but it is there as a part of history and one of the conditions for Saddam to choose not to go to war. While you have your opinion that Bush didn't care and have given your reason why, I have countered it and showed why I believe he did.

My point in posting the link to Hillary, as well as other Democrats was to establish that for many years, in completely different administrations, many high level Democrats have clearly displayed the same case (WMD - which was one of five of Bush's demands) as criteria for going to war. This is important to understand when we see people asserting that Bush lied. If Bush indeed lied, than many people have lied, including leaders and intelligence people of many countries. This illustrates that either every major country that had intelligence which showed this to be true, including Saddam himself was flawed, or something happened to those WMD and they are either hidden in Iraq or in another country. There is the possibility they simply do not exist. Time will tell, but then again, time may never tell us. It's easy to dismiss, but it begs to question why so many countries and so much intelligence (remember William Cohen's comments...he saw evidence of this) pointed otherwise. If Bush came out of no where in left field about WMD and we had not had so many Democrats over the years, including Clinton, foriegn leaders and their intelligence agencies saying the same thing, then I would certainly be right in line with saying "Bush lied about WMD."

So by looking at all this, from where I sit, you really have not presented ANY facts besides the one link, and everything else has been your own opinion.

Click to expand...

I've provided a link to correct

Oh, and by the way, pointing to the WMD argument is not an 'excuse'. The fact that he said Iraq was an *imminent threat* to the US was a lie.

Click to expand...

That was your first comment, which you indeed have later tried to justify that by providing a link of what he said doesn't mean he didn't say it. Well, ok, I guess. I don't know how much more you need then the actual words, but, when I corrected you prior to your assertion that

ACTUAL wording doesn't change anything

Click to expand...

It may or may not. But he simply did not say it. In fact, what Bush said was:

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure how much more you need other than a direct quote of what Bush said, but there it is. It's documented and a part of history. I could counter that you have failed to show were Bush did say this. You've given reasons why you think he might have meant it, which is fine, but you have not provided any proof to back up your statement that he did say it. You can argue semantics, however, when we look at what Bush really said in his address to the nation, he did not use the words you suggest. I've provided proof to back that up, you have provided opinion as to why you think it doesn't matter. Proof and opinion do not always go hand in hand.

Conspiracy theories. I'm going to retract that one. Having reviewed your comments, while I think some are a stretch, I would not classify them as conspiracy theories. With one exception:

I dont realy think it would change my mind if there was a link proved NOW that a link existed. The reason being that 'the link' was drummed up to get justification for war. They KNEW at that time it did not exist and they MADE UP evidence to make it seem as though it did so that people would go along with the war. If there is a link proven now, it doesn't change the fact that all the stuff previously was still a lie, because they KNEW there was no link and now somehow a link just turned up.

Click to expand...

While I don't think this is strong enough of an opionion to be classified as a conspiracy theory, it does suggest strongly that these are your opinions. The link I provided to an intelligence report suggest very credible evidence in it that there was a long relationship between Iraq and al qaeda. It clearly shows this evidence was known and documented before the war:

The relationship began shortly before the first Gulf War. According to reporting in the memo, bin Laden sent "emissaries to Jordan in 1990 to meet with Iraqi government officials." At some unspecified point in 1991, according to a CIA analysis, "Iraq sought Sudan's assistance to establish links to al Qaeda." The outreach went in both directions. According to 1993 CIA reporting cited in the memo, "bin Laden wanted to expand his organization's capabilities through ties with Iraq."

Click to expand...

Information about connections between al Qaeda and Iraq was so widespread by early 1999 that it made its way into the mainstream press. A January 11, 1999, Newsweek story ran under this headline: "Saddam + Bin Laden?"

Click to expand...

Your comments:

I said that its certainly possible but it's not enough to count as good evidence. Even to this day there has been no conclusive proof that such a link exists. I hardly think one report can be counted on as fact. Because I honestly believe, that if a conclusive link HAD EVER been established, then that would have been on the news 24 hrs/day on every major news channel regardless of the ideological leanings of that news entity.

Click to expand...

It appears it was in the news. And from reading it, it shows dates of memos and at least one newspaper that ran it. The link prior, through this report, is clearly established. How much evidence you need is subjective because you have your own requirements. But there is clearly credible evidence in this report that shows there was a connection going back many, many years and it is documented.

The report is not my opinion, but that of public record. And it disputes your claim that there is no evidence. There is evidence, but may not choose to accept it. That part I can't debate, that's a matter of personal judgement.

Thanks again for your civil debate. You are an excellent debater and while I do not agree with all your positions, there are some that you make excellent points on. You have presented some very good arguments to explain why you have taken your positions and I made some initial presumptions that I can clearly see are not the case. I tip my hat to you with respect!


Wade