Evilhaider

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).

__________________
Tutorial Maniacs - The most comprehensive collection of QUALITY hand picked tutorial links on the internet.
http://www.tutorialmaniacs.com

rambo6376

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!

__________________
www.seriousdiscussion.com
Serious talk forum for serious people.
AOL is like the best written virus I've ever seen...
For Sale Cheap! buybook.biz codingheaven.com phpxpert.com cityOfBerlin.info sedp.us

CoolGuy

Oh Corruption isn't it a beauty

__________________
Social Blurpalicious
Directory Submissions
World Internet Discovery Forums International & Local Political Blog
Domain for sale: salesold.com (expires April 2009)

Anthony

Bravo Evil and Rambo! Finally some facts in this thread

mws

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.

__________________
LIFE IS SHORT. ENJOY THE MOMENT.

GTech

Evilhaider,
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/the-break-room/24682-do-you-believe-kerry.html

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?
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=24682

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...3/378fmxyz.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:

Terry

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.
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=24682

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.

__________________
T1 Internet Services - Direct U Telecom Directory

Evilhaider

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.

__________________
Tutorial Maniacs - The most comprehensive collection of QUALITY hand picked tutorial links on the internet.
http://www.tutorialmaniacs.com

Anthony

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?

GTech

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.

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.

Evilhaider

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.

__________________
Tutorial Maniacs - The most comprehensive collection of QUALITY hand picked tutorial links on the internet.
http://www.tutorialmaniacs.com

Wesley

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.

GTech

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.
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=24682

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

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.

Evilhaider

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.
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=24682

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.
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=24682

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

__________________
Tutorial Maniacs - The most comprehensive collection of QUALITY hand picked tutorial links on the internet.
http://www.tutorialmaniacs.com

GTech

Thanks for your continued civil debate.

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

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

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

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.

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."

I've provided a link to correct
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
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=24682

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

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:

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:

Your comments:
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=24682

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

Evilhaider

Wade, same goes to you. I can always appreciate when two people can debate something and at least attempt to do so in a civil manner without resorting to calling each other names, belittling each others and getting petty. You know what they say 'all's well that ends well'. It seems we're doing good in that respect
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=24682

When I said: "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." - I guess I shouldn't have been as open ended as that. As I mentioned in later posts, what I meant by that was, (as you've seen) that although he didn't use those exact words "that was the gist of it". I can understand that people might and probably do generally misquote him on this and your point is well taken. However you said: "History shows us, that the words WERE used completely differently than your opinion shows" and I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that point. As I mentioned in the last post, that one statement or those 2 words by themselves do not makeup Bush's complete stance - if you were to look at the context of the entire speeches that he made, that Tony Blair made and other administration officials made, they were really trying to send the message that we would be attacked if we didn't attack first and therefore 'preemption' was necessary - this is the way I see it and you see it a different way, which is why I believe this is opinion based, not really fact based. For example: If I gave a speech about the perils of using Colgate toothpaste but never once used the words 'Colgate toothpaste is bad for you', does that mean I didn't say 'Colgate toothpaste is bad for you'? It just means I didn't use those exact words but maybe by looking at the entire context of my argument the end result would be someone thinking that 'Colgate toothpaste is bad for me'. So for example later on if I were sued by Colgate for costing them business, I don't think I could backtrack and say 'You know what guys? Go back and look at the transcript. It's a part of history. I never once said Colgate is bad for you.' - I wouldn't get away with it. This is what I'm trying to say about the 'imminent threat' issue - maybe you can see better what I mean after reading this analogy.

About the Al-Qaeda link. I also have to take into consideration the following: It seems that at many different points the administration was grasping at straws to try and justify the war. I believe that if there in fact was conclusive 'without a doubt' proof that such a link existed b/w Saddam and Al Qaeda operatives, not only would the media outlets be broadcasting it, the US Govt. would be playing it up as well - and for good reason! Especially being an election year, it would behoove them to take every single opportunity they get to make sure and get the word out that such a link DID exist and show that all those who argued against it and didn't support the war due to the lack of the existence of this link were WRONG! Just imagine how much the tide would turn in favor of Bush if they did this - everyone else would be discredited - it would be a major blow to all opponents. Seeing that they haven't done it , I have to believe that its possible there STILL isn't any such conclusive evidence. You remember when they sort of jumped the gun and tried to make a link through some African Centrifuge connection - all the heat they took? Well if they were that desperate then, they should be even more desperate now and scream at the top of the lungs to anyone who will listen. Since they wont do this, I have to view any such claims with a grain of salt - not dismissing them completely but not believing them completely either. It leads me to believe that the reason they aren't broadcasting this is because they are unsure themselves and this time a little wary of making claims they aren't 100% sure about, being the election year and all.
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=24682

About Bush caring about the Iraqis and the one of the conditions for war, I think again it comes down to opinion/interpretation to some extent. We both have reasons for why we think it is a certain way. You showed that it is a part of history because he listed it as one of the reasons for Saddam to avoid war but I say that that isn't sufficient to make me believe that he cared about Iraqis. I think actions speak louder than words. I think that was more a political move than anything to sort of at least try to show people that he's *trying* the diplomatic approach before going the other route.

About WMDS: I mentioned before (I think) that I dont consider Bush to be the only person to have lied about something. I can understand your approach as to why you quoted the other sources on WMDs and their belief that they existed - and I'm not saying I'm 100% sure or even 50% sure that they didn't exist. I dont claim Bush lied about the existence of WMDs - for all I know indications were that they DID exist. What I DO claim is that Bush lied by exaggerating the threat posed to the world by Saddam's regime - (going back to my argument earlier about leading us to believe we were in grave danger in the immediate future unless we did something to oust Saddam). Now had someone else been in Bush's place - be it Hillary, or whoever, you bet your A$$ I would feel exactly the same way

About the link again as I mentioned before, I honestly believe if there were credible evidence to show such links b/w Al Qaeda and Saddam, they would have been reported over and over again and presented by everyone - Bush, Cheney, Colin Powell, Condi Rice, and anyone else involved in the process. If you think about it, it doesn't make sense that they would sit on this and not mention it in the State of the Union address, the speech at the UN, in press interviews, etc. If they included arguments which didn't hold up (African link) which they later themselves admitted were not accurate and should not have been included, why would they not play up the other credible evidence? It just seems like logical thinking to me - half the nation is opposing the war the president is about to start, let's show them some real credible proof of why we're right about doing this. If ANYONE knew about this info beforehand, and didn't get it to the top so it could be reported to the public, you can bet heads would roll.

ANd now Clarke comes out and makes some statements that make you think even more about the whole situation. Again I dont take them at face value - he may (and probably does) have his own personal interests at heart (exposure for his book,etc) but it does make you think. He served under different presidents and supposedly places blame on both the Clinton and the Bush administrations for many failures so it would be hard to say he's a party hack placing blame on Republicans. He claims Rumsfeld immediately wanted to attack Iraq, the day after 9/11. He also claims Bush 'wanted him' to find evidence to link Iraq to 9/11. How much of that is true? Again, I don't know. We can't really make that judgment in isolation, but it does make you think doesn't it? White house officials claim that they cant find evidence such a meeting ever took place b/w Clarke and Bush, while independent news reporters have supposedly found an eyewitness who corroborates Clarke's story.

It's because of all these things that I believe Bush has been less than truthful.

I better get to studying for this test tomorrow

__________________
Tutorial Maniacs - The most comprehensive collection of QUALITY hand picked tutorial links on the internet.
http://www.tutorialmaniacs.com

GTech

Hey, good luck on your test!

Ok, some counter offers, and again, I appreciate the civil debate and very much agree that it is nice to be able to do so under such conditions. I think it only serves to better understand how other people view things.

immenent threat - I'll agree to disagree. I think we both have valid points and positions on this. There is no question you have presented far more to assert your position on this than I have. On the other hand, my position is that the words were not used. I think we've both made valid points here.

Al-Qaeda link. I think one of the main reasons we didn't see the information directly is that it was classified as noted. And subsequently leaked, which in fact shows strong connections including dates and sources. In the debates I've had over this over the last year, the al qaeda link is not one that is usually brought up as a critical factor in debating the war. That's not to say it's not important, but from my own personal debating, I've not seen it brought up a lot. I have no reason to doubt the sources and in particular giving the source of Newsweek had an article on this long before the war ever came about tells me that this may not have been a huge secret. Still, the report was classified and that report was in response to showing credible proof that a link existed. It may, or may not have been leaked intentionally, but if the facts cannot be disputed and they do show a link, I can't see any other way to take it. From my perspective, it is a leaked report that shows credible evidence existed prior to the war in Iraq, and going way back into the Clinton Administration that a link existed. The Administration clearly claimed there was a connection. However, if that information was classified (and the link I gave shows that it was), then they simply cannot make the call themselves to release it along with sources. The could have, and may in fact have started an effort, to declassify it to support the position, or it may have been leaked intentionally. We can only take guesses on that. My position is, the evidence seems credible and I see nothing that shows it is not.

WMDs. I don't think either the Democrats or the Republicans lied. But my point is, that if people assert that Bush lied (and I believe lie is the wrong word here...if I believe telling a lie is something intentionally done), then there were many, many others that "lied." I do not agree that Bush lied by exaggerating the threat. And I'll tell you why: He was using the same intelligence to come to the same conclusions that many others had, including many of our allies had that supported. There's no mistake that this in fact was not the case in hind sight. In fact, we had been attacked by al qaeda on 9/11 and I feel that Bush felt "never again." Never would we wait until our skies were filled with smoke before we take action against a known enemy who posed a threat. No only that, but Saddam had not cooperated for twelve years. In fact, Saddam claimed, even up till the last days, to have WMD.

We need not be sitting under a mushroom cloud before we realize we could have done something (9/11 Commission hearings come to mind here.) We would have had support of even more allies had it not been for their reluctance to give up their oil for food program interests and contracts with Saddam. Yet another debate all together.
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=24682

Clarke - whew, this adds a whole new perspective. Bottom line reasoning here is that either Clarke lied then, or he is lying now. One way or the other, he is lying. With that, we're left to look at facts to decipher what part of his memory is serving the best interest of our country and what part is serving his retirement fund.

One of the most damaging things (of many) Clarke asserts is that Rumsfeld was at a meeting on September 4th in his book that Rusfeld was not even at. I'm sure parts of his story are true, and parts are not. In the case of 9/11 it's asserted we didn't do enough and in the case of Iraq, we did too much. It's going to take time to sort through the facts, but from my perspective, it is very clear that Clarke was disgruntled about not getting the number 2 spot on HLS as he left shortly after. And now he comes out with a book? Is he attempting to "get even" or attempting to exploit the 9/11 tragedy to build a retirement fund. If Clarke were had come out and said "to prove my point, I'm donating all proceeds from my book to the families of victims of 9/11" then I'd say his motive was at least less damaging. But then we still have to decipher if his positions then were true, or are they true now? Many things have alredy been proven incorrect in not only his book, but his testimony. How it pans out will be interesting to say the least.
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=24682

While we've certainly debated whether the evidence to support going to war was there or not, unfortunatley in debates like this we often times don't see whether it was worth the trip or not. Maybe it's best left as is. One thing I hope for is that some day I'll turn on the news and see that there were no terrorist killings today, no killings in war, no killings for whatever reason. That somewhere, somehow, for one day, maybe two, people will stop killing others, for whatever reason they justify killing...political, religious, territory disputes, calling in life, military, civilians. One day.

Anthony

Wow, some long discourses going on in this thread. At this point, I'd like to point you to www.WatchBlog.com , which is a political news and opinions site of 50 writers covering US politics from all points of view. WB is always looking for more writers, so check it out. With such a large readership, your opinions will be heard.

Evilhaider

That was a tough test!

Amen
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=24682

Regardless for what happened all I do now is hope for the best. I hope that people make the best of the situation in Iraq - irrespective of how they view the US presence there I hope they can find a way to get a 'fresh start' without Saddam there and find a way to work together, instead of infighting amongst themselves and build a country they can be proud of. That's all anyone can hope for really.

__________________
Tutorial Maniacs - The most comprehensive collection of QUALITY hand picked tutorial links on the internet.
http://www.tutorialmaniacs.com

AdoptableDomains

Technically, there has not been a "war" as declared by Congress since WWII, even though we call it one and consider it as a war.

I wouldn't say it's preemptive either. It started when Iraq invaded Kuwait years ago and a truce was declared with Saddam agreeing on certain conditions. He tested and violated those conditions for 10 years. The events of 9/11 did step up concern over that and other situations which could be friendly to or harbor terrorism. I consider it as an escalation of a long ongoing situation based on new circumstances.

If anyone considers it preemptive, consider it as prempting another 9/11, at least for a while.

----
I think it's important to hear both sides of all issues. If you listen to Kerry long enough, you are bound to hear both sides.

__________________
AdoptableDomains.com ~~~~~Finding Good Homes for Good Names~~~~~
FuelPrices.mobi - Fish.us - ManhattanNewYork.net - Salesmen.info - SoundSystems.org
Dickering.com - JobPlacement.biz - LotteryTickets.ws - Deleted.cc - Names.im - MP3.hn

JMJ

Here's some more facts for you.

http://www.rense.com/general48/state.htm

__________________
DN Sites

rabid_nerd

Are you talking about Hussein or Bush?

Anyways, we've done the same crap.

Hell, we made Hussein. And Bin Laden. They're our messes to clean up to begin with. And it was Bush's-daddy who was in charge of making them.
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=24682

We're just paying for the Bush family's deeds ALL around..

__________________
Rabid Nerd Productions - $10.49 Domains - $2.92 Hosting - $12 SSL - an eNom Volume ETP * Your Local Weather Forecast

Wesley

We couldn't just let the Middle Eastern countries destroy themselves. Arming them was our only alternative.

painperdu

What exactly did they say?
Read it here: http://www.house.gov/reform/min/feat...on_the_record/

Bush never did use the term 'imminent' threat but the words he did use are akin to Clinton saying he didn't have sex . . ., or he didn't inhale.

__________________
dotbob.com -Cheap Domain Name Registrations/Unlimited Web Hosting Plan $5.98/month