[quote=dude]

For all those Bush lover's out there (that's George w. Bush lovers, to clarify ). 

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0210/dailyUpdate.html

My affection (or infection) grows daily for our gracious president, who manufactures and bends information like silly putty to deceive masses of sheep into happily sending their children off to be slaughtered (and to slaughter).  It's amazing to me that more people in our society are not inflamed by the implications of what the Bush Administration has done. 

This may seem extreme, but Hitler used similar tactics (fear mongering) to achieve his own dimented goals.

It's obvious to me that all Bush will suceed in doing is to usher in the new Cold War or maybe be God's tool in initiating Armageddon .   Makes me wonder.

(MikeB, any comments?? )

[/quote]

You're joking, right? Hitler? "what Bush has done"? "Manufactors information"? All based on the word of a critic in the CIA?

Believe what you want. Personally I'll continue to remember that the prior administration and most every intel agency on planet said the same thing Bush did. I suppose they all made it up. Add into that the fact that the Senate's own bi-partisan investigation found nothing of the sort.

I mean, read this, The Washington Post quotes Mr. Pillar as saying the US intelligence community made mistakes in concluding that Mr. Hussein's government possessed weapons of mass destruction..

The guy admits the intel community DID reach the conclusion that Saddam had WMD, but he somehow he blames Bush for believing them. He has an axe to grind...

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=dude]

For all those Bush lover's out there (that's George w. Bush lovers, to clarify ). 

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0210/dailyUpdate.html

My affection (or infection) grows daily for our gracious president, who manufactures and bends information like silly putty to deceive masses of sheep into happily sending their children off to be slaughtered (and to slaughter).  It's amazing to me that more people in our society are not inflamed by the implications of what the Bush Administration has done. 

This may seem extreme, but Hitler used similar tactics (fear mongering) to achieve his own dimented goals.

It's obvious to me that all Bush will suceed in doing is to usher in the new Cold War or maybe be God's tool in initiating Armageddon .   Makes me wonder.

(MikeB, any comments?? )

[/quote]

You're joking, right? Hitler? "what Bush has done"? "Manufactors information"? All based on the word of a critic in the CIA?

Believe what you want. Personally I'll continue to remember that the prior administration and most every intel agency on planet said the same thing Bush did. I suppose they all made it up. Add into that the fact that the Senate's own bi-partisan investigation found nothing of the sort.

I mean, read this, The Washington Post quotes Mr. Pillar as saying the US intelligence community made mistakes in concluding that Mr. Hussein's government possessed weapons of mass destruction..

The guy admits the intel community DID reach the conclusion that Saddam had WMD, but he somehow he blames Bush for believing them. He has an axe to grind...

[/quote]

It was made clear in the article that there is more to it that if Iraq had WMD.  Issues like possible civil war etc...  Please read:

The Bush administration's use of intelligence on Iraq did not just blur this distinction; it turned the entire model upside down. The administration used intelligence not to inform decision-making, but to justify a decision already made. It went to war without requesting – and evidently without being influenced by – any strategic-level intelligence assessments on any aspect of Iraq. (The military made extensive use of intelligence in its war planning, although much of it was of a more tactical nature.) ... As the national intelligence officer for the Middle East, I was in charge of coordinating all of the intelligence community's assessments regarding Iraq; the first request I received from any administration policymaker for any such assessment was not until a year into the war.

I don't know MikeB, but in my life experience, I have come to the conclusion that blowing up poor people doesn't create a safer world, just generates more animosity.  We got handed our asses in Vietnam because of the same kinds of ignorance which started the Iraq war. 

The "domino effect"?    Hell Ho Chi Minh wanted to have a positive relationship with the US, but just because he chose to implement a Communist style government (actually it was more "nationalist") all the fear mongering idiots in Washington got blinders on.

These days the equivalent of the Domino effect (it's amazing how good politicians are at inventing things to be afraid of, helps to motivate people) is WMD. 

Just like the "Domino effect" which had tons of great analysis to support it, WMD is and was a delusion manufactured to motivate people to support an agenda already in place. 

I actually voted for Bush during the first election.  He ran on a platform I agree with:  Smaller Fed gvmt,  compasionate conservativism (hah, ) and........ Not becoming a World Police.

I understand that 911 changed some things.  I just don't think that Bush has done a great job at solving the true problem:  Tensions and misunderstanding between two very different cultures

Sure his solutions might treat the symptoms for a while, but just like drugs, you'll need more and more to keep managing the symptoms and eventually you get side effects and your liver get's shot.

Do you think that if you get into a disagreement or have a fight with someone that showing up on their doorstep with a bat in hand will solve the problem?  Or, is it usually a better idea to facilitate an open dialogue and diplomatically develop a better understanding of the other person's position?

The "We're Americans, citizens of the Greatest Country in the World and we are going to bring our enlightenment to the rest of the ignorant world so they can enjoy our lifestyles (which they may not want), our wealth, our values" attitude will only cause greater hatred among the less fortunate in the world. 

Dude's forcast is greater conflict, unless we as a country show a very sincere interest in giving the less fortunate in the world a platform to be heard.  Problem is, is that our motivations are centered around exploitation not helping, therefore the platform we give these folks means they have to adapt to our paradigm, which might not mesh well with theirs.

I mean the Islamic world, in general hates the US.  So, is it better to just bomb the sh*t out of them until they capitulate or maybe understand what we're doing that upsets them, put our exploitative agenda aside and foster some understanding. 

Like I said before, Afghanistan is understandable and there was pretty good cause to replace the Taliban (clear link with Al Queada) using military action.  Iraq is a completely different story though.

You do realize that there has been a power struggle going on between the administration and CIA and FBI elites that have been ensconced since the Carter era?  This is pure sour grapes on the part of the retiring (and possibly forcibly retired) career spys and pencil pushers with lifetime cushy jobs.  The President who is an elected official and is responsible for setting foreign policy has been butting heads with the upper levels of these fossilized bureaucracies who are not accountable to anyone it seems. 

You are very young, Dude.  You need to learn that all you read in the papers, which are also in a power struggle (with the Administration and with the new open media, bloggers) is not always completely true.  BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) doesn't make for objective reporting. 

By the way.  Children don't go to war or serve in the military. Grown up men and women make these choices.  So until we start having 12 year olds in the military.....please enough about children.

Dude's forcast is greater conflict, unless we as a country show a very sincere interest in giving the less fortunate in the world a platform to be heard.  Problem is, is that our motivations are centered around exploitation not helping, therefore the platform we give these folks means they have to adapt to our paradigm, which might not mesh well with theirs

BL's forecast is greater conflict unless we as a country don't get our act together, cease the endless and pointless political posturing, and quit pampering people who have no rational thoughts. People who want to kill other people over cartoons about an intangible and disputed idea (God).  We need to kick butt and take names. The reason we are in this dangerous position is that for the last 20 years the US has been a pansy pantie waisted pushover.  We have given our enemies the idea that we can be bullied, threatened and frightened into doing what is in their best interests as opposed to our own.  Turning the other cheek doesn't mean inviting being bitch slapped by a bunch of barbarians stuck in the 12th century. 

Who gives a rat's behind about their paradigm? If they have to adapt to our paradigm, whatever that is, too bad.  We give enough to "less fortunate" countries without any thanks. In fact they whine further that we should give more and complain about the quality of the aid that they have received.  Private charities can give all the money they want to and in any part of the world.  I give to worthy charities where I know the money I have given is going to be used for the needy and not line the pockets of some dictator.  The government of the US should be looking out for our own citizens and not worrying about the civil rights of murderers and deranged thugs.  If we need to spend taxpayer money on aid to another country then the end result should be to the benefit of the United States taxpayer.  

The United States government isn't a charity to support the world.  Donate to the Red Cross or better yet the Salvation Army in you want to help the less fortunate.

The Left comparing Nazi Germany and Hitler to Bush and this current Administration, just shows how pitiful our education system is. When you have no idea of history and what real suffering is, it is easy to make ignorant comparisons. 

So, is it better to just bomb the sh*t out of them until they capitulate or maybe understand what we're doing that upsets them, put our exploitative agenda aside and foster some understanding

You might as well try to discuss the theory of relativity with my cat for all the good it will do to try to reason with the radical, rabid, Islamist who think that it is their way or no way.

Why do we need to understand them?  How about, they need to understand us and show some tolerance for other people's cultures. 

I wasn’t comparing bush w/ Hitler, just the tactic of fear mongering.  That’s all.

[quote=dude]

It was made clear in the article that there is more to it that if Iraq had WMD.

[/quote]

You mean you now admit the CIA DID tell Bush there were WMDs in Iraq? good for you...

[quote=dude]

Please read:

The Bush administration's use of intelligence on Iraq did not just blur this distinction; it turned the entire model upside down.

[/quote]

Sorry, Dude, all you have is a guy that worked at the CIA (the outfit that missed it in Vietnam, missed the end of the USSR, missed the revolution in Iran, etc, etc, etc...) playing CYA. His OWN BOSS told Bush it was a "SLAM DUNK" that Saddam had WMDs, and this guy blames Bush for believing him.

[quote=dude]

I don't know MikeB, but in my life experience, I have come to the conclusion that blowing up poor people doesn't create a safer world, just generates more animosity.

[/quote]

Incredible. You see the end of Saddam, the move to democracy, people risking their lives to vote, US troops risking their own lives to limit civilian deaths (if we didn't care about that we'd level half the country for 20,000 ft) and all you can call it is "blowing up poor people"?

[quote=dude]

We got handed our asses in Vietnam because of the same kinds of ignorance which started the Iraq war.

[/quote]

So it's your view that the terrorists in Iraq represent some nationalist movement? I wonder why they spend their days killing their fellow civilians if they "represent" them...

[quote=dude]

Just like the "Domino effect" which had tons of great analysis to support it, WMD is and was a delusion manufactured to motivate people to support an agenda already in place.

[/quote]

Sure, that's what it is. And that evil genius Bush (or is he a moron today, I haven't seen today's memo) managed to get the Clinton administration onboard long before he came to office. Amazing...

[quote=dude]

Do you think that if you get into a disagreement or have a fight with someone that showing up on their doorstep with a bat in hand will solve the problem? Or, is it usually a better idea to facilitate an open dialogue and diplomatically develop a better understanding of the other person's position?

[/quote]

Why haven't I thought of that before? I mean, the guys that murdered 3,000 people on 9/11 really just wanted an "open dialogue". In fact, that's all Japan wanted at Pearl Harbor and all Hitler wanted from the Jews....

[quote=dude]

Dude's forcast is greater conflict, unless we as a country show a very sincere interest in giving the less fortunate in the world a platform to be heard.

[/quote]

Here's Mike's forecast. If people as delusional as you are about the aims of the terrorists ever manage to come to positions of real power in this country, America is history.

This isn't about "open dialogue" or the needs of "the less fortunate". It's about an unrepentantly murderous element of radical Islam that wants to kill you and everyone like you, because you don't share their religious beliefs. They want, as a minimum, to reestablish the Caliphate that used to run from Spain to the Far East.

BTW, they'll gladly have you come join their twisted version of Islam, if you like, but you’ll have to get used to stoning to death women who are rape victims as well as gays. Oh, and you’ll have to stomach cutting off the hands of those “less fortunate” who steal a loaf of bread to feed their families.

You're a fear monger mikeB.  you belong with the Bush crowd.

Also, the idiots keep on framing this as a "bringing democracy to the world" effort.  Did you ever think that maybe the people don't want it? 

Yeah, I'm a fan of Democracy, but if you were to put yourself in their shoes with their paradigm, Democracy sounds like an American Export to them and there are dozens of emerging countries who have been bankrupted by American "democracy" (as they would see it).  Namely the numerous countries who took out infrastructure loans in the 70's from the world bank and IMF, prompted by american energy consultant's projections of growth, which never materialized leaving these countries on the hook for BILLIONS of dollars, oh and BTW, if you default on these loans, in the contract it specifies that American corporations will get resource concessions (oil and timber) which will funnel more of your wealth to the U.S. 

I have been very fortunate to have lived abroad and to have many international friends.  It's amazing to me how ignorant the average American is to a lot of these issues.  Most Americans have an opinion on International issues with out actually understanding the scope and perspectives of all parties involved.  It's kinda like Someone who is brought up under one religion and having an opinion of and making judgements about another religion that he/she has no understanding of. 

Also, the idiots keep on framing this as a "bringing democracy to the world" effort.  Did you ever think that maybe the people don't want it? 

Well, if we bring them democracy and they reject it, as the Palistinians have done, then at least they will have had a choice.  We have to respect that choice. We don't have to like it.Right now they have no basis of comparison and no choice.  

And they have no right to make our decisions or choices, like what we can print in our newspapers, what kind of jokes we find funny or what we show on our movie screens because it doesn't align with their religious beliefs. I also have lived abroad, and have international friends and relatives from countries in Europe, Korea and South America so  I can climb on that high-horse too.

I hate to get into politics but...speaking as a very strong conservative MB and BL, you two are doing what the President's men did; Cherry pick what makes your case. 

To state as the pundits do that all intelligence agencies in the world claimed Iraq had WMDs is flat out wrong.  Most claimed he had the ability - it's a far cry from having and being able to deliver; especially when claiming Iraq was an imminent threat where the warning may be a mushroom cloud.  There were many agencies inside the US who disagreed with the notion that Iraq had WMDs; the state department's intelligence agency, several analysts within the CIA were doubtful, former weapons inspectors - i.e. Scott Ritter (who by the way claimed from the beginning this to be the case and was scoffed at like all the other doubters).  France, I know it's France, rejected the claim as did Russia.  And by the way, would you or any sane person who was willing to commit our nation's soldiers to war, base such a grave decision on intelligence dated back to 1998? This is what the pundits all claim when they state Clinton said it too!

Dude, frankly just raises a consistent approach Bush's administration uses when anybody disagrees with them.  The problem with this president is he is so stinking stubborn and full of himself that he can't see when he makes a mistake and adjust to it; for that would mean he would have to admit he and Rumsfeld have absolutely bungled the prosection of this war.

This CIA officer isn't the only one to come out and claim this - Gary Baer has, as has the former CIA bureau chief in the Middle East (name slips me at this time). 

BL - by the way, the army has consistently forced former VOLUNTEERS who once made a choice to serve beyond their contract.....maybe it would be more appropriate to say sending off our men to die.

Finally, anybody that believes what we are doing in Iraq is the on the right track answer these questions:

1. What's our mission in Iraq? 2.  How did we measure success in Iraq?  3.  What does when they stand up we stand down mean?  4.  How do we measure that?  5.  How many have to stand up for us to stand down?  6.  What criteria are we using to measure progress there?  7.  What is success in Iraq? 

Going to Iraq was a tremendous strategic mistake in the war on terror.  We had the world in our corner after 9/11 to tackle the Taliban and fight true terrorist networks throughout the world and those nations that truly funded and sponsored terrorism (syria, iran).  Instead we left Afghanistan early, it will bite us soon, we helped solidify in the middle east the mistrust of our efforts and improve the efforts of recruiting more terrorists.  Invading Iraq in what turns out to be bull s*&t reasons has also forced the extremism we see in Iran and the increase desire to build nuclear weapons (no better deterent against a nation bent on regime changes).  We invade Iraq and allow the 2 biggest sponsor of terrorism for years to get a pass!  Makes total sense to me. 

You all need to read up on the comments of Gen. Sheneski, Zinni, MacCaffrey, Grange, about the inept application of the battle plan this administration utilized and continuous to use today. 

Who the hell our we to bring democracy to anybody and force them to choose.  Since when is that are job and God given right?  Think about what that says to other nations out there.  What if Bush doesn’t like our system of government, will he invade us?  Yea, sounds like a very stablizing foreign policy strategy. 

[quote=babbling looney]

So, is it better to just bomb the sh*t out of them until they capitulate or maybe understand what we're doing that upsets them, put our exploitative agenda aside and foster some understanding

You might as well try to discuss the theory of relativity with my cat for all the good it will do to try to reason with the radical, rabid, Islamist who think that it is their way or no way.

Why do we need to understand them?  How about, they need to understand us and show some tolerance for other people's cultures. 

[/quote]

BL you are sooooo ignorant on this issue.  The vast majority of the Iraqi population is progressive, not radical.  Sadam Hussein is a progressive (they call them Sunni) Moslem.  In fact the vast majority of the Moslem world are not radicals.  It's like bombing innocent Americans and destroying cities because of the radical Christians that exist in our country.  

Why should they show us tolerance?  You must not be aware of the long list of things we have done to them (indonesia, Iran etc...)(from their perspective) which has resulted in greater poverty and strife.  Check out the book:

Confessions of an Economic Hit Man 

As a start.

If you all think you're getting great unbiased news in this country, y'all are supremely deluded.  In fact, of the countries I've traveled and the numerous international friends I keep in touch with America has the MOST biased and narrow news coverage out there.

[quote=csmelnix]

I hate to get into politics but...speaking as a very strong conservative MB and BL, you two are doing what the President's men did; Cherry pick what makes your case. 

To state as the pundits do that all intelligence agencies in the world claimed Iraq had WMDs is flat out wrong.  Most claimed he had the ability - it's a far cry from having and being able to deliver; especially when claiming Iraq was an imminent threat where the warning may be a mushroom cloud.  There were many agencies inside the US who disagreed with the notion that Iraq had WMDs; the state department's intelligence agency, several analysts within the CIA were doubtful, former weapons inspectors - i.e. Scott Ritter (who by the way claimed from the beginning this to be the case and was scoffed at like all the other doubters).  France, I know it's France, rejected the claim as did Russia.  And by the way, would you or any sane person who was willing to commit our nation's soldiers to war, base such a grave decision on intelligence dated back to 1998? This is what the pundits all claim when they state Clinton said it too!

Dude, frankly just raises a consistent approach Bush's administration uses when anybody disagrees with them.  The problem with this president is he is so stinking stubborn and full of himself that he can't see when he makes a mistake and adjust to it; for that would mean he would have to admit he and Rumsfeld have absolutely bungled the prosection of this war.

This CIA officer isn't the only one to come out and claim this - Gary Baer has, as has the former CIA bureau chief in the Middle East (name slips me at this time). 

BL - by the way, the army has consistently forced former VOLUNTEERS who once made a choice to serve beyond their contract.....maybe it would be more appropriate to say sending off our men to die.

Finally, anybody that believes what we are doing in Iraq is the on the right track answer these questions:

1. What's our mission in Iraq? 2.  How did we measure success in Iraq?  3.  What does when they stand up we stand down mean?  4.  How do we measure that?  5.  How many have to stand up for us to stand down?  6.  What criteria are we using to measure progress there?  7.  What is success in Iraq? 

Going to Iraq was a tremendous strategic mistake in the war on terror.  We had the world in our corner after 9/11 to tackle the Taliban and fight true terrorist networks throughout the world and those nations that truly funded and sponsored terrorism (syria, iran).  Instead we left Afghanistan early, it will bite us soon, we helped solidify in the middle east the mistrust of our efforts and improve the efforts of recruiting more terrorists.  Invading Iraq in what turns out to be bull s*&t reasons has also forced the extremism we see in Iran and the increase desire to build nuclear weapons (no better deterent against a nation bent on regime changes).  We invade Iraq and allow the 2 biggest sponsor of terrorism for years to get a pass!  Makes total sense to me. 

You all need to read up on the comments of Gen. Sheneski, Zinni, MacCaffrey, Grange, about the inept application of the battle plan this administration utilized and continuous to use today. 

[/quote]

Damn........ I was starting to get worried that I was the only one who understood these issues around here.  Thanks for framing it in a more digestible format.

We are only succeeding in creating greater fear and mistrust around the world. 

BL and MB's attitudes would be more realistic if America had a history of integrity with these countries/cultures.  The problem is that there is no trust on their end of our motives.  So........attacking a vulnerable population of innocent people creates greater trust?????  No, it's more likely to escalate the acqusition of nuclear weapons and alienation.

Oh and MikeB, I am a conservative and no I'm not a conspiracy theorist.  You also can't box me in with the "Evil Oilmen" B.S. either.  I am a free thinker who questions everything, Even my own motives and knowledge.  It's how I stay objective and informed on truth not propaganda BS.  Go live in a couple different countries for a year or so and you're likely to have an awakening about the control of information.   

BL you are sooooo ignorant on this issue.  The vast majority of the Iraqi population is progressive, not radical.

I thought I very carefully put all the adjectives in -radical- -rabid- to distinguish between not radical, not rabid Islamists.  Where did I mention Iraq? Never.  Iraq is yesterday's mashed potatoes.  Picking nits over Iraq while the house is burning down around us is foolish.

It's like bombing innocent Americans and destroying cities because of the radical Christians that exist in our country.  

Yes, it is very much like that.  Now you get it.  It doesn't take many bombs or for that matter vials of smallpox or antrax to achieve an extremists goal. 

You must not be aware of the long list of things we have done to them (indonesia, Iran etc...)(from their perspective) which has resulted in greater poverty and strife

Typical of the I hate America crowd.  We are all baaaad people and must abase and flagilate ourselves over things that happened in the past that we had no control over or weren't even alive at the time to be able to be involved.  Yes, bad things happened and were caused by greedy men. It happened throughout history in more countries than just the United States.  We can keep a tally of all the bad things that have happened and make a get even list for later.  Get over it. Go and do good in the future.  It is this Hatfield and McCoy attitude on a global scale that will not get us anything but further into peril.   Wahhhh my grandfather was insulted by your grandfather.....so I'm going to kill your children. 

We are in a culture war and the future of Western thought and freedom is at stake.  We can show all the tolerance that we want but it will not change the fundamental intolerance of the enemy.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/dwest.htm

"Allah sent Mohammed with the true religion so that it should rule over all the religions."
Wherever Islam conquered, surrendering dhimmi, known to Muslims as "people of the book [the Bible]," were tolerated, allowed to practice their religion, but at a dehumanizing cost.  

I am not a religious person and I begrudge no one their faith in whatever god/s they choose. I'm not singling out Islam in particular,. Christianity has its own idiots and fanatics, however I don't see any rampaging Lutherans attempting to blow up buildings and people eating pizza in the name of God. 

I believe that the majority (there I spelled it out for you) of people throughout the world just want to live and get on with their lives.  The intolerance, arrogance, inflexible and intrusive attitude of the power mad and I think literally insane religious fanatics are what is fueling our headlong rush to world war.  I'm all for live and let live. Unfortunately the enemy isn't that flexible. 

I think this is a war (and I don't mean Iraq or the other political nits the left wants to focus on) that is going to last for years, decades and possibly even centuries. It has been going on for decades and centuries and now that we have really nifty weapons to be able to destroy a good portion humanity, it is coming to a head.  By the time there is a resolution, I and you will be long dead. 

[quote=dude]

You're a fear monger mikeB.  you belong with the Bush crowd.

[/quote]

You mean I fully understand what the terrorists THEMSELVES say their aims are.

You can start the campfire and wait to sign Kumbaya with this murderous gang. Best of luck to you on that one.

[quote=dude]

Also, the idiots keep on framing this as a "bringing democracy to the world" effort.  Did you ever think that maybe the people don't want it? 

[/quote]

Those people lining up in Iraq, the ones risking their lives to vote, just what do you think THEY want? Let me guess, you know better than they do.

[quote=dude]Yeah, I'm a fan of Democracy, but if you were to put yourself in their shoes with their paradigm, Democracy sounds like an American Export to them ...

[/quote]

Are you talking about Al Qeada or the people with the purple fingers?

[quote=dude]

"...and there are dozens of emerging countries who have been bankrupted by American "democracy" (as they would see it). "

[/quote]

Oh spare me the gibberish about kelpocracies that ran off with the IMF money. I can only guess you figure they'd be better off is left to the likes of them...

[quote=dude]

 ... prompted by american energy consultant's projections of growth, ...

[/quote]

Here we go again....

[quote=dude]

 BTW, if you default on these loans, in the contract it specifies that American corporations will get resource concessions (oil and timber) which will funnel more of your wealth to the U.S. 

[/quote]

Give me a single example of a country that defaulted on an IMF debt and had, as a result, US company seize assets.

 [quote=dude]

I have been very fortunate to have lived abroad and to have many international friends. 

[/quote]

Goody, I've been just as lucky. Perhaps I was luckier because my friends didn't try to sell those myths on me, and they were luckier because I didn't respond with the "yeah, we suck" response you're singing.

....blame America first gibberish snipped....

And just what does any of your mythology have to do with a "dialogue" with people who stone rape victims to death, think homosexuality should carry a death sentence, and think the short cut to heaven is to kill non-believers?

You can call me a "fear monger", I consider that a badge of honor coming from someone so deeply confused about the aims of terrorists.

[quote=csmelnix]

To state as the pundits do that all intelligence agencies in the world claimed Iraq had WMDs is flat out wrong. Most claimed he had the ability - it's a far cry from having and being able to deliver; especially when claiming Iraq was an imminent threat where the warning may be a mushroom cloud.

[/quote]

Where to begin with dispensing with this fiction? How about the idea that intel agencies well outside the US thought Saddam had WMD? Well, sorry, but that’s what Germany, Italy, the UK and French agencies said. BTW, even “having the ability” was in violation of the cease-fire agreement and a violation of the various UN resolutions.

 Next, the “imminent threat” myth. The critics love to repeat that one, but Bush said many, many times that Iraq wasn’t an “imminent threat”. What he said was waiting until Saddam was, was too late.

How about “ability to deliver”? I suppose you could have trusted Saddam to not deliver a WMD via a suitcase, a cargo ship or a terrorist group (the most likely scenario) he might had it to deliver via other means. Personally, since he wasn’t even supposed to have the means to make, much less have stockpiles, I see no reason to “trust” him after 12 years of interfering with UN inspections.

[quote=csmelnix]

There were many agencies inside the US who disagreed with the notion that Iraq had WMDs; …

[/quote]

Name the agency that told Bush there weren’t WMDs. Not some pocket somewhere, some agent that now says he never believed it, an agency. The Senate Committee (and Dude’s CIA critic) have already admitted the intel agencies told Bush Saddam had them.

[quote=csmelnix]

i.e. Scott Ritter (who by the way claimed from the beginning this to be the case and was scoffed at like all the other doubters).

[/quote]

You’re not going to quote Ritter, are you? We could devote an entire thread to his lunacy.

[quote=csmelnix]

France, I know it's France, rejected the claim as did Russia.

[/quote]

Sorry, wrong on both counts. Both countries disagree with our attack, they did however, believe Saddam had WMDs.

[quote=csmelnix]

And by the way, would you or any sane person who was willing to commit our nation's soldiers to war, base such a grave decision on intelligence dated back to 1998? This is what the pundits all claim when they state Clinton said it too!

[/quote]

Wow, talk about missing the point. The reason Clinton (among others) is often cited has having said the same things about Saddam is twofold. First, he had to deal with Saddam’s interruptions of UN inspections, his attacks on US aircraft and Saddam’s weapons programs documentation for eight years. Second, it proves that WMD worries was not a creation of the Bush administration.

[quote=csmelnix]

The problem with this president is he is so stinking stubborn and full of himself that he can't see when he makes a mistake ....[/quote]

Yawn… Bush should “admit”…. yadda yadda yadda…

[quote=csmelnix]

BL - by the way, the army has consistently forced former VOLUNTEERS who once made a choice to serve beyond their contract.....[/quote]

You mean the Army has consistently required a small number of volunteers to live up to the obligations in their contract, ie “stop loss”? Again, spare me. I was “stop loss” affected myself during my time in the military. Don’t try to twist that into something it isn’t.

[quote=csmelnix]

Finally, anybody that believes what we are doing in Iraq is the on the right track answer these questions:

[/quote]

Again? How many times do you need those answered? The mission was to remove Saddam and leave the Iraqis to form their own, elected government. We'll leave when the gov't there can defend itself.

[quote=csmelnix]

Going to Iraq was a tremendous strategic mistake in the war on terror.

[/quote]

It’s hard to imagine that taking away terrorism’s pal, Saddam, and pulling 57 million people out from under his boot was a “tremendous strategic mistake”. Al Qeada says over and over again that Iraq is the center of the current war. Perhaps you should believe them.

[quote=csmelnix]

We had the world in our corner after 9/11 to tackle the Taliban …

[/quote]

What have you been smoking? We had the usual “NO WAR FOR OIL” types in the street screaming. We had Le Mode, in the second paragraph of their “We’re all Americans now” editorial saying we had it coming. BTW, where’s the evidence that some government isn’t working with us against AQ because we went to Iraq?

[quote=csmelnix]

Instead we left Afghanistan early, it will bite us soon…

[/quote]

The voice of doom seems to not know that we left US troops under UN command there…

[quote=csmelnix]

Invading Iraq in what turns out to be bull s*&t reasons has also forced the extremism we see in Iran and the increase desire to build nuclear weapons (no better deterent against a nation bent on regime changes).

[/quote]

You must be joking. The radicals were in charge of Iran long before we went to Iraq. In fact, what really steamed Iran’s mullahs was the US going after their pals, the Taliban.

[quote=csmelnix]Who the hell our we to bring democracy to anybody and force them to choose.    [/quote]

I love the way the left has left behind their "bear any burden" roots. I supoose if you think we "forced them to chose" you gotta believe that living under Saddam wasn't that bad a gig...

Dude, welcome back, I guess you were just making a living. No county’s

foreign policy is without self interest, certainly not ours. Our foreign

policy is full of exploitation, and I don’t have a problem with that either.



Its an exchange of goods and services, kind of like our welfare system.

It’s cheaper to provide cable for a welfare recipient, than pay for a jail cell.





I do however hate anything that is radical or fanatical, that goes for

politics, religion and sports. The majority of the Muslim world is not

radical, that’s true. But there are over 30 million of them that are, and

that’s a problem.



This conflict will not be resolved by Bush, Coca Cola or dollars. Doesn’t

bin Laden have a $25 million bounty on his head? I don’t have an answer,

because I can’t relate to someone that self inflicts a beating with a chain,

or straps a bomb to his torso and walks into a crowded tea house.



Now I forgot what point I was trying to make, so I’ll leave it there.

Gee...I believe there is an extremely long thread on here covering these same topics.

I guess BL and Mike B still haven't learned.

Heck...wasn't BL suggesting genocide in the other thread?

Hmmmmmmmm...