Welcome to thebackpacker.com
create account login
A list of Bush admin lies
Viewing posts 1 to 50 of 496 messages posted.
Jump to Page |  1 | 2   | 3   | 4   | 5   | 6   | 7   | 8   | 9   | 10   |  next >>
To add this thread as a favorites, you need to first login.
“1. Powell relies on FORGED documents to link Saddam to terror.
MSNBC: "They have been the closest of allies. But under the intense pressure of a diplomatic crisis at the United Nations and an imminent war in Iraq, the friendship between the United States and Britain is beginning to fray. The most recent strain emerged when U.N. nuclear inspectors concluded last week that U.S. and British claims about Iraq's secret nuclear program were based on forged documents. The fake letters supposedly laid out how Iraqi agents had tried to purchase uranium from officials in Niger, central Africa."
CNN: WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Intelligence documents that U.S. and British governments said were strong evidence that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons have been dismissed as forgeries by U.N. weapons inspectors.
Sydney Morning Herald, Australia: The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, has demonstrated that UK and US intelligence authorities relied on forged documents to support assertions that Iraq was trying to buy uranium in Africa.
LA Times: WASHINGTON -- Phony weapons documents cited by the United States and Britain as evidence against Saddam Hussein were initially obtained by Italian intelligence authorities, who may have been duped into paying for the forgeries, U.S. officials said Friday. The documents, which purport to show Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium from Niger, were exposed as fraudulent by U.N. weapons inspectors last week. The matter has embarrassed U.S. and British officials.
And even more:
* * *
2. Bush/Powell's UN "evidence" relies on even MORE supposedly "up to date" FORGED documents to link Saddam to terror.
CNN: Large chunks of the 19-page report -- highlighted by U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell at the U.N. as a " fine paper ... which describes in exquisite detail Iraqi deception activities" -- contains large chunks lifted from other sources, according to several academics. " The British government's dossier is 19 pages long and most of pages 6 to 16 are copied directly from that document word for word, even the grammatical errors and typographical mistakes," Rangwala said. Al-Marashi's article, published last September, was based on information obtained at the time of the 1991 Gulf War, Rangwala said. " The information he was using is 12 years old and he acknowledges this in his article. The British government, when it transplants that information into its own dossier, does not make that acknowledgement. " So it is presented as current information about Iraq, when really the information it is using is 12 years old."
UK Guardian: Downing Street was last night plunged into acute international embarrassment after it emerged that large parts of the British government's latest dossier on Iraq - allegedly based on "intelligence material" - were taken from published academic articles, some of them several years old. Amid charges of "scandalous" plagiarism on the night when Tony Blair attempted to rally support for the US-led campaign against Saddam Hussein, Whitehall's dismay was compounded by the knowledge that the disputed document was singled out for praise by the US secretary of state, Colin Powell, in his speech to the UN security council on Wednesday.
3. Bush/Powell tries to use edited audio-tape to LIE about Saddam/Bin Laden Connection.
NY Times: It offered little evidence of an alliance between Mr. Hussein and Mr. bin Laden, but it did seem to validate Arab leaders' warnings that Islamic extremists would exploit any assault on Baghdad to further inflame the region.
NY Times: Germany dismissed Wednesday U.S. claims that a new audiotape purportedly by Osama bin Laden proved he was in league with Iraq, while some Muslims were cheered by the possibility the accused mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks was still alive.
More: Article Link
Philadelphia Daily News: But if bin Laden was trying to show personal solidarity with Saddam himself, he had a strange way of doing so. He denounced Saddam's secular, socialist al-Baath party as "infidels." What's more, the statement said that Iraq's rulers had "lost their credibility long ago" and that "socialists are infidels wherever they are." He didn't even mention Saddam by name.
Salon.com: War, lies and audiotape If truth is the first casualty of war, then this war's second casualty is the credibility of Colin Powell. Yesterday morning he insisted that the new tape from Osama bin Laden would show a "partnership" between al-Qaida and Iraq. He told the nation that he had a transcript of bin Laden's remarks. Understandably, however, the secretary of state didn't read from the transcript he claimed to have in his possession -- because it so clearly contradicted the headlines he was trying to create.
* * *
4. Bush/Powell LIES again about Saddam's ability to deliver weapons of mass destruction.
News Interactive: An Iraqi drone found by UN weapons inspectors is of "very primitive" design and is definitely not capable of flying 500km as suggested by US Secretary of State Colin Powell, Jane's Defence Weekly said today.
On February 5, Powell told the UN Security Council that the Iraqis possessed a drone that could fly 500km, violating UN rules that limit the range of Iraqi weapons to 150km. " There is no possibility that the design shown on 12 March has the capability to fly anywhere near 500 kilometres," drones expert Ken Munson said on Jane's website (http://jdw.janes.com). " The design looks very primitive, and the engines -- which have their pistons exposed -- appear to be low-powered," he said.
MORE: Article Link
Originally from the NY Times: AL TAJI, Iraq -- To hear senior Bush administration officials tell it, Iraq's latest pilotless drone has the potential to be one of Saddam Hussein's deadliest weapons, able to deliver terrifying payloads of chemical and biological warfare agents across Iraq's borders to Israel or other neighboring states. It could even, they say, be broken down and smuggled into the United States for use in terrorist attacks. But viewed up close yesterday by reporters hastened by Iraqi officials to the Ibn Firnas weapons plant outside Baghdad, the vehicle the Iraqis have code-named RPV-30A, for remotely piloted vehicle, looked more like something out of the Rube Goldberg museum of aeronautical design than anything that could threaten Iraq's foes. To the layman's eye, the unveiling of the Iraqi prototype seemed to lend the crisis over Iraq's weapons an aura less of deadly threat than of farce.
"In any case, he and other officials said, the vehicle could not be controlled from a distance of more than 5 miles, in good weather, since its controllers tracked it "with the naked eye."
Boston Globe: Duct tape reinforced by aluminum foil held together the black and white drone's balsa wood wings. The wooden propellers and tiny engines were fastened to a well-worn fuselage, fashioned from the fuel tank of a larger aircraft. The words ''God is Great'' were hand painted in red ink on both sides. Perched on a sawhorse at a military research base 20 miles north of Baghdad, the drone looked more like a large school science project than a vehicle capable of delivering chemical and biological weapons. Iraqi officials denied the airplane had any strategic use.
More: Article Link
* * *
5. Bush/Powell LIE about Iraq's Nuclear capabilities concerning "aluminum tubes":
ABC News: Before Congress, and in public, President Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell have repeatedly pointed to aluminum tubes imported by Iraq which they say are for use in making nuclear weapons. But on Friday, head United Nations nuclear inspector Mohammad ElBaradei told the Security Council that it wasn't likely that the tubes were for that use. ElBaradei also said that documents Bush had cited and relied upon to make the case that Iraq tried to buy uranium from a country in central Africa were fake.
Washington Post: The finding: Iraq had tried to buy thousands of high-strength aluminum tubes, which Bush said were "used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon." But according to government officials and weapons experts, the claim now appears to be seriously in doubt. After weeks of investigation, U.N. weapons inspectors in Iraq are increasingly confident that the aluminum tubes were never meant for enriching uranium, according to officials familiar with the inspection process. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the U.N.-chartered nuclear watchdog, reported in a Jan. 8 preliminary assessment that the tubes were "not directly suitable" for uranium enrichment”
“finally. i was starting to miss these divisive political threads, with all the divisive jerry springer-ish threads going on.”
“6. Pheadrus bases all his political views on only agreeable media sources thereby placing himself as the Stratdude of the left.”
“That's a good thing to include in a list of lies, Nigal.”
“Ha ha! Phaedrus, you liberals need some new material! You just keep hashin' out the same 'ole spiel, whoever is in control of your propaganda machine which you plug into need some DIFFERENT MATERIAL. At least humor us now and then with something new. That's all I'm asking. Ha ha!”
“Admittedly, the source I got this from is old. Of course, this is in response to the rehashing of old refuted claims you were making on another thread.
You claimed, for one, that the niger papers were not forged, didn't you?”
“Accept your place in life Phead. 8) As crazy and as brainwashed as Strat may seem to you, so to are you. Just in the opposite direction.”
“Sorry, nigal, if you believe that, then you're not paying attention to what I actually write.”
“The places where we polarize are not about left/right. It's always about the Bush admin.”
“Hi Phaedrus! The Niger uranium thing was just not "verified" and Bush even admitted it shouldn't have been included in the State of the Union Address. This was like, months ago? Bush has already stated that it was a mistake to include this claim as "fact", wasn't this already old headline stuff? Blair stands behind the claim that the Iraqis were dealing with Niger regarding uranium, which is Niger's biggest natural resource export product. But even if it is true, it wasn't sufficiently veriable to be used in a State of the Union Address.
And it's not like the uranium thing with Niger had anything to do with us invading Iraq in the first place... we didn't go in there on that piece of data, sheesh!
Here's Blairs response to the whole Niger thing:
Blair Stands by Niger Uranium Claim
Wednesday, July 16, 2003
LONDON — Dogged by questions over his government's use of intelligence ahead of the war in Iraq, Prime Minister Tony Blair (search) insisted Wednesday that Britain had been right to help depose Saddam Hussein.
Blair, who for weeks has faced accusations of exaggerating the threat of weapons of mass destruction (search) to bolster the case for military action, said he stood by intelligence published by the government.
"No, I do not accept that people were misled at all," said the prime minister, who raised his voice above heckling and jeering in a rambunctious session of the House of Commons.
Blair said Wednesday it was "not beyond the bounds of possibility" that Iraq had sought uranium in the West African country, where it had purchased tons of the substance in the 1980s.
President Bush included the claim in his State of the Union address, saying: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
The Bush administration has since said the Niger claim should not have been included in the speech in January as it fell short of the standards necessary for a presidential address.
On Wednesday, Blair denied that the forged documents came from Britain and said the government had independent intelligence on the Iraq-Niger link.
"It's not as if this link between Niger and Iraq was some invention of the CIA or Britain," said Blair. "We know in the 1980s that Iraq purchased from Niger over 270 tons of uranium, and therefore it is not beyond the bounds of possibility -- let's at least put it like this -- that they went back to Niger again."
And here's what President Clinton said about Bush and the Niger thing:
Bill Clinton on Bush uranium line: 'Everybody makes mistakes'
Former president accepts explanation on State of the Union
Wednesday, July 23, 2003 Posted: 3:34 PM EDT (1934 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House, attacked by critics for a now-retracted line about Iraq seeking uranium from Africa in President Bush's State of the Union address, has gotten some surprising support from former President Clinton.
"I thought the White House did the right thing in just saying 'we probably shouldn't have said that,' " Clinton told CNN's Larry King in a phone interview Tuesday evening.
"You know, everybody makes mistakes when they are president," Clinton said. "I mean, you can't make as many calls as you have to make without messing up once in awhile. The thing we ought to be focused on is what is the right thing to do now. That's what I think."
“My point exactly. Strat has no idea he's so far to the extreme either and apparently, neither do you.
If it walks like a zealot and talks like a zealot...well...”
“Liberals just hate Bush, period. End of discussion. As they say, even a broken watch is right twice a day. They won't even give Bush THAT much credit. That's okay, it's rather humorous the levels they'll go to show their complete disdain for him.”
“Sorry, nigal, but if you can't give me some sort of example to compare against, there's really no point arguing it. You're welcome to your opinion, but I certainly don't set out when examining issues to come down on one side or the other. I make opinions that make sense to me, and I'm willing to change them when I'm given reason.
If that's extreme, so be it.”
“Right, Buck, they didn't invade on that one bit of evidence. They systematically left out contrary evidence when deciding whether the US should attack Iraq without A UN security council approval. I'm glad they admitted that was a mistake, but it doesn't change the damage they have done.
In case anyone's wondering, and just to rehash, I think Iraq was a humanitarian and international trade problem. I think that the Bush admin should have ramped up pressure on the UN to agree to a use of force to remove Saddam.
Hardly a passivist opinion.”
“"Liberals just hate Bush, period. End of discussion."
This is very true Buck. I'm frothing at the mouth for the democratic primaries and watching the liberals just tear each other to shreds and trying to tear Bush to shreds. And then, THEN, when they have their sacrificail goat all picked out and they ask him what his plan is, there will be nothing but the sound of crickets. Then of course he will go back to the liberal play book and attack, attack, attack.
The common man is smart enough to see whn a party has no new ideas and no plan.”
“I'd have to disagree again, Nigal, and your attribution of bas qualities to "liberals", thus implying every liberal, sure makes it seem like you're the one being extreme. I certainly don't try to bash conservatives as a group. I take stances on positions as they make sense to me.”
“: "I make opinions that make sense to me, and I'm willing to change them when I'm given reason." - Phaedrus
Phaedrus, if you think this about yourself, that you're actually capable of forming your own personal opinions based on reason, why do you then try and belittle others and if someone opposes your opinion, they are merely rehashing canned doctrine from a propaganda machine? Do you not have any respect for opposing views? Do you really think conservatives are so stupid they can't think for themselves, so they are like puppets with pull-strings in their backs, repeating opinions like parrots? Don't worry, you're not alone in your way of thinking this way, I find many liberal elitists with your same snooty attitude. In fact liberals in general have no idea how someone can actually be conservative, and if a conservative wins an election, obviously somehow, somewhere there was either some sort of societal breakdown or more likely, bad vote counting. Surely no one actually PURPOSELY voted for a conservative? The ballots must be screwed up. Let's rearrange them, let's recount votes, let's pull candidates out in the middle of an election campaign if our guy is losing, let's give bums and homeless people rides to the poll booths in exchange for cigarettes and booze. It's amazing, man. It boggles my mind. Gray Davis was voted in TWICE by the same exact voting methods he was protesting as "unfair" during the recall and tried to get the election postponed until they could get more modern voting booths in there. Huh? Did that invalidate his previous elections then? What a joke! The elaborate measures Dems will go to to try and ensure a victory is nothing short of amazing! I think America is on to them though, as it seems Repubs are sweeping the country in election after election. Either way, I respect all views even in disagreement and I don't doubt liberals can't actually think of this stuff on their own without being propaganda puppets, as is often claimed by the other side.”
“That's an interesting post re: zealotry, Nigel.... sandwiched between two more of those Bucky screeds, <G>”
“bas = base
Also, I can disagree strongly with Bush without hating him. It's a little trick I learned as I became an adult.”
“"The common man is smart enough to see whn a party has no new ideas and no plan......."
That's the exact reason I quit the Republicaint Party!”
“"I make opinions that make sense to me"
Ding ding ding! We have a winner! It is you very opinion that can make you so suseptable to any kind of information that will support your own opinions. You do exibit a willingness to accept a changing or evolving opinion more than Strat. Still, there are times when I think if a messanger of G-d Himself dropped from the sky and told you that you were wrong you'd still stick to your opinion.”
“Home from the Clark war room so early Q? 8P”
“Christ, Buck, I think you may type faster than you can think.
1. I have a good number of conservative friends with whom I disagree. All of them, in our discussions, have challenged my ideas with new perspectives.
2. You're doing the same thing we talked about last time, like you've learned nothing about what a straw man argument is.”
“"That's an interesting post re: zealotry, Nigel.... sandwiched between two more of those Bucky screeds,
That boy sure does have a way of looking at things, don't he? Fastest damn typer I've ever seen too.”
“Nope, nigal, all it takes is for something to be proven. The God thing would actually make me suspicious of his motives ;)”
“: "Right, Buck, they didn't invade on that one bit of evidence. They systematically left out contrary evidence when deciding whether the US should attack Iraq without A UN security council approval. I'm glad they admitted that was a mistake, but it doesn't change the damage they have done." - Phaedrus
Hi again, Phaedrus! First of all, we had UN reslutions up the ying-yang to kick Saddam out. We didn't need any more. We had over a decade of this brutal dictator buying time, lying, cheating, lying, buying more time, lying, over and over and over and over and over, making a spectacle of the United Nations (as if that's really tough to do, ha!), and with each passing week and with each old game played over and over, Saddam was making the UN even more laughable, more ineffective, and more ludicrous. Bush had enough of that crap. Saddam is gone. His slaughtering, torturist, sadistic rapist sons dead. Admittedly, I do miss that Iraqi Information Minister guy though.
Look, like it or not, Bush has resolve. The UN picks up and runs, the Red Cross picks up and runs, everyone picks up and runs when things get icky. We stand firm and we will not be shaken by evil. Clinton sends in some special forces in Somalia to take care of some problems, a Black Hawk chopper gets shot down, we pick up and leave. Bush doesn't run from bad things. Bush is showing that terrorist can't scare off every organization, every nation, every leader, and every group of nations (aka U.N.), that the United States will do what it takes to battle terrorism. It's about time we had a leader like this. Amen.
: "I think that the Bush admin should have ramped up pressure on the UN to agree to a use of force to remove Saddam."
Phaedrus, you just used an oxymoron in your sentence above. "UN to agree".”
“Anyway, I'm outta here for the night. Peace.”
“I'm a hyper typer. :Þ”
“I'll answer that tomorrow. G'night”
“What, would the "Enron is Good!" sign on the angle's shield make you stop and think twice? 8)”
“You should see how fast I could type if it weren't like ZERO DEGREES in my room right now, ha ha! My fingers are frozen! I keep them warm by cramming them up my nose in between posts.”
“Too funny, nigal.
BTW - you left yer Clark lawn sign in my car from this last weekend Meet up. Don't worry, I have yer addy, so I'll send some extra Clark bumper stickers for ya, to make it worht yer while and all.....;)
PS - Don't worry, I won't post that pic of you holding that Perot for Prez sign in yer hand! We'll keep between us.....”
“I bet you go through a new keyboard every three weeks or so! LOL!”
“GOD DAMN! Can you SAY BUSTED!
“: "Liberals just hate Bush, period. End of discussion." - Buck
: "Also, I can disagree strongly with Bush without hating him." - Phaedrus
Okay, here I am making a blanket statement (an admitted stereotype for the sake of discussion) that liberals hate Bush. And Phaedrus, last time I implied you were a liberal you took awful offense and protested. But now you say you can disagree with Bush without hating him, implying once again that you are a liberal (gasp). I'm so confused! :Þ”
“Shoot, Phaedrus went to bed right when I needed a heated discussion to keep me warm in here! Brrrrr! :Þ”
“Last tme you were challenged on your morels, you recoiled too, Buck. You came out with the "I'm a Christian" thang. Not defending, but people in glass houses...
BTW - where is the Offical Score Keeper!?!?!”
“: "Also, I can disagree strongly with Bush without hating him. It's a little trick I learned as I became an adult."
Also, one last irony before I hit the sack myself. You say, Phaedrus, that you can argue as an adult, but then if someone disagrees with you, you threaten to use the "ignore" feature. Okay, g'nite, dad.”
“: "Last tme you were challenged on your morels, you recoiled too, Buck. You came out with the "I'm a Christian" thang. Not defending, but people in glass houses..." - iraqtis
Hi! I'm lost. First of all, if I'm in a glass house, I shouldn't be typing in my skivvies. Just a sec... okay, that's better. Secondly, I was challenged on my morels (I think you mean morals)? How was I challenged on my morals? I'm lost? People disagree with any morality I may or may not have quite frequently, but I don't care, we all have our own worldviews. I never "recoil" when it comes to morals. I guess I have absolutely no idea whatchoo tawkin' 'bout. If you explain, perhaps I can give you a specific and meaningful response. Gracias, Senor.”
Maybe it's that you say sooooooo much chit that it's hard to keep track of. Understandable. Troll....”
“: Maybe it's that you say sooooooo much chit that it's hard to keep track of. Understandable." - iraqtis
My strategy, if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with b.s.! Ha ha!”
You won't hear this kind of news on CNN
“Walden Returns From Iraq
The delegation met with newly appointed civilian leaders in Mosul, a city of three million. Dr. Haneen Al Qaddo, a city councillor, told the delegation of Americans, “you're not occupying us, you are liberating us. This is not only my view, this is the view of most Iraqis.”
In a briefing to members of the House delegation, Ambassador Bremer enumerated a number of successes that had been achieved in Iraq since the fall of Saddam’s regime:
· The Coalition has completed over 13,000 reconstruction projects all over Iraq to improve the lives of the Iraqi people, including building schools, stocking hospitals or repairing power pylons.
· Six months ago there were no police on duty in Iraq. Today there are over 40,000 police on duty, nearly 7,000 here in Baghdad alone.
· Six months ago there were no functioning courts in Iraq. Today nearly all of Iraq’s 400 courts are functioning.
· Six months ago the entire country could generate a bare 300 megawatts of electricity. On Monday, October 6 power generation hit 4,518 megawatts-exceeding the pre-war average.
· Six months ago nearly all of Iraq’s schools were closed. Today all 22 universities and 43 technical institutes and colleges are open, as are nearly all primary and secondary schools. By October 1 we had rehabbed over 1,500 schools.
· During the 1990’s Saddam cut spending on public health by over 90 percent with predictable results for the lives of his citizens. Today we have increased public health spending to over 26 times what it was under Saddam. Today all 240 hospitals and more than 1200 clinics are open. Pharmaceutical distribution has gone from essentially nothing to 700 tons in May to a current total of 12,000 tons. Since liberation we have administered over 22 million vaccination doses to Iraq’s children.
Good things happening in Iraq”
Gallup Polls Baghdad
“What do the Iraqis think? A Baghdad Gallup Poll of Iraqis shows:
-- Nearly two-thirds (62%) of Baghdad's citizens think ousting Saddam Hussein was worth any hardships they have personally endured since the invasion.
-- Two-thirds (67%) believe Iraq will be in better condition five years from now than it was before the U.S. and British-led invasion; just 8% think it will be worse off.
The Gallup poll found that 71% of the capital city's residents felt U.S. troops should not leave in the next few months. Just 26% felt the troops should leave that soon.
Almost six in 10 in the poll, 58%, said that U.S. troops in Baghdad have behaved fairly well or very well, with one in 10 saying "very well." Twenty 20% said the troops have behaved fairly badly and 9% said very badly.
The poll of 1,178 adults was taken between Aug. 28 and Sept. 4 and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Baghdad Gallup Poll”
“I just like sharing good news. For those wishing to hear the "good" that's being accomplished on a daily basis in Iraq, here's more good stuff. I am excited for the Iraqi people, I really honestly am. It's stuff like this that makes me proud to be an American and stand up for what I believe to be good and right and honorable.
Positive Coalition Achievements”
“By God, man! Are you tapping Rummy or something!?!
What do you expect the White House website to say, we are sucking in Iraq?
Yawn, same chit, different day.”
“Let me guess. Another campaign of negativity?”
“Oops, you're right, laqtis, I forgot you don't like good news, and I also forgot to mention that the Gallup Poll organization is really a covert sub-agency of the Republican White House! Ha ha! Shoot, laqtis is on to us! :Þ”
From your Link
“"However, a sizable minority felt that circumstances could occur in which attacks against the troops could be justified. Almost one in five, 19%, said attacks could be justified, and an additional 17% said they could be in some situations.
These mixed feelings in Baghdad come at a time when many in the United States are urging that the troops be brought home soon......."
Also, your data is out dated if it was taken in Aug. 28 and Sept. 4. This is November, what do you're sources say about what's happening now?”
“Like Johnson and Nixon, he never lied to us. He was just kidding us a little bit.”
“Okay, here I am making a blanket statement (an admitted stereotype for the sake of discussion) that liberals hate Bush. And Phaedrus, last time I implied you were a liberal you took awful offense and protested. But now you say you can disagree with Bush without hating him, implying once again that you are a liberal (gasp). I'm so confused! :Þ"
Are you serious? This is really the extent of your reasoning? "liberals hate bush, you disagree with bush, therefore you're a liberal"?
Also, one last irony before I hit the sack myself. You say, Phaedrus, that you can argue as an adult, but then if someone disagrees with you, you threaten to use the "ignore" feature. Okay, g'nite, dad."
No, I enjoy people who disagree with me and can give valid arguments for opposite views. You, on the other hand, have made me wade through a river of irrelevencies, hoping (mostly in vain) for you to get to the point. You try to make EVERY thread about liberals VS conservatives in a broad and non-specific way, often labelling everything that disagrees with your point of view as liberal, and arguing against THAT, rather than what the person debating you has said.
It's a little like having a conversation with a schizophrenic who is arguing with the voices in his head.
THAT is why I'm considering the ignore feature where you're concerned. I'd much rather be able to have a consistent dialogue with others than try to contantly reign you in from your incessent tangents.
Now, back on topic, you mentioned that you believed the UN had spent enough time on Iraq, and that action was called for. Look at the outcome of that action as far as cost for the US. We COULD have gotten a UN security council resolution with proper statesmanship by the Bush admin. If you had been here at the time, you'd have seen that I was calling for just that.
Unfortunately, the Neocons who have influence over the admin were in such a rush to get this done, that they refused to allow time for the process of diplomacy to complete, tried to force a vote, and dropped it when they saw it would fail. Richard Perle admitted this week that it was a violation of international law.
Also, Buck, this agenda was planned well in advance of Bush taking office. While I agree that removing Saddam was a good thing, and that the world will be a better place with a more liberal, humanitarian government in Iraq, I disagree strongly with the tack we took to get there.”
Jump to Page |  1 | 2   | 3   | 4   | 5   | 6   | 7   | 8   | 9   | 10   |  next >>
Post a MessageIn order to post a response to this thread you must first be logged in. If you do not already have an account, you must first create a new account.
Ready to Buy Gear?
Great Outdoor Sites