Ivoted for Bush in 00 and 04!

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Your wriggling does not become you.

???????

I blame them all. Your desire to place the balme on one man you hate does not become you. It is too easy to place blame on one man for all of this. I would rather all the people at fault be held accountable so this can be prevented next time. Not to just let a personal hatred of one man make my choices for me.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

The weapons inspectors who were there in Iraq thought he was complying. The 101st Fighting Keyboarders back here in the US thought he wasn't

And the mighty keystrokes had 12 years of Saddams tricks to back them up. It would also not be the first time that Saddam had fooled the inspectors.

The simple fact is he never did comply with the resolution. He did make some efforts near the end, but that was after the US stopped just standing by and doing nothing like the UN had done for years.

Hey, I would have been OK with more time for the inspectors. But I also know that there is information that being a private citizen I do not know about. So, if the Intelligence community can convince the President, The House, and The Senate. Then they might know more than me, or you don't you think?

Quote

And the good information they DID get was assiduously ignored, because it conflicted with the desire for war.

Or maybe it conflicted with the past 12 years of dealing with Saddam. How many times do you play the same game, by the same rules and expect a different result?

Quote

Because it's your team, and they're on the radio telling you it's clear.

But the other teams were your team as well, and they were wrong. Even when the team came back and said that he was up to no good, the UN did nothing.

Quote

As did we.

Yes, finally you admit it. Anyone that supported the war has a bit of fault. Not just one guy. You only want to blame one guy, but he could not have done it on his own. He may have wanted to do it, but without public support Congress would never have given the OK.

So I blame Saddam for not complying for 12 years.
The UN for not doing anything for 12 years. The Intelligence groups for bad information. Bush for moving in that direction. Congress for voting to allow it. And even myself for supporting it.

Quote

We want a king, not a president - and every time we let him get away with another power grab, we move a little closer to that happening.

As you said he is not the first and will not be the last. The next election will most likely be won by a Democrat. That might not be bad, except that it might be just because they are a Democrat and not based on anything else.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Your desire to place the balme on one man you hate does not become you. It is too easy to place blame on one man for all of this.

Ah... for a President like Truman again..... you know.. they guy who had the sign on his desk that said" THE BUCK STOPS HERE"

You apologists for him want to find anyone else to blame for this fuckup of a man that you elected into the place he is... TWICE.
Dude that is not hatred.. that is just a very sad reality yall are running from.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

You apologists for him want to find anyone else to blame for this fuckup of a man that you elected into the place he is... TWICE.

I don't know what planet you are from. Lets look at one of my posts shall we? How about the one above yours?

Yes, finally you admit it. Anyone that supported the war has a bit of fault. Not just one guy. You only want to blame one guy, but he could not have done it on his own. He may have wanted to do it, but without public support Congress would never have given the OK.

So I blame Saddam for not complying for 12 years.
The UN for not doing anything for 12 years. The Intelligence groups for bad information. Bush for moving in that direction. Congress for voting to allow it. And even myself for supporting it.

That does not sound like I am making an apology and letting Bush off. I said I blame him, I also blame the others.

You see anyone that does not want Bush's head on a pike as an "apologist".

That just means you have such a hatred that you don't both to look at any information that does not jive with your feelings.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

You see anyone that does not want Bush's head on a pike as an "apologist".

Ido not want to see his head on a pike at all.. I want the fucker IMPEACHED.... and let the TRUTH come out about the un-american activities...and of all the lies that he and his administration spoon fed to you guys to get you all on board.

[billvon 3,013]

>The simple fact is he never did comply with the resolution.

Then where are the WMD's? This war would be pretty well justified if we had found them. We didn't - because he disarmed, as he claimed he did.

Saddam was still a bad man. If the objective was to eliminate a bad man, then say that and do it. Don't embellish the threat and mislead people into a war on false pretenses. People are losing their sons and daughters in this war; they deserve to be told the truth.

>Hey, I would have been OK with more time for the inspectors. But I
>also know that there is information that being a private citizen I do not
>know about. So, if the Intelligence community can convince the
>President, The House, and The Senate. Then they might know more
>than me, or you don't you think?

They DID know quite a bit. Bush picked what supported invasion because he needed a solid case for war. Google the Downing Street Memo if you doubt this, or the reports on the 'mobile biological weapons' trailers, or the uranium from Niger. All ignored because it might have resulted in peace - and that was contrary to the administration's/PNAC's goals.

>Or maybe it conflicted with the past 12 years of dealing with Saddam.
>How many times do you play the same game, by the same rules and
>expect a different result?

Why would we need a different result? He was contained, which was our objective. He had no WMD's, which was also our objective. We just didn't have regime change, which is what we (or rather the PNAC) wanted.

>But the other teams were your team as well, and they were wrong.

No, they weren't. No one found WMD's. If they had, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

>Yes, finally you admit it. Anyone that supported the war has a bit of
>fault. Not just one guy.

One guy's call, one guy's responsibility. That's what the job calls for. Bush - and no one else - ordered the invasion. No one else could have (except for Congress, had they declared war, which they did not.)

This is like one of those cases where someone kills someone else, and then his lawyers start blaming society, his parents, his teachers and his friends. "Sure, he pulled the trigger, but he's the victim here! His parents set him up for this. It's society's fault." Perhaps - but one person pulled the trigger. One person sent our troops to war.

We may well all want to consider how we should handle this differently next time. A bit more skepticism would be called for, as would a bit more bravery in the face of some scare tactics. But ten years from now, one man will still have the power to order our troops into battle. Which is an excellent reason to choose that man wisely.

[kallend 2,038]

Quote

Quote

You apologists for him want to find anyone else to blame for this fuckup of a man that you elected into the place he is... TWICE.

I don't know what planet you are from. Lets look at one of my posts shall we? How about the one above yours?

Yes, finally you admit it. Anyone that supported the war has a bit of fault. Not just one guy. You only want to blame one guy, but he could not have done it on his own. He may have wanted to do it, but without public support Congress would never have given the OK.

So I blame Saddam for not complying for 12 years.
The UN for not doing anything for 12 years. The Intelligence groups for bad information. Bush for moving in that direction. Congress for voting to allow it. And even myself for supporting it.

That does not sound like I am making an apology and letting Bush off. I said I blame him, I also blame the others.

You see anyone that does not want Bush's head on a pike as an "apologist".

That just means you have such a hatred that you don't both to look at any information that does not jive with your feelings.

It was clear to anyone that cared to think about it that the "evidence" Bush presented was a crock of lies.
www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=382511#382511

www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=386328#386328

However, the blame goes to the liars, not to those taken in by the lies.

"The Buck Stops Here" - from the desk of an HONORABLE president

Edited to add:

On Feb 16, 2003 (before the invasion) I wrote in the same thread as the above quotes came from:

Unfortunately the stuff that Secretary Powell showed last week was not very convincing, not remotely as convincing as the presentation made by Adlai Stevenson during the Cuban Missile Crisis. In fact, some of it was so unconvincing that some people are suggesting the CIA set him up to look bad.

A point that Powell appears later to have confirmed:
www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/19/powell.un/
www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-09-08-powell-iraq_x.htm

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

"The Buck Stops Here" - from the desk of an HONORABLE president

Wow what a unique concept. If the Conservatives want to conserve anything why is it not things like that from our past......instead of what we have now... The Buck gets passed from Here to anyone else we can Blame like Plame

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

>The simple fact is he never did comply with the resolution.

Then where are the WMD's? This war would be pretty well justified if we had found them. We didn't - because he disarmed, as he claimed he did.

He never complied since he was supposed to show he got rid of them. He never did that, so he never complied.

Quote

They DID know quite a bit. Bush picked what supported invasion because he needed a solid case for war.

He picked what intel described a threat to the US. That is not the same thing as picking only the things that lead to war.

The cost of ignoring the intel, if it was correct, could have been very bad. You have a guy that is reported to have a loaded gun in a house. Some say it is not loaded, and others say he does not even have a gun. He says he will see you destroyed and rotting in hell. What do you do?

Quote

Google the Downing Street Memo if you doubt this, or the reports on the 'mobile biological weapons' trailers, or the uranium from Niger.

I said I would have supported more time. But I am willing to bet that there is plenty of intel that said that terrorists already have plans in motion in the US right now. I also bet that we as civilians do not have access to them. The great thing about intel is that it normally says a bunch of things. Sometimes the same thing, other times different.

Quote

Why would we need a different result? He was contained, which was our objective

The objective was to disarm, not contain.

Quote

No, they weren't. No one found WMD's. If they had, then we wouldn't be having this discussion

The UN team in 98 said he had them. And that he had plans to build more. Why didn't anything happen then?

Quote

One guy's call, one guy's responsibility. That's what the job calls for

Yep Saddam was to blame.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Ido not want to see his head on a pike at all.. I want the fucker IMPEACHED.... and let the TRUTH come out about the un-american activities...and of all the lies that he and his administration spoon fed to you guys to get you all on board

If you have such proof, give it to congress and they should impeach him then.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

If you have such proof, give it to congress and they should impeach him then.

If the NY Times published photographs and notarized confessions of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice gang raping coma patients in the ass, the republicans in congress would cite national security and say the victims "had links to known terrorists."

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

If you have such proof, give it to congress and they should impeach him then.

If the NY Times published photographs and notarized confessions of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice gang raping coma patients in the ass, the republicans in congress would cite national security and say the victims "had links to known terrorists."

That sounds like recent history... from around 7 years ago, doesn't it?

"You should put some ice on that"

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,013]

>He never complied since he was supposed to show he got rid of
>them. He never did that, so he never complied.

He turned over everything he had. We didn't think it was enough. It turned out to BE all he had, because we bombed the shit out of his military facilities where the proof was.

>He picked what intel described a threat to the US.

Thank you! At least you admit it. It would have been best to look at ALL intel, including the intel that said he was not a threat.

> You have a guy that is reported to have a loaded gun in a house.
> Some say it is not loaded, and others say he does not even have a
> gun. He says he will see you destroyed and rotting in hell. What do
> you do?

You go to him and say "we're going to search your house, and if you try to stop us, you're toast." He bitches and complains - but lets you in. Your team goes in and starts searching.

After 20 minutes they say "hey, we're almost done, nothing yet."

You say "we know you have a gun, you asshole!"

He says "I had a gun 20 years ago, but you burned my other house down and I lost it there."

You say "Show me the receipt for the lost gun!"

He says "I don't have a fucking recepit, it's in a foundation under tons of rubble!"

What do you do that that point?

a) wait for your team to finish
b) shoot him
c) arrest him, kill his family, and burn down his neighborhood

(In retrospect, c wasn't such a good option.)

>The objective was to disarm, not contain.

He was disarmed, in fact - and contained.

>The UN team in 98 said he had them. And that he had plans to
>build more. Why didn't anything happen then?

Because cooler heads prevailed, and tried sanctions to get him to disarm. The sanctions worked. He disarmed.

[DaVinci 0]

I can see this is going to go nowhere fast.

Quote

He turned over everything he had. We didn't think it was enough. It turned out to BE all he had, because we bombed the shit out of his military facilities where the proof was.

Or he just claimed he had none. You might have been willing to risk it, the President with a ton more intel to look at than you didn't feel that way (This is where you claim he only looked at the intel he wanted, and I claim he looked at all he had and made choice based on risk levels of each choice). Congress, allowed him to do it and I bet they had more intel than you as well (This is where you claim Congress didn't vote to go to war, and I claim that they voted to allow the President to use force. You claim that it is not the same thing (which its not), but I claim that if they were unwilling to use force they should have said so then Not gone along with the popular opinion and then later claim they were tricked/forced.)

Quote

>He picked what intel described a threat to the US.

Thank you! At least you admit it. It would have been best to look at ALL intel, including the intel that said he was not a threat.

I think he did look at all the intel he had and made a choice based on what he had and the risk of each course of action. You think he just had a hard on for war that he didn't care.

Quote

You go to him and say "we're going to search your house, and if you try to stop us, you're toast." He bitches and complains - but lets you in.

Then when you find stuff he kicks you out and no one does anything for 6-7 years.

Quote

>The objective was to disarm, not contain.

He was disarmed, in fact - and contained.

He gave money to the families of suicide bombers, I would not call that contained. The resolution said he had to prove he was disarmed. He played games and tried tricks for 12 years.

Quote

>The UN team in 98 said he had them. And that he had plans to
>build more. Why didn't anything happen then?

Because cooler heads prevailed, and tried sanctions to get him to disarm. The sanctions worked. He disarmed.

The sactions worked because it took so long to do anything? Thats like claiming that when a guy that killed when he was 20 dies of Cancer at 80 that justice was served.

I can see this is going nowhere, so I don't see a reason to go circles.

I think Saddam played games. You will not admit he never willing complied.

You think Bush looked for a war. I think he look at the intel he had and made a choice.

You think the sanctions worked. I think they worked only since it took 12 years to do anything, not because he complied.

[billvon 3,013]

>Or he just claimed he had none.

No. He really, actually had none. We looked to see for ourselves. This is one of those things called 'facts' that is commonly seen in the reality-based community, but not so often in other communities. (In other words, even if you post another 200 times that he didn't disarm, the fact is that he did.)

>He gave money to the families of suicide bombers, I would not
>call that contained.

And the US gives money to the IRA to blow people up. And gave billions of dollars to Islamic terrorists to commit suicide attacks. So what?

>The resolution said he had to prove he was disarmed. He played
>games and tried tricks for 12 years.

And then he disarmed when we threatened him. No matter how many times you try to make him sound evil and bad, you cannot avoid that fact.

>The sactions worked because it took so long to do anything?

The sanctions worked because he disarmed. It just took a lot longer than anyone expected.

>Thats like claiming that when a guy that killed when he was 20 dies
>of Cancer at 80 that justice was served.

If there had been a delay of 60 years, or Hussein had died of natural causes, your analogy might make some sense.

>I think Saddam played games. You will not admit he never
>willing complied.

He certainly played games, and he certainly complied in the end. That's a fact. Look it up. (If you'd like to refute me, please post the list of WMD's found when we invaded.)

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

He certainly played games, and he certainly complied in the end. That's a fact. Look it up. (If you'd like to refute me, please post the list of WMD's found when we invaded.)

He never complied because he never provided proof. If you would like to refute me, please show me the list of arms we knew he had (since he used them, he had to have them right?) and what he did with them. He lied till all his materials were lost or destroyed. I don't see how you can claim that he complied when he never willingly allowed anything.

But I do not expect anything else from you. So, I will just drop it.

You are looking to make an enemy out of anyone but Saddam.

[billvon 3,013]

>He never complied because he never provided proof.

We required him to stop all his WMD programs and destroy all his WMD's. He did. End of story. I don't expect you to accept that, since it destroys one of the strongest arguments for war, but it is accepted in the reality-based community. (Which, of course, you don't have to be a part of if you don't want to.)

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>He never complied because he never provided proof.

We required him to stop all his WMD programs and destroy all his WMD's. He did. End of story. I don't expect you to accept that, since it destroys one of the strongest arguments for war, but it is accepted in the reality-based community. (Which, of course, you don't have to be a part of if you don't want to.)

Hold on a second here. Didn't you argue that SH thought he had WMDs and his Generals were lying to him? If that is true, then he never fulfilled his obligation to the U.N. I don't ever recall Hussein saying he got rid of them. You can't have it both ways.

[billvon 3,013]

>then he never fulfilled his obligation to the U.N. . . .

The UN required him to disarm. He did. You can spin that however you like. The facts don't change.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>then he never fulfilled his obligation to the U.N. . . .

The UN required him to disarm. He did. You can spin that however you like. The facts don't change.

They also required him to provide proof. If he thought he had them, then he was being deceptive. Pull a toy gun on a cop and claim it's real and it won't matter whether is is a toy or not.

[billvon 3,013]

>They also required him to provide proof.

He did. He provided thousands of pages of proof. We ignored it.

>Pull a toy gun on a cop and claim it's real and it won't matter
>whether is is a toy or not.

Right. But if you say "I don't have a gun!" don't show a gun, and have no proof that you don't have a gun, and the cop shoots you - think he's in the right?

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>They also required him to provide proof.

Quote

He did. He provided thousands of pages of proof. We ignored it.

But according to you, he thought he had them. That makes all the documents bogus. All he had to do was lead inspectors to the disposal sites.

>Pull a toy gun on a cop and claim it's real and it won't matter
>whether is is a toy or not.

Quote

Right. But if you say "I don't have a gun!" don't show a gun, and have no proof that you don't have a gun, and the cop shoots you - think he's in the right?

But again, according to you, he thought the "gun" was real. Perhaps the cops just believed him and acted accordingly.

• Quote

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

He turned over everything he had. We didn't think it was enough. It turned out to BE all he had, because we bombed the shit out of his military facilities where the proof was.

Please remember these distorted assertions next time you claim not to be an apologist for America's enemies.

. . =(_8^(1)

[kallend 2,038]

Quote

Quote

He certainly played games, and he certainly complied in the end. That's a fact. Look it up. (If you'd like to refute me, please post the list of WMD's found when we invaded.)

He never complied because he never provided proof. If you would like to refute me, please show me the list of arms we knew he had (since he used them, he had to have them right?) and what he did with them. He lied till all his materials were lost or destroyed. I don't see how you can claim that he complied when he never willingly allowed anything.

But I do not expect anything else from you. So, I will just drop it.

You are looking to make an enemy out of anyone but Saddam.

The UNSCOM team had not finished their job when we invaded. Blix's final report basically said no WMDs. We scorned Blix. Blix turned out to be right.

Colin Powell's speech to the UN about WMDs turned out to be false, which Powell himself now admits.

The Kay report said no WMDs.
The Duelfer report said no WMDs
The IAEA report said no prohibited nuclear activities
The US Iraq Survey said no WMDs.

Are you Rushmc under an alias? You sure sound like him.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,038]

Quote

>They also required him to provide proof.

He did. He provided thousands of pages of proof. We ignored it.

>Pull a toy gun on a cop and claim it's real and it won't matter
>whether is is a toy or not.

Right. But if you say "I don't have a gun!" don't show a gun, and have no proof that you don't have a gun, and the cop shoots you - think he's in the right?

Apparently yes, in NYC -- case in point: Amadou Diallo. Cops got off.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.