US Ambassador Claims US Knew of Bad Intel...

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Then, you could argue that Clinton's lies were for the greater good, too.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

People died thinking Saddam had WMDs--our soldiers and Britain's.

He does.

 

Then, you could argue that Clinton's lies were for the greater good, too.

Which is?

[Guest JMA]

He does.

No, we haven't found any yet. So you would be incorrect there. He very well might have them stashed away, but he might not either.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

He does.

No, we haven't found any yet. So you would be incorrect there. He very well might have them stashed away, but he might not either.

Wrong.

 

UN Resolution 1441 was passed, unanimously, with the acknowledgement that Iraq had WMDs. It put the burden of proof on Saddam Hussein to either prove, beyond a shadow of doubt, that he had no WMDs, or to lay out the WMDs that the entire UN agreed he posessed.

 

Hussein did neither.

[Guest Bosstones Fan]

No, we haven't found any yet.

Nah...really?? Wow! I didn't know that.

 

So you would be incorrect there.

You know, I really hope that when we do find the WMD that all of you anti-Bush folks get down on your knees and apologize for doubting him and the war. The countries opposed to the war believed Saddam has weapons, too...they just wanted more time for the inspectors. Why can't you people accept it?

 

And then after you're finished apologizing for that, then apologize for posting stupid, condescending crap like that that wastes both everyone's time and Dames' bandwidth.

 

He very well might have them stashed away, but he might not either.

And the point of this sentence is? To state the obvious? Or do you just like to type all these pretty words?

[Guest JMA]

Did you not read what I wrote? I never said Iraq didn't have WMDs. Not once. Nor did I make any "anti-Bush" remarks. Keep your unprovoked attacks to yourelf.

[Guest JMA]

You can say that Bush lying is wrong, and I'll agree to the point that lying by itself is unethical. However, lying to advance the greater good is not.

I don't think he needed to lie. America would have still supported him. But the whole WMD thing may bite Bush in the ass. In other words, I don't think Bush needed to lie to take out Saddam.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Clinton's "greater good" would be to keep running the nation without any unnecessary family distractions.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

We don't know if President Bush intentially lied about Iraq attempting to get uranium from Niger.

 

You're kidding, right?

 

Someone from his own government was commissioned to investigate, and they proved it wrong. A year prior. I find it hard to believe he didn't know.

...of course you don't believe it.

[Guest DrTom]

Then, you could argue that Clinton's lies were for the greater good, too.

If I were being historically blind and willfully dishonest (shaddap), then I suppose I could.

 

Clinton's "greater good" would be to keep running the nation without any unnecessary family distractions.

Sorry, not buying that one. He had family distractions all the time, from the media's initial attention toward Chelsea to his own infidelities. Besides, I don't really care that he lied to the public about having an affair, or getting a hummer from an intern. The fact remains that Clinton lied under oath, which is an impeachable offense, and Bush did not.

[rising up out of the back seat-nuh]

Why does everyone immediately assume that the war on Iraq was justified with or without the threat of WMDs? i have seen no reports that quality of life has not improved to any large degree in Iraq, and, as yet, no concrete proof has been given that Iraq posed a threat to American security.

How is this war in Iraq justifiable when there are many nations worldwide equally deserving of humanitarian aid?

[Guest Retro Rob]

How is this war in Iraq justifiable when there are many nations worldwide equally deserving of humanitarian aid?

We can't go into every country ruled by an unfair government. Nevertheless, that doesn't mean that helping Iraq was not a good thing. Sure there are other nations out there that could use the same help, but at least now one of these nations is free of the horrible dictatorship that controlled it. In my mind, that alone justifies the war. Whether or not that was our government's reason for going into Iraq is beyond the point because at least some good came out of it.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

If you want to justify it only by humanitarian reasons, there are a lot of countries that have it worse than Iraq had it.

[rising up out of the back seat-nuh]

And from all reports, Iraq hasn't recieved any significant humanitarian aid (at least not to the point where their lives are significantly better). The country is in chaos, with financial problems and widespread looting. It is definately argueable whether this war has, as yet, been beneficial to the average Iraqi, although it is, of course, likely to be beneficial in the long term.

[Guest Powerplay]

And from all reports, Iraq hasn't recieved any significant humanitarian aid (at least not to the point where their lives are significantly better). The country is in chaos, with financial problems and widespread looting. It is definately argueable whether this war has, as yet, been beneficial to the average Iraqi, although it is, of course, likely to be beneficial in the long term.

Of course the standard of life won't be raised immediately. It's just foolish to think "Poof! All better now!". And Humanitarian aid is going over right now (It's been shown many times on the news. Crates of water and food. I'm sure other people have seen this.)

 

As far as I know, the looting is now under control as well. I've heard nothing about anymore looting. Can you confirm this?

[rising up out of the back seat-nuh]

And from all reports, Iraq hasn't recieved any significant humanitarian aid (at least not to the point where their lives are significantly better). The country is in chaos, with financial problems and widespread looting. It is definately argueable whether this war has, as yet, been beneficial to the average Iraqi, although it is, of course, likely to be beneficial in the long term.

Of course the standard of life won't be raised immediately. It's just foolish to think "Poof! All better now!". And Humanitarian aid is going over right now (It's been shown many times on the news. Crates of water and food. I'm sure other people have seen this.)

 

As far as I know, the looting is now under control as well. I've heard nothing about anymore looting. Can you confirm this?

Oh, I know that Iraq isn't going to become a capitalist paradise overnight, but at the moment, months after the occupation of Iraq by Allied forces, the country is still in disarray, and it will take a lot of time to repair the damage caused by the war. It should get better, but it will take a lot of effort, and the cynic in me believes that in the long term, the US will leave Iraq in a similar state as it was under Hussein.

[Guest Powerplay]

And from all reports, Iraq hasn't recieved any significant humanitarian aid (at least not to the point where their lives are significantly better). The country is in chaos, with financial problems and widespread looting. It is definately argueable whether this war has, as yet, been beneficial to the average Iraqi, although it is, of course, likely to be beneficial in the long term.

Of course the standard of life won't be raised immediately. It's just foolish to think "Poof! All better now!". And Humanitarian aid is going over right now (It's been shown many times on the news. Crates of water and food. I'm sure other people have seen this.)

 

As far as I know, the looting is now under control as well. I've heard nothing about anymore looting. Can you confirm this?

Oh, I know that Iraq isn't going to become a capitalist paradise overnight, but at the moment, months after the occupation of Iraq by Allied forces, the country is still in disarray, and it will take a lot of time to repair the damage caused by the war. It should get better, but it will take a lot of effort, and the cynic in me believes that in the long term, the US will leave Iraq in a similar state as it was under Hussein.

... That's REALLY cynical then. I mean, to put Iraq in the state of poverty it was in would almost take purposeful harm by the U.S. Government. We are pretty damn close to the bottom, man, and I don't really think there is any other direction but up.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

The looting has turned into people sabatoging the infrastructure.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

And from all reports, Iraq hasn't recieved any significant humanitarian aid (at least not to the point where their lives are significantly better). The country is in chaos, with financial problems and widespread looting. It is definately argueable whether this war has, as yet, been beneficial to the average Iraqi, although it is, of course, likely to be beneficial in the long term.

Of course the standard of life won't be raised immediately. It's just foolish to think "Poof! All better now!". And Humanitarian aid is going over right now (It's been shown many times on the news. Crates of water and food. I'm sure other people have seen this.)

 

As far as I know, the looting is now under control as well. I've heard nothing about anymore looting. Can you confirm this?

Oh, I know that Iraq isn't going to become a capitalist paradise overnight, but at the moment, months after the occupation of Iraq by Allied forces, the country is still in disarray, and it will take a lot of time to repair the damage caused by the war. It should get better, but it will take a lot of effort, and the cynic in me believes that in the long term, the US will leave Iraq in a similar state as it was under Hussein.

... That's REALLY cynical then. I mean, to put Iraq in the state of poverty it was in would almost take purposeful harm by the U.S. Government. We are pretty damn close to the bottom, man, and I don't really think there is any other direction but up.

If they use the Argentinian model (which, they leave me nothing to suspect otherwise), you'd be very surprised.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

We don't know if President Bush intentially lied about Iraq attempting to get uranium from Niger.

 

You're kidding, right?

 

Someone from his own government was commissioned to investigate, and they proved it wrong. A year prior. I find it hard to believe he didn't know.

...of course you don't believe it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3056626.stm