Rumsfeld admits no Saddam/Bin Laden link

[NoCalMike 0]

Using your logic, he tried to link Al Qaeda with N. Korea, since he mentioned THEM as a problem as well.

Oh please, lets not even act as if Bush is even partially interested in dealing with N. Korea.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

I mistakingly thought the REPUBLICANS would support a policy they supported in the 1990s.

 

 

 

 

"The question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth?... And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.... All of a sudden you've got a battle you're fighting in a major built-up city, a lot of civilians are around, significant limitations on our ability to use our most effective technologies and techniques.... Once we had rounded him up and gotten rid of his government, then the question is what do you put in its place? You know, you then have accepted the responsibility for governing Iraq.... Now what kind of government are you going to establish? Is it going to be a Kurdish government, or a Shi'ia government, or a Sunni government, or maybe a government based on the old Baathist Party, or some mixture thereof? You will have, I think by that time, lost the support of the Arab coalition that was so crucial to our operations over there."

 

-Dick Cheney, speaking about the Gulf War in 1992

[NoCalMike 0]

I mistakingly thought the REPUBLICANS would support a policy they supported in the 1990s.

 

 

 

 

"The question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth?... And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.... All of a sudden you've got a battle you're fighting in a major built-up city, a lot of civilians are around, significant limitations on our ability to use our most effective technologies and techniques.... Once we had rounded him up and gotten rid of his government, then the question is what do you put in its place? You know, you then have accepted the responsibility for governing Iraq.... Now what kind of government are you going to establish? Is it going to be a Kurdish government, or a Shi'ia government, or a Sunni government, or maybe a government based on the old Baathist Party, or some mixture thereof? You will have, I think by that time, lost the support of the Arab coalition that was so crucial to our operations over there."

 

-Dick Cheney, speaking about the Gulf War in 1992

Not to mention the Bush41 quote, echoing those same sentiments.

[Guest GreatOne]

That sounds like spin hot off the Hannity Press.  I have clearly pointed out the manipulation tactics only for you to come back with, "oh he was just explaining two different problems" Problem is, there was no reason to even be mentioning Iraq at all whatsoever, period. If so, then Bush and co. should have been long at work on selling us on them before 9/11 even happened, but I suppose you are going to reply to this with something as cliche as, "9/11 changed everything"

Do you KNOW what American policy was on Iraq even before Bush came in?

 

Christ this 'Decry Bush and those who support him' witchhunt is getting to PTC vs. Vince McMahon levels. Get your facts straight.

enlighten me......

American policy towards Iran/Iraq in Clinton's second term

 

U.S. policy towards Iraq

 

Note the second one is right around inauguration time in '01, so we're supposed to believe Bush just made this all up in a span of two months (between election and inauguration)?

 

And you might also note that Clinton used not taking Hussein out as a crutch to level Bush Sr. in the '92 debates, yet it's the opposite right now for some reason, which is interesting of itself.

 

Oh and I didn't post (again) the plea for military action in Iraq, which was signed by none other than John Kerry, from August '99. I spared you that.

[Guest GreatOne]

Using your logic, he tried to link Al Qaeda with N. Korea, since he mentioned THEM as a problem as well.

Oh please, lets not even act as if Bush is even partially interested in dealing with N. Korea.

The only way he's not interested in N Korea is not being in favor of those bilateral talks Kerry's so in favor of.

 

It's funny how you knock Bush for the war, yet when he's taking action in a non-militaristic fashion, he somehow 'isn't interested'..................

[NoCalMike 0]

Using your logic, he tried to link Al Qaeda with N. Korea, since he mentioned THEM as a problem as well.

Oh please, lets not even act as if Bush is even partially interested in dealing with N. Korea.

The only way he's not interested in N Korea is not being in favor of those bilateral talks Kerry's so in favor of.

 

It's funny how you knock Bush for the war, yet when he's taking action in a non-militaristic fashion, he somehow 'isn't interested'..................

Well when Bush says he is concerned about WMDs, and then invades Iraq, yet wants to TALK to the country that is actively testing them in the ocean, it kind of sends (a bush favorite) a mixed message.

[Guest GreatOne]

Using your logic, he tried to link Al Qaeda with N. Korea, since he mentioned THEM as a problem as well.

Oh please, lets not even act as if Bush is even partially interested in dealing with N. Korea.

The only way he's not interested in N Korea is not being in favor of those bilateral talks Kerry's so in favor of.

 

It's funny how you knock Bush for the war, yet when he's taking action in a non-militaristic fashion, he somehow 'isn't interested'..................

Well when Bush says he is concerned about WMDs, and then invades Iraq, yet wants to TALK to the country that is actively testing them in the ocean, it kind of sends (a bush favorite) a mixed message.

And using smart strategy is somehow bad?

 

Believe me, if he went gung-ho after Kim Jong Il and we had an even worse situation than Iraq, you wouldn't be bitching any less.

[Justice 0]

and 16,000+ Iraqi civilians.

You know that something like 30,000 Iraqi Civilians died in the First Gulf War, right? Or are you just an idiot?

 

NoCal: Not a threat? Wait, what does John Kerry have to say about this...

 

Saddam was a threat. That's not the issue here...

[Justice 0]

I mistakingly thought the REPUBLICANS would support a policy they supported in the 1990s.

 

 

 

 

"The question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth?... And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.... All of a sudden you've got a battle you're fighting in a major built-up city, a lot of civilians are around, significant limitations on our ability to use our most effective technologies and techniques.... Once we had rounded him up and gotten rid of his government, then the question is what do you put in its place? You know, you then have accepted the responsibility for governing Iraq.... Now what kind of government are you going to establish? Is it going to be a Kurdish government, or a Shi'ia government, or a Sunni government, or maybe a government based on the old Baathist Party, or some mixture thereof? You will have, I think by that time, lost the support of the Arab coalition that was so crucial to our operations over there."

 

-Dick Cheney, speaking about the Gulf War in 1992

Jeez, perhaps we should also adopt the Clinton Terrorist policy.

 

Oh wait, we saw how that worked out.

 

Seriously, your own candidate says Saddam was a threat. Please, if he was a threat, explain to me why we should have left him alone? And, oddly enough, I doubt that Cheney and Bush I thought that Saddam would still be in power 10 years later.

[NoCalMike 0]

and 16,000+ Iraqi civilians.

You know that something like 30,000 Iraqi Civilians died in the First Gulf War, right? Or are you just an idiot?

 

NoCal: Not a threat? Wait, what does John Kerry have to say about this...

 

Saddam was a threat. That's not the issue here...

well in case you haven't been paying attention to the dozen or so, "who are you voting for" threads, I am not voting for Kerry.

[Guest GreatOne]

You wouldn't know after reading the majority of your posts....................

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

I mistakingly thought the REPUBLICANS would support a policy they supported in the 1990s.

 

 

 

 

"The question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth?... And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.... All of a sudden you've got a battle you're fighting in a major built-up city, a lot of civilians are around, significant limitations on our ability to use our most effective technologies and techniques.... Once we had rounded him up and gotten rid of his government, then the question is what do you put in its place? You know, you then have accepted the responsibility for governing Iraq.... Now what kind of government are you going to establish? Is it going to be a Kurdish government, or a Shi'ia government, or a Sunni government, or maybe a government based on the old Baathist Party, or some mixture thereof? You will have, I think by that time, lost the support of the Arab coalition that was so crucial to our operations over there."

 

-Dick Cheney, speaking about the Gulf War in 1992

Jeez, perhaps we should also adopt the Clinton Terrorist policy.

 

Oh wait, we saw how that worked out.

 

Seriously, your own candidate says Saddam was a threat. Please, if he was a threat, explain to me why we should have left him alone? And, oddly enough, I doubt that Cheney and Bush I thought that Saddam would still be in power 10 years later.

I am not voting for him either. "MY" candidate. Pfft.

[NoCalMike 0]

You wouldn't know after reading the majority of your posts....................

Yes, because if you aren't voting for Bush, you MUST BE a Kerry supporter. Oh I also happened to think Kerry performed better in his debate, so I guess I am voting for Kerry. I have stated it several times already, please let this be the last.

[Guest GreatOne]

You wouldn't know after reading the majority of your posts....................

Yes, because if you aren't voting for Bush, you MUST BE a Kerry supporter. Oh I also happened to think Kerry performed better in his debate, so I guess I am voting for Kerry. I have stated it several times already, please let this be the last.

And where exactly do you think Kerry's getting his most support, from actual KERRY SUPPORTERS? Hell most would vote for Nader or Badnarik but 'don't think their vote would do any good' or 'it doesn't get Bush out of office'.

 

Which is really stupid if you think about it because A)if enough people voted for indy candidate A not only might he get more than 10% of the vote but might seriously threaten and B)you're just setting yourself up to do this all over again in four years anyway when Kerry isn't 'The People's Choice' like all his 'supporters' think he is. But that is what it is nonetheless.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

You wouldn't know after reading the majority of your posts....................

Yes, because if you aren't voting for Bush, you MUST BE a Kerry supporter. Oh I also happened to think Kerry performed better in his debate, so I guess I am voting for Kerry. I have stated it several times already, please let this be the last.

And where exactly do you think Kerry's getting his most support, from actual KERRY SUPPORTERS? Hell most would vote for Nader or Badnarik but 'don't think their vote would do any good' or 'it doesn't get Bush out of office'.

 

Which is really stupid if you think about it because A)if enough people voted for indy candidate A not only might he get more than 10% of the vote but might seriously threaten and B)you're just setting yourself up to do this all over again in four years anyway when Kerry isn't 'The People's Choice' like all his 'supporters' think he is. But that is what it is nonetheless.

Naw, its got nothing to do with my thinking that he isn't the right guy for the job. I haven't even given ANY thought to any of this. Quit talking like you know me.

[Guest GreatOne]

Actually I wasn't aware that last post had anything to do with you

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

Actually I wasn't aware that last post had anything to do with you

Yeah, but you still get to be wrong.

[Guest GreatOne]

Oh, TAG

 

Guess it's on now..................

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

Yeah, *I* guess it is.

[Guest SteveyP93]

I am not voting for Kerry.

 

Then you may as well vote for Bush, or not vote at all.

 

There's only two men who are going to win this thing...don't waste your vote.

 

Actually make a difference this time around. Vote for Nader in 2008.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

You wouldn't know after reading the majority of your posts....................

Yes, because if you aren't voting for Bush, you MUST BE a Kerry supporter. Oh I also happened to think Kerry performed better in his debate, so I guess I am voting for Kerry. I have stated it several times already, please let this be the last.

And where exactly do you think Kerry's getting his most support, from actual KERRY SUPPORTERS? Hell most would vote for Nader or Badnarik but 'don't think their vote would do any good' or 'it doesn't get Bush out of office'.

If you think that many people actually know and consider third-party candidates, you are mistaken. 50 million people are going to vote for Kerry and the notion that "most" of them would rather support Nader or Badnarik (especially considering how much of a loon Nader is and the fact that the general public hasn't even heard of Badnarik) is pretty delusional.

[NoCalMike 0]

You wouldn't know after reading the majority of your posts....................

Yes, because if you aren't voting for Bush, you MUST BE a Kerry supporter. Oh I also happened to think Kerry performed better in his debate, so I guess I am voting for Kerry. I have stated it several times already, please let this be the last.

And where exactly do you think Kerry's getting his most support, from actual KERRY SUPPORTERS? Hell most would vote for Nader or Badnarik but 'don't think their vote would do any good' or 'it doesn't get Bush out of office'.

If you think that many people actually know and consider third-party candidates, you are mistaken. 50 million people are going to vote for Kerry and the notion that "most" of them would rather support Nader or Badnarik (especially considering how much of a loon Nader is and the fact that the general public hasn't even heard of Badnarik) is pretty delusional.

who cares really? I don't vote based on what someone else thinks. California is wrapped up anyway. There is NO THREAT of Bush winning CA, none at all. My vote is 100% safe.

 

 

[Guest GreatOne]

I am not voting for Kerry.

 

Then you may as well vote for Bush, or not vote at all.

 

There's only two men who are going to win this thing...don't waste your vote.

 

Yeah, you're right, don't actually vote FOR anyone. 'My candidate's not gonna win, so I'm not gonna vote for him, WAAAAAAAAAAAAAA' WTF kind of logic is that?

 

50 million people are going to vote for Kerry

 

Good for them! Want me to give you a medal to pass to them? Again how many that are voting for Kerry, are actually voting for Kerry and not just 'to get that evil Bush out of office'?

[Guest INXS]

The Iraqi insurgency and Al Zarqawi are totally independent of Al Qaeda, gotcha..............

The Iraqi "insurgency" is made up of the Iraqi people. Granted, not ALL Iraq's are opposed to the occupation but a significant number are - hence Fullujah, Nabulus etc.

 

Al Qaeda and other related terrorist groups are nothing to do with the insurgency; one wants the Americans out of Iraq (insurgents!), the other just wants to kill as many Americans as possible (those guys lead by whatshisname, Bin Laden!).

[Guest GreatOne]

The Iraqi insurgency and Al Zarqawi are totally independent of Al Qaeda, gotcha..............

The Iraqi "insurgency" is made up of the Iraqi people.

GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE! Iraqis are actually behind Iraqi insurgence. WOW!

 

Granted, not ALL Iraq's are opposed to the occupation but a significant number are - hence Fullujah, Nabulus etc.

 

I suppose Al Zarqawi has nothing to do with that right? Wait, Al Zarqawi linked to Al Qaeda? Oh we can't have that....................

 

 

Al Qaeda and other related terrorist groups are nothing to do with the insurgency

 

Oh sure, no sir........................

 

one wants the Americans out of Iraq (insurgents!), the other just wants to kill as many Americans as possible (those guys lead by whatshisname, Bin Laden

 

You're right, the guy only pops up occasionally DIRECTING them to kill Americans (and themselves in the process) yet has nothing to do with them. NO SIR!!!!!!!!!!! Why I'll bet the beheaders have absolutely nothing to do with him or have AQ links. OH NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

50 million people are going to vote for Kerry

 

Good for them! Want me to give you a medal to pass to them? Again how many that are voting for Kerry, are actually voting for Kerry and not just 'to get that evil Bush out of office'?

After the debate, when he finally had some sort of presence, a lot more. Also, you may be shocked to realize this, but very often people just vote on party lines and the platform with which they agree. Why should it matter if you strictly support Kerry? If you support abortion rights, affirmative action, and any other recognized position of the Democratic party, then you're going to vote Democrat unless you are really fond of the opposing candidates. No one should be talked down to for voting with the party they prefer, regardless of the individual candidates.

[Guest GreatOne]

Sorry, but I'm actually for people choosing who they want as a candidate--even if it's just out of a given bunch of candidates. I didn't know the election was about 'Vote for who you think will win' not 'who do you want'--there is that write-in part of the ballot, you know...............

 

The other side of that is when he doesn't work out to your liking I don't wanna hear it if you voted for him. Fair enough?

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

What are you talking about? I didn't say a thing about "vote who you think will win." Vote for the platform and policies you believe in. Where's the controversy in that?

[Guest GreatOne]

And everybody voting for Kerry cause they belive in his platform and policies?

 

Hell HE doesn't even know what they are fully yet...............

[Guest SP-1]

Using your logic, he tried to link Al Qaeda with N. Korea, since he mentioned THEM as a problem as well.

Oh please, lets not even act as if Bush is even partially interested in dealing with N. Korea.

The only way he's not interested in N Korea is not being in favor of those bilateral talks Kerry's so in favor of.

 

It's funny how you knock Bush for the war, yet when he's taking action in a non-militaristic fashion, he somehow 'isn't interested'..................

Well when Bush says he is concerned about WMDs, and then invades Iraq, yet wants to TALK to the country that is actively testing them in the ocean, it kind of sends (a bush favorite) a mixed message.

Saddam was a bio-weapon threat. That's slightly different than trying to invade a country that's testing nukes, with a possibly insane man commanding the big red button. NK is a much more delicate situation.