Rumsfeld admits no Saddam/Bin Laden link

[Guest whitemilesdavis]

And, just as with everybody else who bitches, nobody is holding a gun to your head forcing you to stay --- nor are they begging you to stay.

 

So because I question your "debating tactics" I should leave? Um, OK

 

They have their reasoning straight. They gave NUMEROUS reasons to remove Saddam. You should try to pay attention.

 

The reasons now, however, are different than the ones going in. Doesn't that bother you at all?

[Guest MikeSC]

No they don't actually.

 

Ties to Al Qaeda - No

Correct, actually.

WMDs - No

Apparently not. Hard to call that a lie or even mistruth.

Threat to America - No

Umm, yeah, hold on to that. I'm sure Putin lied to us about their plans.

Trying to buy uranium from Africa - No

Except the Senate Select Intel Committee said it actually IS true and the only really baffling part of the case is why Wilson's testimony differed so much from his written report.

He was an evil dictator - Yes

 

1/5 is not too good.

Except only one is false --- and that can hardly be blamed on Bush.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

And, just as with everybody else who bitches, nobody is holding a gun to your head forcing you to stay --- nor are they begging you to stay.

 

So because I question your "debating tactics" I should leave? Um, OK

 

They have their reasoning straight. They gave NUMEROUS reasons to remove Saddam. You should try to pay attention.

 

The reasons now, however, are different than the ones going in. Doesn't that bother you at all?

Nope, if you wish to continue bitching, then leave.

 

And, no, their reasons have not changed. They gave NUMEROUS reasons. Just because people focused on one does not mean they gave no others.

-=Mike

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

At least not good enough to send a 1000 plus americans to their deaths.

[Guest MikeSC]

At least not good enough to send a 1000 plus americans to their deaths.

1000+ over two years.

 

Or in historical terms, one of the lowest casualty rates in recorded history.

 

But, the left lost their heart when they sold their soul to the anti-war groups in the 60's.

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

And, no, their reasons have not changed. They gave NUMEROUS reasons. Just because people focused on one does not mean they gave no others.

-=Mike

Only problem is that you know as well as I know, as well as everyone on this board knows damn well the ONLY REASON given by the Bush administration that stuck, with the american people was the year long propoghanda of blurring Iraq & 9/11 & al Qaeda, trying to convince people that Iraq played some huge role in masterminding, funding, and helping commit the WTC attacks, which was an outright fucking lie, yet at the same time a perfect oppurtunity to manipulate the nation at a time of vunerability.

[Guest INXS]

and 16,000+ Iraqi civilians.

[Guest MikeSC]

 

And, no, their reasons have not changed. They gave NUMEROUS reasons. Just because people focused on one does not mean they gave no others.

      -=Mike

Only problem is that you know as well as I know, as well as everyone on this board knows damn well the ONLY REASON given by the Bush administration that stuck, with the american people was the year long propoghanda of blurring Iraq & 9/11 & al Qaeda, trying to convince people that Iraq played some huge role in masterminding, funding, and helping commit the WTC attacks, which was an outright fucking lie, yet at the same time a perfect oppurtunity to manipulate the nation at a time of vunerability.

Al Qaeda and Iraq had ties that went back years.

 

Did they cause 9/11? Apparently not.

 

Bush never ONCE claimed they did.

 

Nor did he once claim they were an imminent threat (mentioning that when they became an imminent threat, it'd be a little too late to do anything.

 

Bush said ANYBODY who sponsors terrorism --- which Iraq did do --- is an enemy and will be dealt with.

 

This is a war on ALL terrorism.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

and 16,000+ Iraqi civilians.

Yeah, do you really want us to go into how bad your numbers are?

-=Mike

[Guest whitemilesdavis]

Nope, if you wish to continue bitching, then leave.

 

What are you even talking about? All I've done is disagreed with your ideas. If you can't handle it, feel free to leave.

 

If disagreeing with you = Bitching, then I'm sorry, I have been bitching.

 

And, no, their reasons have not changed. They gave NUMEROUS reasons. Just because people focused on one does not mean they gave no others.

 

Mike, they admit that they got faulty intelligence. Now they're saying "Well, the world's still a better place without Saddam." Which I don't argue with. But, I do feel lied to from the beginning about the motives of war.

[Guest INXS]

and 16,000+ Iraqi civilians.

Yeah, do you really want us to go into how bad your numbers are?

-=Mike

Who is this "us" you speak of? You can go into my numbers if you wish Mike. 16,000 +, there it is buddy.

 

And NO, there were NO ties between Saddam's Iraq and Al Qaeda. None whatsoever. You, just like the vast majority of the American public, were lead up the garden path.

[Guest MikeSC]

Nope, if you wish to continue bitching, then leave.

 

What are you even talking about? All I've done is disagreed with your ideas. If you can't handle it, feel free to leave.

 

If disagreeing with you = Bitching, then I'm sorry, I have been bitching.

 

And, no, their reasons have not changed. They gave NUMEROUS reasons. Just because people focused on one does not mean they gave no others.

 

Mike, they admit that they got faulty intelligence. Now they're saying "Well, the world's still a better place without Saddam." Which I don't argue with. But, I do feel lied to from the beginning about the motives of war.

The faulty intel was, apparently, about WMD.

 

And the other reasons STILL stand.

 

Saddam WAS actively and desperately trying to secure yellowcake in Africa.

 

If our "allies" had their way, sanctions and inspections would have stopped LONG ago in Iraq, so they are exceptionally suspect to begin with.

 

Saddam DID have ties to Al Qaeda and DID have terrorist training camps in Iraq.

 

Saddam DID thumb his nose at UN resolutions --- easily Bush's weakest point as the UN lost its relevancy long before this.

 

Saddam WAS a humanitarian disaster.

-=Mike

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

At least not good enough to send a 1000 plus americans to their deaths.

1000+ over two years.

 

Or in historical terms, one of the lowest casualty rates in recorded history.

 

But, the left lost their heart when they sold their soul to the anti-war groups in the 60's.

-=Mike

Over two years? Hey, maybe Bush could use that kind of reasoning in ads telling us why we should elect him president again. It'd be a surefire vote getter! In other words... still not good enough.

 

 

Better yet, tell it to the soldiers parents. How about their kids? Or their friends?

 

 

Sold out? Pfft. It takes a big heart to admit when you are wrong. Politics, in contrast, dictates that things always keep and consistant image that things are good and always have been. I wonder which path the president will choose? Who is selling out again?

[Guest MikeSC]

and 16,000+ Iraqi civilians.

Yeah, do you really want us to go into how bad your numbers are?

-=Mike

Who is this "us" you speak of? You can go into my numbers if you wish Mike. 16,000 +, there it is buddy.

 

Would you wipe it off after pulling it out of your ass, please?

And NO, there were NO ties between Saddam's Iraq and Al Qaeda. None whatsoever. You, just like the vast majority of the American public, were lead up the garden path.

And that, flat out, is wrong.

 

Explain why Zarqawi went to IRAQ right before the Iraq War, considering how much Saddam and AQ "hated" one another.

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

Bush never ONCE claimed they did.

 

Nor did he once claim they were an imminent threat (mentioning that when they became an imminent threat, it'd be a little too late to do anything.

Come on, don't be obvlivious to what happened.At the start of the war, over 70% of americans believed Iraq was behind 9/11. I guess they came to that false conclusion through long, hard research. It was a very sneaky, manipulative tactic that worked, and when it finally started unraveling, there was a lot of, "yeah but......"'s coming from the administration.

[Guest MikeSC]

Over two years? Hey, maybe Bush could use that kind of reasoning in ads telling us why we should elect him president again. It'd be a surefire vote getter! In other words... still not good enough.

Reality is SO much harsher than "they died for a mistake", right?

Better yet, tell it to the soldiers parents. How about their kids? Or their friends?

At the risk of being mean --- THEY VOLUNTEERED FOR THIS. They KNEW this was a possibility when they VOLUNTEERED.

 

They were not drafted. They were not forced. They CHOSE to do it. Like it or not, none of your whining and crying can change that one little KEY FACT IN ALL OF THIS.

Sold out? Pfft. It takes a big heart to admit when you are wrong. Politics, in contrast, dictates that things always keep and consistant image that things are good and always have been. I wonder which path the president will choose? Who is selling out again?

Sorry, I want a President who actually worries about what America needs.

 

That's just me, though.

-=Mike

[Guest INXS]

Uh..Al Qaeda are in Iraq now because it is the perfect place for them to attack American targets. There's little, if no border control. The country is highly unstable and many citizens are fighting against the occupation -something that Al Qaeda are capitalizing on.

[Guest MikeSC]

 

Bush never ONCE claimed they did.

 

Nor did he once claim they were an imminent threat (mentioning that when they became an imminent threat, it'd be a little too late to do anything.

Come on, don't be obvlivious to what happened.At the start of the war, over 70% of americans believed Iraq was behind 9/11. I guess they came to that false conclusion through long, hard research. It was a very sneaky, manipulative tactic that worked, and when it finally started unraveling, there was a lot of, "yeah but......"'s coming from the administration.

Can you point to one time where Bush said Iraq was behind it?

 

Just one.

 

Go ahead.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

Uh..Al Qaeda are in Iraq now because it is the perfect place for them to attack American targets. There's little, if no border control. The country is highly unstable and many citizens are fighting against the occupation -something that Al Qaeda are capitalizing on.

AQ was in Iraq long before this. And them going there now is GOOD. Makes it easier to kill more monkeys.

 

And, no, "many citizens" are not in the insurrection. Hate to kill your hopes.

-=Mike

[Guest GreatOne]

Come on, don't be obvlivious to what happened.At the start of the war, over 70% of americans believed Iraq was behind 9/11

 

And tell me where Bush and co said anything about going to war becuase Saddam Hussein was in cahoots with AQ on 911.

 

And NO, there were NO ties between Saddam's Iraq and Al Qaeda. None whatsoever. You, just like the vast majority of the American public, were lead up the garden path.

 

I guess the 911 Commission falls under 'being led to the garden path' too.

 

Oh and Miles, thanks for the name drop.

[NoCalMike 0]

 

Bush never ONCE claimed they did.

 

Nor did he once claim they were an imminent threat (mentioning that when they became an imminent threat, it'd be a little too late to do anything.

Come on, don't be obvlivious to what happened.At the start of the war, over 70% of americans believed Iraq was behind 9/11. I guess they came to that false conclusion through long, hard research. It was a very sneaky, manipulative tactic that worked, and when it finally started unraveling, there was a lot of, "yeah but......"'s coming from the administration.

Can you point to one time where Bush said Iraq was behind it?

 

Just one.

 

Go ahead.

-=Mike

Hello, I NEVER SAID BUSH SAID THAT. I said he manipulated the situation. He would start to throw in Iraq and Saddam in the same sentences as Al Qaeda, BLURRING THE LINES, over the course of a year. So either the majority of americans are too stupid to tell 2 groups of brown people apart, or there was heavy manipulation going on. I'd like to hope it was the latter.

[Guest MikeSC]

 

Bush never ONCE claimed they did.

 

Nor did he once claim they were an imminent threat (mentioning that when they became an imminent threat, it'd be a little too late to do anything.

Come on, don't be obvlivious to what happened.At the start of the war, over 70% of americans believed Iraq was behind 9/11. I guess they came to that false conclusion through long, hard research. It was a very sneaky, manipulative tactic that worked, and when it finally started unraveling, there was a lot of, "yeah but......"'s coming from the administration.

Can you point to one time where Bush said Iraq was behind it?

 

Just one.

 

Go ahead.

-=Mike

Hello, I NEVER SAID BUSH SAID THAT. I said he manipulated the situation. He would start to throw in Iraq and Saddam in the same sentences as Al Qaeda, BLURRING THE LINES, over the course of a year. So either the majority of americans are too stupid to tell 2 groups of brown people apart, or there was heavy manipulation going on. I'd like to hope it was the latter.

So, because he mentioned two problems, it means he's manipulating things? Wow.

 

I guess Bush's rhetoric can be too clever for some

-=Mike

[Guest GreatOne]

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

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

Over two years? Hey, maybe Bush could use that kind of reasoning in ads telling us why we should elect him president again. It'd be a surefire vote getter! In other words... still not good enough.

Reality is SO much harsher than "they died for a mistake", right?

Better yet, tell it to the soldiers parents. How about their kids? Or their friends?

At the risk of being mean --- THEY VOLUNTEERED FOR THIS. They KNEW this was a possibility when they VOLUNTEERED.

 

They were not drafted. They were not forced. They CHOSE to do it. Like it or not, none of your whining and crying can change that one little KEY FACT IN ALL OF THIS.

Sold out? Pfft. It takes a big heart to admit when you are wrong. Politics, in contrast, dictates that things always keep and consistant image that things are good and always have been. I wonder which path the president will choose? Who is selling out again?

Sorry, I want a President who actually worries about what America needs.

 

That's just me, though.

-=Mike

When they VOLUNTEER each and every person take it on.... oh whats it called? FAITH? That they won't be sent to die for false reasons be them manifest or manufactured. It is what I continue to expect regardless of the party affiliation of those holding office. The soldiers are Americans too, and they have needs as well, like not being put in danger due to false information. Will the president ignore the needs of those americans? Or are they to be treated like a voiceless minority? If they protest, as I have heard there are plenty who are voicing their dissatisfaction, are they monkeys too cuz you'll think it supports terror?

 

If by whining and crying you mean protest and volunteer work? Then in fact it may just change things for the better. Maybe just not to your liking.

[NoCalMike 0]

 

Bush never ONCE claimed they did.

 

Nor did he once claim they were an imminent threat (mentioning that when they became an imminent threat, it'd be a little too late to do anything.

Come on, don't be obvlivious to what happened.At the start of the war, over 70% of americans believed Iraq was behind 9/11. I guess they came to that false conclusion through long, hard research. It was a very sneaky, manipulative tactic that worked, and when it finally started unraveling, there was a lot of, "yeah but......"'s coming from the administration.

Can you point to one time where Bush said Iraq was behind it?

 

Just one.

 

Go ahead.

-=Mike

Hello, I NEVER SAID BUSH SAID THAT. I said he manipulated the situation. He would start to throw in Iraq and Saddam in the same sentences as Al Qaeda, BLURRING THE LINES, over the course of a year. So either the majority of americans are too stupid to tell 2 groups of brown people apart, or there was heavy manipulation going on. I'd like to hope it was the latter.

So, because he mentioned two problems, it means he's manipulating things? Wow.

 

I guess Bush's rhetoric can be too clever for some

-=Mike

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"

[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.

[NoCalMike 0]

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......

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

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......

Oooh this should be... "good".

 

The floor is yours greatone.

[Guest MikeSC]

When they VOLUNTEER each and every person take it on.... oh whats it called? FAITH? That they won't be sent to die for false reasons be them manifest or manufactured. It is what I continue to expect regardless of the party affiliation of those holding office. The soldiers are Americans too, and they have needs as well, like not being put in danger due to false information. Will the president ignore the needs of those americans? Or are they to be treated like a voiceless minority? If they protest, as I have heard there are plenty who are voicing their dissatisfaction, are they monkeys too cuz you'll think it supports terror?

Too bad Bush is still OVERWHELMINGLY supported by the military. They KNOW what they're signing up for. The people bitching aren't the soldiers, by and large.

If by whining and crying you mean protest and volunteer work? Then in fact it may just change things for the better. Maybe just not to your liking.

I volunteer to work at an animal shelter. If I get dog shit on my shoes, I don't bitch and moan about it --- because it comes with the territory. I EXPECT it and simply wash it off.

 

The soldiers KNOW that their death is a real possibility --- albeit a miniscule one (you do realize that less than 1% of soldiers are dying, right?). THEY, by and large, don't bemoan their fate. They, by and large, support the mission.

 

Much as people like you would wish for them to do otherwise.

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.

A country where our OFFICIAL POLICY WAS REGIME CHANGE was actually very much worthy of discussion.

 

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

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"

Bush, mistakenly, assumed the Dems would still support a policy they supported in the 1990's.

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

Too bad Bush is still OVERWHELMINGLY supported by the military. They KNOW what they're signing up for. The people bitching aren't the soldiers, by and large.

 

 

The soldiers KNOW that their death is a real possibility --- albeit a miniscule one (you do realize that less than 1% of soldiers are dying, right?). THEY, by and large, don't bemoan their fate. They, by and large, support the mission.

 

except for the 1/3rd that didn't bother to show up when called back up.