Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Who TF is he? Didn't he and his ilk also say we LOST Iraq?
You got a link? He was the bin Laden CIA director that had several opportunities to kill bin Laden but Clinton wouldn't allow it. He created the secret rendition program that led to Gitmo. He understands that it's our policies that create the terrorism, not simply their hatred of our freedoms.
the rest of the world know how we left those who attacked us get away. Its sad our soldiers continue to die for the mistakes of our so callled leaders.
Yours is the ignorant response.
There is still a battle and a war going on over there. I don't recall ANYONE claiming victory. For years now these people play cat and mouse - hiding in the winter, coming out in the spring.
Now, it appears they are making a grand push, probably flushed with all the new recruits that have fled Iraq.
They will be destroyed. Not tonight, not tomorrow, not next week - but eventually they will cease to exist.
Who said this would be a short, quick war? Certainly not "W". You should have been listening to him - he has said all along this "war" will take a long time.
Why do liberals have to be such hand-wringing whiners when things don't go just perfect? War is a messy business.
However, I cannot understand how anyone would say that it's okay to send more than 4000 American soldiers to their deaths in Iraq based on a lie told by the President of the United States.
There was no lie. The information and intelligence was faulty. The world had the same intelligence and agreed he had WMD. The world. And the UN. To keep calling such circumstances a lie is truly ignorant of the facts at the time.
The senate intelligence and 9/11 report found no manipulation of facts/intelligence by the administration. Everybody had the same info and came to the same conclusions.
What were the inspectors looking for in the runup to invasion?
I don't recall them saying there were not any WMD. I recall them saying they were not being allowed to go into certain facilities, they were being given the run-around. Maybe even Saddam thought he had WMD.
You got a link? He was the bin Laden CIA director that had several opportunities to kill bin Laden but Clinton wouldn't allow it. He created the secret rendition program that led to Gitmo. He understands that it's our policies that create the terrorism, not simply their hatred of our freedoms.
Google it; "people who said we lost Iraq war". That should provide some good fodder.
Do you really believe that our military, once unleashed and at sufficient force, would lose to this band of thugs?
Afghanistan is much more complicated because of the terrain, the tribes and the fact that the taliban use pakistan to hide in.
You and I disagree on the candidates. We disagree on a lot of issues. However, I cannot understand how anyone would say that it's okay to send more than 4000 American soldiers to their deaths in Iraq based on a lie told by the President of the United States. I don't understand how that sort of thing can be supported. And then, these same people turn around and say that those of us opposed to the war in Iraq don't support the troops? It makes no sense.
If you want to know what it means to support our troops,
- don't make their families take up collections for their body armor
- armor their humvees so they don't lose their lives and limbs unnecessarily
- don't send them into someone else's civil war
- don't send them to war unless you would send your own kids
- when they come home, don't you dare warehouse them with cockroaches at Walter Reed
- when their bodies are returned to the country they'll never see again, don't whisk their flag draped coffins away in the middle of the night because it's bad for PR to see their bodies
- don't you ever write letters to their spouses or children with a computer, you write it with your own hand.
But no, the Democrats won't do any of that. They continue to vote for funding Iraq even after Maliki says he wants us to leave. It's time to come home. Support the troops.
There was no lie. The information and intelligence was faulty. The world had the same intelligence and agreed he had WMD. The world. And the UN. To keep calling such circumstances a lie is truly ignorant of the facts at the time.
The senate intelligence and 9/11 report found no manipulation of facts/intelligence by the administration. Everybody had the same info and came to the same conclusions.
What were the inspectors looking for in the runup to invasion?
I don't recall them saying there were not any WMD. I recall them saying they were not being allowed to go into certain facilities, they were being given the run-around. Maybe even Saddam thought he had WMD.
Sorry. You're wrong.
Quote:
“Before taking the country to war, this Administration owed it to the American people to give them a 100 percent accurate picture of the threat we faced. Unfortunately, our Committee has concluded that the Administration made significant claims that were not supported by the intelligence,” Rockefeller said. “In making the case for war, the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed.”
And they continue to lie using ex-mil surrogates on the networks.
Quote:
Five years into the Iraq war, most details of the architecture and execution of the Pentagon’s campaign have never been disclosed. But The Times successfully sued the Defense Department to gain access to 8,000 pages of e-mail messages, transcripts and records describing years of private briefings, trips to Iraq and Guantánamo and an extensive Pentagon talking points operation.
These records reveal a symbiotic relationship where the usual dividing lines between government and journalism have been obliterated.
And yet, we claim they were a threat to us while bombing them throughout Clinton's terms and right into early 2001.
Quote:
Edward Peck, chief of the U.S. mission to Iraq during the Jimmy Carter administration, told CNN it was "ludicrous for the United States to say that Saddam Hussein is provoking us, because we're the guys overflying his country.
"The overflights are not legal, not part of any ceasefire, not part of any United Nations resolution."
So why were we bombing them?
Quote:
Former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter said Hussein posed little immediate threat.
"In terms of large-scale weapons of mass destruction programs, these had been fundamentally destroyed or dismantled by the weapons inspectors as early as 1996, so by 1998 we had under control the situation on the ground," he told CNN.
Why? They were a threat? Only Israel thought that. No one else in the region was complaining. We went to war and killed over 4000 of our own troops for no reason. There was no threat. None.
CNN.com - Iraq air patrols resume after raid - February 18, 2001 (http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/02/18/iraq.airstrike/index.html - broken link)
There is still a battle and a war going on over there. I don't recall ANYONE claiming victory.
If I recall, Bush did declare an end to major combat in Iraq in front of a "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" banner aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln. What I'm trying to understand is what is the definition of victory? Heck, I'm still confused on why we're there. The new reason being provided by Douglas Feith is "anticipatory self-defense.". How can we agree on defining victory if we can't get a straight, consistent answer for why we entered into this war?
Who said this would be a short, quick war? Certainly not "W". You should have been listening to him - he has said all along this "war" will take a long time.
Let's see, Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfield all said it would be a quick and decisive war lasting no more than 6 months. Guarenteed. Mission Accomplished.
Ah, how soon we forget. No-fly zone? Protecting kurds and Shias from Saddams retribution, all from the Gulf War. Remember, they were violating daily the UN resolutions? Firing on our pilots?
Quote:
Edward Peck, chief of the U.S. mission to Iraq during the Jimmy Carter administration, told CNN it was "ludicrous for the United States to say that Saddam Hussein is provoking us, because we're the guys overflying his country.
"The overflights are not legal, not part of any ceasefire, not part of any United Nations resolution."
You're just quoting some liberal hack's opinion, not anything resembling the facts at that time.
Please try and at least find some neutral OPINIONs, unlike Mr. Ritter. Again, what the heck were all those inspectors LOOKING for in the run-up to the invasion?
Last edited by sanrene; 07-13-2008 at 04:59 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
