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.
Do you really believe whatever the threat of Iraq's alleged WMDs, especially to the US, shouldn't have had a radical shift in our list of priorities in the aftermath of 9/11? After all, Dick Cheney rarely if ever missed a chance to tell us Iraq had NOTHING to do with the 9/11 attacks, eh?
The New York Times was very careful to insert the sentence about WMD in Iraq -- they are consistent on Bush and the Iraq War ..... ignoring once again that Congress voted for this War, based on the same intel that Bush had.
That's not what this article is really about .... and it's certainly worth a careful read. This article is all about Government LIES. They LIED about finding the Chemical Weapons. They didn't warn the soldiers about what they were doing. They didn't warn the Medical people about what the soldiers were finding. They kept it all Secret.
Over 5,000 Chemical bombs were found, many soldiers were seriously injured and they never received good medical care. They still aren't receiving good Medical care through our corrupted VA System .... that they are also LIEING about. All of this happened during the Bush years and has continued during the Obama years.
They LIE - They COVER-UP, and people suffer.
In the last paragraph of this article, we find out that the Islamic State now controls some of those known Chemical Weapons Dumps. Obama made Maliki promise to destroy them ..... Oh well - poop happens.
WMD is a problematic term. You can buy a brick of 5000 rounds of .22 lr for less than a thousand dollars, which would seem to qualify as WMD, but can you shoot 5000 souls with it? No, you will probably be shot yourself after the first.
But we are stuck with this terminology from our friends at the NYT, Washington Post, ABC, NBC, etc. They are so much more sophisticated than us, and they write the rules.
Indeed, and they and their editorial boards are no doubt still trying to justify their own inability to see through the hyperbole from the last administration.
Do you really believe whatever the threat of Iraq's alleged WMDs, especially to the US, shouldn't have had a radical shift in our list of priorities in the aftermath of 9/11? After all, Dick Cheney rarely if ever missed a chance to tell us Iraq had NOTHING to do with the 9/11 attacks, eh?
How does that make Iraq's WMDs any less of a threat to the U.S. or anyone else? If regime change in Iraq wasn't the goal, Clinton should have vetoed the Iraq Liberation Act.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,298 posts, read 54,193,573 times
Reputation: 40623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kibby
The New York Times was very careful to insert the sentence about WMD in Iraq -- they are consistent on Bush and the Iraq War ..... ignoring once again that Congress voted for this War, based on the same intel that Bush had.
Congress voted to fund the war and never mandated we go to war. Bush himself is on record as stating HE made the GO decision, he owns it.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,298 posts, read 54,193,573 times
Reputation: 40623
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
How does that make Iraq's WMDs any less of a threat to the U.S. or anyone else? If regime change in Iraq wasn't the goal, Clinton should have vetoed the Iraq Liberation Act.
The point is Saddam represented no imminent threat to the US on September 12, 2001 and making his ouster a priority was a waste of assets that would have been better used seeking/eliminating our attackers. What reason is there to believe regime change in Iraq should have been a priority post 9/11? Cheney told us time after time Iraq had NOTHING to do with the 9/11 attacks. Should finding/eliminating our attackers NOT have been our primary focus at the time?
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,298 posts, read 54,193,573 times
Reputation: 40623
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Clinton signed the bill into law allowing Bush to do so. Clinton could have vetoed it, but didn't. Why not?
Bush could have said no and focused on finding/eliminating our attackers.
WHY not?
Plans to invade Iraq were being made by the Bush administration months before 9/11, refusing to alter those plans post 9/11 was of NO benefit to the US.
Do you really believe whatever the threat of Iraq's alleged WMDs, especially to the US, shouldn't have had a radical shift in our list of priorities in the aftermath of 9/11? After all, Dick Cheney rarely if ever missed a chance to tell us Iraq had NOTHING to do with the 9/11 attacks, eh?
the bush admin never stated or suggested that Iraq has anything to do with 911
but even the Clinton admin stated that Iraq and alq were working together, and Iraq was allowing training to go on in their country
Quote:
US State Department
November 4, 1998
Bin Laden, Atef Indicted in U.S. Federal Court for African Bombings
New York -- Usama bin Laden and Muhammad Atef were indicted November 4 in Manhattan federal court for the August 7 bombings of the US embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and for conspiring to kill Americans outside the United States.
Bin Laden's "al Qaeda" organization functioned both on its own and through other terrorist organizations, including the Al Jihad group based in Egypt, the Islamic Group also known as el Gamaa Islamia led at one time by Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, and a number of other jihad groups in countries such as Sudan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Somalia.
Bin Laden, the US Attorney charged, engaged in business transactions on behalf of Al Qaeda, including purchasing warehouses for storage of explosives, transporting weapons, and establishing a series of companies in Sudan to provide income to al Qaeda and as a cover for the procurement of explosives, weapons, and chemicals, and for the travel of operatives.
According to the indictment, bin Laden and al Qaeda forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in Sudan and with representatives of the Government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezballah with the goal of working together against their common enemies in the West, particularly the United States.
"In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the Government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq," the indictment said.
Beginning in 1992, bin Laden allegedly issued through his "fatwah" committees a series of escalating "fatwahs" against the United States, certain military personnel, and, eventually in February 1998, a "fatwah" stating that Muslims should kill Americans -- including civilians -- anywhere in the world they can be found.
The point is Saddam represented no imminent threat to the US on September 12, 2001 and making his ouster a priority was a waste of assets that would have been better used seeking/eliminating our attackers. What reason is there to believe regime change in Iraq should have been a priority post 9/11? Cheney told us time after time Iraq had NOTHING to do with the 9/11 attacks. Should finding/eliminating our attackers NOT have been our primary focus at the time?
So... why did Clinton sign into law the ability for himself or any subsequent president to, at their own discretion, decide to take down Saddam Hussein?
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.
