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.
There is nothing "honorable" about this administration's strategy in Iraq, anymore than it was honorable for Napoleon to continue to drive his soldiers into a Russian winter and absolute disaster. It's blindness and the inability to grasp the obvious; hardheadedness. And our soldiers are paying for this stubbornness with their lives.
This war is about a personal vendetta that this president had against Iraq, combined with a bunch of neo-con yes-men who thought that "Freedom was on the march" and that overthrowing undemocratic regimes and replacing them with democratic ones was a good idea. We now know that this administration was looking for a reason to go into Iraq from day one. They weren't responding to a threat; they were carrying out an ideological mission conceived in some neo-con think tank and the pages of the Weekly Standard.
And the fact that William F. Buckley is now not considered a "Republican" in the eyes of the Bush-bots out there shows how extreme and absolutely out of control this administration has become.
You have no evidence for your charges, so your claims about the administration and Iraq must be considered only ideological rhetoric.
Buckley is a fiscal conservative, but, as I stated earlier he is not socially conservative. He supports the legalization of drugs and an end to the drug war. He is such an intelligent individual and such a great debator, any group would be more than happy to claim William F. Buckley.
You have no evidence for your charges, so your claims about the administration and Iraq must be considered only ideological rhetoric.
Buckley is a fiscal conservative, but, as I stated earlier he is not socially conservative. He supports the legalization of drugs and an end to the drug war. He is such an intelligent individual and such a great debator, any group would be more than happy to claim William F. Buckley.
He said Mr Bush had already decided to invade Iraq in December 2002, two months before Colin Powell, then secretary of state, gave his now infamous presentation on Iraqi WMD before the United Nations.
A GOP insider, former Bush 41 speechwriter and close friend of the Bush family writes in his new book that before 9/11, the Neo-Cons in control of the Bush administration were eager to seize upon a manufactured provocation to go to war - just as LBJ had done with the Gulf Of Tonkin in 1965, and questions the official 9/11 story. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...articleId=5381
This is so obvious, it's almost laughable that we are still debating this. There was a rush to war and a pre-ordained plan to invade Iraq. 9-11 simply gave Bush and his neo-con ideologues a reason.
He said Mr Bush had already decided to invade Iraq in December 2002, two months before Colin Powell, then secretary of state, gave his now infamous presentation on Iraqi WMD before the United Nations.
A GOP insider, former Bush 41 speechwriter and close friend of the Bush family writes in his new book that before 9/11, the Neo-Cons in control of the Bush administration were eager to seize upon a manufactured provocation to go to war - just as LBJ had done with the Gulf Of Tonkin in 1965, and questions the official 9/11 story. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...articleId=5381
This is so obvious, it's almost laughable that we are still debating this. There was a rush to war and a pre-ordained plan to invade Iraq. 9-11 simply gave Bush and his neo-con ideologues a reason.
Of course there was a plan to invade Iraq, as would be the case for any hostile country. A President would be guilty of dereliction of duty if he/she did not have such plans available, if needed. These "plans" were written up during the Clinton Administration.
Bush made no connection between 9/11 and Iraq, though he did demonstrate Saddam's support for terrorist organization and did accurately explain a non-operational association between Saddam and Alqaeda.
BTW, hearsay evidence and opinion pieces from far-left websites do not constitute substantiating evidence.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,400,252 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn
Bush made no connection between 9/11 and Iraq, though he did demonstrate Saddam's support for terrorist organization and did accurately explain a non-operational association between Saddam and Alqaeda.
.
Of course he made no 9/11/Iraq connection because there was none. But he certainly never missed an opportunity to attempt inferring one and was so effective that some polls found 7/10 Americans believed there was a connection.
70% belief is a pretty good score for something that didn't exist, how do you think that happened?
Of course he made no 9/11/Iraq connection because there was none. But he certainly never missed an opportunity to attempt inferring one and was so effective that some polls found 7/10 Americans believed there was a connection.
70% belief is a pretty good score for something that didn't exist, how do you think that happened?
This only demonstrates the naivity and ignorance of the many Americans. Here is a quote from Cheney absolutely stating that the administration knows of no connection between Saddam and 9/11
MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don’t know. You and I talked about this two years ago. I can remember you asking me this question just a few days after the original attack. At the time I said no, we didn’t have any evidence of that. Subsequent to that, we’ve learned a couple of things. We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,400,252 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn
This only demonstrates the naivity and ignorance of the many Americans. Here is a quote from Cheney absolutely stating that the administration knows of no connection between Saddam and 9/11
Here's another Cheney quote from a 9/03 TV interview commenting on the Iraq war: " We will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who've had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11. "
If Americans were naive and ignorant it was only about what a true SOB Cheney is.
You have every right to believe Bush did the right thing going to Iraq, that's your opinion.
But to deny there has been continual attempts to infer an Iraq/9/11 tie is pure spin.
Here's another Cheney quote from a 9/03 TV interview commenting on the Iraq war: " We will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who've had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11. "
If Americans were naive and ignorant it was only about what a true SOB Cheney is.
You have every right to believe Bush did the right thing going to Iraq, that's your opinion.
But to deny there has been continual attempts to infer an Iraq/9/11 tie is pure spin.
The quote you provided was absolutely accurate. In Iraq, we have been fighting the organization, called Al Qaeda, who was indeed responsible for 9/11. We've killed many in their leadership, including Al Zarqawi.
How much clearer can Cheney be than by saying that we don't know if there is a connection between Saddam and 9/11? If you interpret this as a "yes, there is a connection", then there's really no need to debate this any further.
Of course there was a plan to invade Iraq, as would be the case for any hostile country. A President would be guilty of dereliction of duty if he/she did not have such plans available, if needed. These "plans" were written up during the Clinton Administration.
Bush made no connection between 9/11 and Iraq, though he did demonstrate Saddam's support for terrorist organization and did accurately explain a non-operational association between Saddam and Alqaeda.
BTW, hearsay evidence and opinion pieces from far-left websites do not constitute substantiating evidence.
The Financial Times and the International Herald Tibrune are now "far left websites?"
I'll let you get back to your fair and balanced Fox News and the Washington Times!
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,400,252 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn
The quote you provided was absolutely accurate. In Iraq, we have been fighting the organization, called Al Qaeda, who was indeed responsible for 9/11. We've killed many in their leadership, including Al Zarqawi.
How much clearer can Cheney be than by saying that we don't know if there is a connection between Saddam and 9/11? If you interpret this as a "yes, there is a connection", then there's really no need to debate this any further.
The quote I provided is also a PERFECT example of inferring a connection between Iraq and 9/11 where none existed.
For 6 years I've heard this administration never miss an opportunity to use Iraq and 9/11 in the same sentence. Believe what you want, the recorded speeches say there has been a DELIBERATE attempt to link Iraq and 9/11 with no factual basis.
I agree there's no need for debate, you are in denial.
William Buckley is a registered Republican, always has been and thinking that if a person has conservative fiscal policies, but may support the legalization of drugs, makes him otherwise is sheer tom-foolery.
All this partisan political rhetoric is so off base, it is no wonder that we can't have an intelligent conversation but rather finger point and name call.
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.
