Popeman38 Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Just how big a threat was Saddam Hussein? Let's reprise what our leaders had to say on the subject. First, here's the president: If he refuses or continues to evade his obligations through more tactics of delay and deception, he and he alone will be to blame for the consequences. ... Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction...? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who's really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too. Here is the vice president: If you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He's already demonstrated a willingness to use these weapons. He poison-gassed his own people. He used poison gas and other weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors. This man has no compunction about killing lots and lots of people. So this is a way to save lives and to save the stability and peace of a region of the world that is important to the peace and security of the entire world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccsl2 Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 What about Bin Laden???????????? I think that is the real question. I thought he was a threat to the US, especially after he took responsibility of 9/11? We can find Sadaam but not Bin Laden. Do we even want to find Bin Laden anymore??? All good questions that I am sure folks would like answers to, but haven't gotten. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 after the bombings yesterday, I was wondering why we hadn't heard anything about Bin Laden in awhile. I wonder what's going on with that situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted November 10, 2005 Author Share Posted November 10, 2005 See, you naturally assume thes statements were made by the current President and Vice President. When in fact these statements were made in 1998, by Clinton and Gore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccsl2 Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 See, you naturally assume thes statements were made by the current President and Vice President. When in fact these statements were made in 1998, by Clinton and Gore. But the difference is this, they didn't use it as a precursor to go to war. They didn't make Sadaam an immenent danger as a justification to go to war with after 9/11, when the person responsible, Bin Laden, is still walking around free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 ah-ha. I don't see anybody putting any President's name in response to your post! Dang, you should have waited alittle longer, somebody would have bitten! We both went off about Bin Laden.....and you were so excited that you should have waited! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted November 10, 2005 Author Share Posted November 10, 2005 President Clinton offered his assessment in February 1998. Gore made his observations the following December, defending the military strikes Clinton had ordered against Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccsl2 Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 ah-ha.I don't see anybody putting any President's name in response to your post! Dang, you should have waited alittle longer, somebody would have bitten! We both went off about Bin Laden.....and you were so excited that you shouldn't wait! Exactly. Pope gets an A for effort though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Strikes are very different from Invading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccsl2 Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 President Clinton offered his assessment in February 1998. Gore made his observations the following December, defending the military strikes Clinton had ordered against Iraq. Military strikes and a war are on different ends of the spectrum don't you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted November 10, 2005 Author Share Posted November 10, 2005 My point being that the Dems are making a case that President Bush intentionally lied to the American people about the reasons for war. But these same beliefs were held by the previous admin (Pres/VP and the CIA and the entire national security team of the Democratic administration) plus the following countries: France, Israel, China, Russia, Britain, the United Nations. The Germans believed Saddam would have a nuclear weapon within 36 months. How can one President be a liar and another a "Great" leader when they both reference the same intel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 you blew it on your point. Your point should have been. How can one President trust intell that turns out to be untrue, when the Previous guy didn't bite? He took a chance, he didn't attack with an invasion trying to connect it to 9/11 and another country..... and without trying...by dumb luck. He was right. If we didn't invade, nobody would have. No matter what the intell said. My guess is...... the intell was just never enough for everybody else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 you blew it on your point. Your point should have been. How can one President trust intell that turns out to be untrue, when the Previous guy didn't bite? He took a chance, he didn't attack with an invasion trying to connect it to 9/11 and another country..... and without trying...by dumb luck. He was right. If we didn't invade, nobody would have. No matter what the intell said. My guess is...... the intell was just never enough for everybody else. Or the previous guy had an asshat named Tony Lake as NSA who pulled the plug on a CIA backed coup which had a very good shot of working Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccsl2 Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 My point being that the Dems are making a case that President Bush intentionally lied to the American people about the reasons for war. But these same beliefs were held by the previous admin (Pres/VP and the CIA and the entire national security team of the Democratic administration) plus the following countries:France, Israel, China, Russia, Britain, the United Nations. The Germans believed Saddam would have a nuclear weapon within 36 months. How can one President be a liar and another a "Great" leader when they both reference the same intel? No I think the issue is why was the intelligence "tweaked" if what was said by President Bush and Cheney was said by Gore and Clinton? No need to manufacture it. Just present your case. The case for invading Iraq was not strong enough just being based on the statements than Gore, Clinton, Bush and Cheney made obviously. So the intel was "tweaked" to make the case stronger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted November 10, 2005 Author Share Posted November 10, 2005 Ok, then if the intel was "tweaked" (whick all Dems would agree Bush is too dumb to do for himself) then everyone who had access to the intel would be implicated. No matter what anyone believes, the Pres does not "work" intel. He is presented with intel on which to base his decisions. The only thing the Pres can be guilty of is believing bad intel. If you want to argue this point, be careful or you will indict Clinton also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccsl2 Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Ok, then if the intel was "tweaked" (whick all Dems would agree Bush is too dumb to do for himself) then everyone who had access to the intel would be implicated. No matter what anyone believes, the Pres does not "work" intel. He is presented with intel on which to base his decisions. The only thing the Pres can be guilty of is believing bad intel. If you want to argue this point, be careful or you will indict Clinton also. Come on now. He is the President of the US. He has his own VP and his selected Sec. of Defense, Rummy. If you don't think that Bush or Cheney pass the word down the chain of command to fix the intel to make it look as though Sadaam is a threat now so that we could go to war, you need a serious wakeup call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 and this is where I bow out. My point was......you set a trap and then set it off too early. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 One of these days I'll get the extremeskins politcal junkies to have a discussion on the pulled plug in 1995 Today clearly is not that day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cdowwe Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Are you actually crediting Clinton for not invading when he should have many times. When there was actual proof of their weapons, we still didnt invade. Clinton wouldnt have invaded if Saddam used weapons against the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.