Illegitimate war = record deficit...again

[Prosperity]

Originally posted by Art

Maybe I'm missing something. Do me a favor. Pull out all the words in quotes and put them in your next post.

Walk me through where Cheney tied Iraq to 9/11. Cheney. Not any other speaker. Cheney.

Not very incriminating but he does tie Iraq to 9/11

Meet the Press (NBC) (9/14/03)

Cheney: "If we're successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it's not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it's not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.

[Art]

Originally posted by Liberty

Not very incriminating but he does tie Iraq to 9/11

Meet the Press (NBC) (9/14/03)

Cheney: "If we're successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it's not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it's not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.

Every word spoken there is precisely true.

And though people won't listen, this is exactly why Iraq was so important. Geograpically, this is smack dab in the middle of the Middle East. When Zarqawi was injured in Afghanistan, he went to Iran, then to Iraq for treatment and haven. Now, Iraq is off the table, at least for open haven for such men.

Taking Iraq away as a friendly port, alters the balance of how they get around and is a major blow to them. This is why they are fighting so hard to keep Iraq in play. It's why the terrorists have made it a central focus for the war on terrorism. The importance of our action in Iraq against the enemies we seek to disrupt made clear by how the enemies have responded to the very idea of freedom and democracy in the country.

War on democracy is their cry now.

And they'll crumble under the weight of freedom we've helped create. If only we can get our own people to realize it.

[du7st]

The war on terrorism can be won but you have to define what winning means. If winning means no major terrorist attacks on American soil, then we have been winning the war since 9/11. If winning means defeating every terrorist in the world, we have failed and will likely never meet such a ludicrous goal. If winning means defeating a majority of the terrorist networks in the world, then current victory can be debated. If winning includes a democratic Iraq, then we have to wait it out.

I think too many people are trying to argue with some broad definition of winning the war on terrorism when I simply cannot define one. I blame the Bush admin for this - I never see them qualify what they mean when they say "winning the war on terrorism" other than a safe and free Iraq. This could take decades to settle as having won or lost. If the Bush admin mentioned a handful of goals they had in mind, it would clear up a lot of confusion. In the meantime, maybe each of us should qualify exactly what we mean when we say winning or losing the war on terrorism.

[Mad Mike]

Originally posted by Liberty

Not very incriminating but he does tie Iraq to 9/11

Meet the Press (NBC) (9/14/03)

Cheney: "If we're successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it's not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it's not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.

Liberty. What you have to understand is that it isn't just al Qaeda we have to deal with. It is'nt just al Qaeda who has had us under assault.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks was not even a member of al Qaeda when he first concieved his plan. It just happened that bin Laden had the resources he needed. Even after he teamed up with al Qaeda, he resisted swearing allegiance to bin Laden and becoming an "official member of al Qaeda"

That's what we are dealing with. This isn't just a limited war against al Qaeda. It's a war against all Islamic terrorists. Al Qaeda is only one head of a many headed snake and Saddam Husien supported them all. That is a fact.

To assume that Saddam was not a threat, one must first assume that the known contacts he had with al Qaeda were not a danger, and second, that none of the other terrorist organizations he supported would grow into the next al Qaeda because it is human nature to copy those who you percieve as succesfull. As the 9/11 commission stated... "It is not a position with which Americans can bargain or negotiate. With it there is no common ground—not even respect for life—on which to begin a dialogue. It can only be destroyed or utterly isolated."

[Sarge]

Originally posted by KevinthePRF

This coming from the man who spent months guarenteed stockpiles of WMD. Pot, kettle, have we met?

Well it's official, according to Art and Sarge, the war against terrorism can be won. I'm printing it. Even though George Bush has reluctantly stated otherwise. One day, this war will be officially won.

Honestly, I really do hope you guys are right. I really do. Even though history has always stated otherwise.

All I know is that I saw the satellite photos of stuff being moved from weapons sites. I seriously doubt it was the Iraqs stockpile of Goobers and Raisinets. Now, where it went and why we haven't gone after it is the question. If it went to Syria, who knows. It could be anything from saving them for later to a secret dope deal to keep it buried, since they already have WMD stockpiles too. If it went ot Russia, I seriously doubt we'll go after them for stuff they already have and have had in the past. But that is the million dollar question.

And make no mistake, the war could be over tomorrow, if we wished it to be. War is over when everybody on one side is dead or the other side says "Enough! Please stop!" That could be done tomorrow to any country in the world.

One of the effects the media has had on this event though, is to make us look like we're in the frightful "quagmire". We haven't used a tenth of our military might in Iraq. Tomorrow, if the B-52 wing from Minot started flattening the place, things would be over in a week. But then we'd have to have Dan Blather in Iraq reporting about the civilian casualites and the destroyed baby milk factories. Oh the humanity! Teddy Kenndy would be on the floor of the Senate hiccupping in the middle of a anti war speech. It wouldn't take long for the rest of the 60's hippy types to join the chorus. The terrorist have got to be so happy these type people exists in the world and help their side so much.

[Baculus]

To assume that Saddam was not a threat, one must first assume that the known contacts he had with al Qaeda were not a danger, and second, that none of the other terrorist organizations he supported would grow into the next al Qaeda because it is human nature to copy those who you percieve as succesfull. As the 9/11 commission stated... "It is not a position with which Americans can bargain or negotiate. With it there is no common ground—not even respect for life—on which to begin a dialogue. It can only be destroyed or utterly isolated."

Did you ever think that such connections wouldn't have become as strong if the actions in Iraq hadn't happened? Sometimes common cause is found in an enemy if the situation is created.

Mad Mike, we cannot start a war based upon uncertain intelligence and even heresay. You have posted links that talked about Saddam's terrorist connections, but that is still not enough to cause a war that costed thousands of death civilians and hundreds of American's lives. Do you really believe that what you've posted about previously is worth all of the lives that have been lost in Iraq?

There was not a connection between 9-11 and Saddam, and little to zero WMDs found so far. And yet, there we are, in Iraq.

[Baculus]

Art,

Regarding the 9-11/Saddam connection and Cheney, a few articles.

I think I posted this one, but I couldn't find where I did in this very long thread. (And it is getting relatively monstrous in length.)

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0616-01.htm

Cheney has asserted that Saddam had long-established ties with Al Qaeda. And since Al Qaeda is the organization that has been seen as responsible for 9-11, it is not a great feat to read betwee the lines: Saddam was connected to 9-11.

Cheney had also talked about Atta, the leader of the 9-11 attackers, meeting with Iraqi intelligence in Prague. This furthers to strengthen the idea that Saddam was involved with 9-11 in fashion or capacity.

Bush also stated the following: "The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more. In these 19 months that changed the world, our actions have been focused and deliberate and proportionate to the offense. We have not forgotten the victims of September the 11th -- the last phone calls, the cold murder of children, the searches in the rubble. With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A32862-2003Sep5?language=printer

Since Saddam and 9-11 has been juxtapositioned so frequently, it's little wonder that many folks believe in this connection. If you repeat phrases together often enough, the connection is made, whether intended or not. And if the effort was to mentioned Saddam, Al Qaeda, and 9-11 together in such a frequent manner, then what else would have been the intention?

Of course, the Bush administration has now asserted that were was not a 9-11/Saddam connection: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3118262.stm

But, they have already achieved the objective - they have convinced many in the public to believe the connection, but now they can backtrack and say, "Hey, we didn't draw that connection!" That, to me, does not seem very honest, especially coming from our leaders.

This article further discusses the White House drawing the connections thru, at itimes, "unnamed sourcs": http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/04/10/12_condi.html

And one last link, which further discusses statements made by Cheney in discussing the Iraqi/Al Qaeda connection: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/16/cheney_link_of_iraq_911_challenged/

It takes little to see the inference being made by Cheney's statements.

And one just has to remember the Republican convention when 9-11 and Saddam was mentioned repeatedly, but I don't know if Bin Laden was ever really mentioned when discussing 9-11.

This article discusses the possiblity, and probable reality, that Saudi Arabia, and not Iraq, has more ties to Al Qaeda then Saddam ever did.

http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=article&DocID=1077

Was Saddam a good guy. No. Was he a blood-thirsty tyrant. Yes. Did he have to be resolved in some fastion? Probably, in the future. But was he an imminent threat that required immediate military action? Well, that is where the debate enters the discussion. (And I have posted previously the footage that shows Rumsfeld denying that he ever said Saddam was an immediate threat, then had his own quotes shown to him that he had indeed made such assertions. He can't even keep his own words straight.)

I think most of us can agree with these two things: Saddam as an arseh*le, and the budget needs to be kept under control. I think the dispute centers around how we could have handled either situation.

I can never seem to make my point in 10 words or less. Hah.

[KevinthePRF]

Originally posted by Art

Kevin,

The war on terrorism can be won. Rather easily actually.

Unfortunately, it's MORE likely it'll be defeated by, well, you. Liberals like you will defeat it. We won't lose for any other reason, just as we didn't lose Vietnam. We abandoned Vietnam because of liberals. We'll abandon Iraq because of liberals.

You have seen the blatantly false positions put forth here by Mike and Predicto. This is the liberal argument, however. Ficton, believed as fact, and those who know fact, ridiculed for not knowing fiction.

And people are gullible. Most people would simply assume Mike wasn't talking out his a$$ saying Zarqawi isn't a terrorist.

As for history suggesting defeating terrorism is not possible, what history are you speaking of? We've never done this before. We know doing nothing leads to 9/11. That we know. No doubt about that, right?

That's what history has clarified for us, hasn't it?

And now, in Iraq, we've stumbled into one of the greatest bits of good fortune in the world. The terrorists view Iraq as their existence. They've openly turned it into their most important goal to defeat us in Iraq.

You know this too.

And, yet, you'll defeat the effort, and then smugly tell us you told us we couldn't win it.

First thanks to du7st for clearing up the terminology. And when I say the war on terrorism can't be won, and that history has proven otherwise. I'm referring to his second definition. Not the first. The first can be won easily by better intellegence home and abroad. If you want reference to history in terms of the second definition, I guess the heck take Rome, conquerers of all enemies in the known world, never to fall.

Now Art, what's amusing is your grouping of those evil liberals, and the Iraqi War, which is far more a liberal war than a conservative one.

Aren't you a believer in smaller government, eliminating uneccessary spending? What's yours is yours and not the rest of the world's?

Then why can you support the multi billon dollar effort for our 51rst state of the Union half way around the world? How many times have we had examples of the final freedom and democracy of the Iraqi people. Finally free of the clutches of a ruthless dictator. If you want to wave that flag, be my guest. Just accept it as a liberal stance, and not a conservative one.

Not don't take my critique of the Iraq war as a hope our effort will fail. I may have reservations of being there in the first place but now that we've already got our feet wet, there's no room to withdrawl our intentions, as we did in Vietnam. Democracy must succeed in Iraq, if it does not all lives and dollars given up will be for nothing.

And I as one of those nasty bleeding heart liberals, would hate for our federal government to waste. Is that such a bad "liberal" goal?

[KevinthePRF]

Originally posted by Sarge

All I know is that I saw the satellite photos of stuff being moved from weapons sites. I seriously doubt it was the Iraqs stockpile of Goobers and Raisinets. Now, where it went and why we haven't gone after it is the question. If it went to Syria, who knows. It could be anything from saving them for later to a secret dope deal to keep it buried, since they already have WMD stockpiles too. If it went ot Russia, I seriously doubt we'll go after them for stuff they already have and have had in the past. But that is the million dollar question.

And make no mistake, the war could be over tomorrow, if we wished it to be. War is over wehn everybody on one side is dead or the other side says "Enough! Please stop!" That could be done tomorrow to any country in the world.

One of the effects the media has had on this event though, is to make us look like we're in the frightful "quagmire". We haven't used a tenth of our military might in Iraq. Tomorrow, if the B-52 wing from Minot started flattening the place, things would be over in a week. But then we'd have to have Dan Blather in Iraq reporting about the civilian casualites and the destroyed baby milk factories. Oh the humanity! Teddy Kenndy would be on the floor of the Senate hiccupping in the middle of a anti war speech. It wouldn't take long for the rest of the 60's hippy types to join the chorus. The terrorist have got to be glad so happy these type people exists in the world and help their side so much.

Sarge, I'd like to thank you for some admissions.

Thanks for admitting that what you saw in satellite photos was not neccessaily WMD as the CIA confirmed to the Bush administration. It could of been anything, but I agree Goobers and Raisenettes is highly unlikey. But at least you admit to assumption, and not fact.

Thanks for admitting we have only used "a tenth of our military might". So I can laugh off any further political discussions of increased vs decreased military spending. It's nice to know we have a hefty reserve.

And finally thank you for admitting your true feelings on Iraq, which is that we are wasting our time trying to establish a new government in Iraq. They're all animals and we should just turn the place into a parking lot as far as your concerned. If only those darn liberal ideals weren't standing in your way.

[Sarge]

Originally posted by KevinthePRF

Sarge, I'd like to thank you for some admissions.

Thanks for admitting that what you saw in satellite photos was not neccessaily WMD as the CIA confirmed to the Bush administration. It could of been anything, but I agree Goobers and Raisenettes is highly unlikey. But at least you admit to assumption, and not fact.

Thanks for admitting we have only used "a tenth of our military might". So I can laugh off any further political discussions of increased vs decreased military spending. It's nice to know we have a hefty reserve.

And finally thank you for admitting your true feelings on Iraq, which is that we are wasting our time trying to establish a new government in Iraq. They're all animals and we should just turn the place into a parking lot as far as your concerned. If only those darn liberal ideals weren't standing in your way.

That's good. Allow me to clarify.

Remember, we can "read a newspaper from space" as everyone says. I will neither confirm or deny this, but lets just say we can see pretty damn well.

When I said 1/10 of our strength, I meant outright strength that could be sustained over a decent period of time. Had we wanted toflatten Iraq, we would be done by now. ANd that's not with nukes, but with conventional weapons. We would have been done last year.

But, to sustain an action that the politicians won't let us fight properly, we need more boots to put on the ground.

The last part were your words, not mine. However, the people there are a secondary concern to me. The primary concern was to get rid of an a$$hole and to establish a presence where we can strike unstable, dictatorial regeimes with ease, since this area holds such a vital interests to US security and is among one the least stable areas in the world. Democracy is a natural by product of an American presence, as it always has been when we have to occupy an country

[Art]

Originally posted by Baculus

Art,

Regarding the 9-11/Saddam connection and Cheney, a few articles.

I think I posted this one, but I couldn't find where I did in this very long thread. (And it is getting relatively monstrous in length.)

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0616-01.htm

Cheney has asserted that Saddam had long-established ties with Al Qaeda. And since Al Qaeda is the organization that has been seen as responsible for 9-11, it is not a great feat to read betwee the lines: Saddam was connected to 9-11.

Cheney had also talked about Atta, the leader of the 9-11 attackers, meeting with Iraqi intelligence in Prague. This furthers to strengthen the idea that Saddam was involved with 9-11 in fashion or capacity.

Bush also stated the following: "The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more. In these 19 months that changed the world, our actions have been focused and deliberate and proportionate to the offense. We have not forgotten the victims of September the 11th -- the last phone calls, the cold murder of children, the searches in the rubble. With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A32862-2003Sep5?language=printer

Since Saddam and 9-11 has been juxtapositioned so frequently, it's little wonder that many folks believe in this connection. If you repeat phrases together often enough, the connection is made, whether intended or not. And if the effort was to mentioned Saddam, Al Qaeda, and 9-11 together in such a frequent manner, then what else would have been the intention?

Of course, the Bush administration has now asserted that were was not a 9-11/Saddam connection: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3118262.stm

But, they have already achieved the objective - they have convinced many in the public to believe the connection, but now they can backtrack and say, "Hey, we didn't draw that connection!" That, to me, does not seem very honest, especially coming from our leaders.

This article further discusses the White House drawing the connections thru, at itimes, "unnamed sourcs": http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/04/10/12_condi.html

And one last link, which further discusses statements made by Cheney in discussing the Iraqi/Al Qaeda connection: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/16/cheney_link_of_iraq_911_challenged/

It takes little to see the inference being made by Cheney's statements.

And one just has to remember the Republican convention when 9-11 and Saddam was mentioned repeatedly, but I don't know if Bin Laden was ever really mentioned when discussing 9-11.

This article discusses the possiblity, and probable reality, that Saudi Arabia, and not Iraq, has more ties to Al Qaeda then Saddam ever did.

http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=article&DocID=1077

Was Saddam a good guy. No. Was he a blood-thirsty tyrant. Yes. Did he have to be resolved in some fastion? Probably, in the future. But was he an imminent threat that required immediate military action? Well, that is where the debate enters the discussion. (And I have posted previously the footage that shows Rumsfeld denying that he ever said Saddam was an immediate threat, then had his own quotes shown to him that he had indeed made such assertions. He can't even keep his own words straight.)

I think most of us can agree with these two things: Saddam as an arseh*le, and the budget needs to be kept under control. I think the dispute centers around how we could have handled either situation.

I can never seem to make my point in 10 words or less. Hah.

Just to parse this down quickly, your point is because the media has decided to say words no one ever spoke were the REAL point of speaking some of the words actually spoken, then the administration said something it never said?

This is what you're saying, right, because the threads you post all have very accurate, thoughtful statements in quotations that don't say what the media and liberals have frequently tried to make them mean.

No one in the administration actually said Iraq was an imminent threat either. In fact, the President often asked, when, now, after 9/11 does a threat become imminent? Is it a moment before the next plane hits the next building, or is it the years prior when the plan was hatched?

The President said he would no longer wait for a threat to BE imminent before acting. I think you would agree that's sound reasoning.

[Art]

Originally posted by KevinthePRF

First thanks to du7st for clearing up the terminology. And when I say the war on terrorism can't be won, and that history has proven otherwise. I'm referring to his second definition. Not the first. The first can be won easily by better intellegence home and abroad. If you want reference to history in terms of the second definition, I guess the heck take Rome, conquerers of all enemies in the known world, never to fall.

Now Art, what's amusing is your grouping of those evil liberals, and the Iraqi War, which is far more a liberal war than a conservative one.

Aren't you a believer in smaller government, eliminating uneccessary spending? What's yours is yours and not the rest of the world's?

Then why can you support the multi billon dollar effort for our 51rst state of the Union half way around the world? How many times have we had examples of the final freedom and democracy of the Iraqi people. Finally free of the clutches of a ruthless dictator. If you want to wave that flag, be my guest. Just accept it as a liberal stance, and not a conservative one.

Not don't take my critique of the Iraq war as a hope our effort will fail. I may have reservations of being there in the first place but now that we've already got our feet wet, there's no room to withdrawl our intentions, as we did in Vietnam. Democracy must succeed in Iraq, if it does not all lives and dollars given up will be for nothing.

And I as one of those nasty bleeding heart liberals, would hate for our federal government to waste. Is that such a bad "liberal" goal?

Kevin,

You're absolutely correct that the Iraq War is a far more liberal war than a conservative one. That's true. You're also correct that the Bush doctrin of pre-emptive strikes is more liberal than conservative because every war since 1900 that we've gotten into has been started by liberals in the White House EXCEPT now the first and second Gulf Wars. And in the case of most wars, it was pre-emptive in nature.

It's true also that Bush's idealistic view of spreading freedom and democracy is more a typical liberal viewpoint than a conservative one. Remember, it has LONG been liberals and their optimism that spoke of stopping the spread of communism, or recognizing the threat of fascism or leftist Nazism.

But, what you highlight is the shift in the world where conservatives who used to be pessimistic are now optimistic where liberals who used to be optimistic are pessimistic. What Bush has done to protect us from terrorism IS what a liberal would have done for decades.

Sadly, liberals have lost their core and perhaps happily, it's shifted to conservatives. I don't believe in fighting wars for people who should be fighting for themselves. I don't believe in fighting wars for humanitarian purposes. And I FULLY recognize this war in Iraq and the doctrine of spreading freedom and democracy IS a liberal quality and characteristic.

This is why I'm so shocked liberals aren't on board more openly.

So, while I recognize all you've said, can you tell me what happened to liberals?