Illegitimate war = record deficit...again

[NoCalMike]

Originally posted by Sarge

And still, for the third day, no one can tell me where those weapons that we gave Hussein went.

Systematically destroyed after the Gulf War by the Iraqi government. They needed to keep an impression they had SOMETHING all these years to fend off impossible invasion from Iran.

[Sarge]

Originally posted by NoCalMike

Originally posted by Sarge

And still, for the third day, no one can tell me where those weapons that we gave Hussein went.

Systematically destroyed after the Gulf War by the Iraqi government. They needed to keep an impression they had SOMETHING all these years to fend off impossible invasion from Iran.

Nope. Try "never accounted for"

[NoCalMike]

Originally posted by Sarge

Nope. Try "never accounted for"

Who says they aren't accounted for?

[KevinthePRF]

Originally posted by Sarge

And still, for the third day, no one can tell me where those weapons that we gave Hussein went.

Kevinthe PRF. GO back and look at the quotes and speeches I have provided. Every person in the clinton administration speaks of Hussein and his WMD and ablilty to use them

Now I thik you will agree that both clinton and Bush had a look at the same basic intel, so we agree?

Keep in mind, intel changes daily

If we agree that both administrations said Hussein had WMD, now you have to ask yourself, "What's worse? An adminstration that knew of an a$$hole like Hussein had WMD.................and did nothing. Or an administration that knew, at the very least, Hussein still had the WMD that we gave him, and went in to get rid of them?"

Oh, and with people like Abu Nidal living in Iraq, how people can say there was no link to terrorism is beyond me. Do a Google search on him and see what you come up with.

Okay I think I get it now, all these democrats, which you can lump in with some endless Bush administration quotes, BELIEVED that Saddam had WMD through intel. If your going to keep quoting politicians, please clear it up as a BELIEF as none of your quotables had ever gone into Iraq themselves inspecting for them. And this belief by all parties involved justifies our military action.

Daily intel, changing intel, call it what you want, but now has been proven as BAD intel. That I believe went along with YOUR personal bad intel you spent a few months sharing on this messageboard. Can we at least agree that you, Bush, and every other politician you were quoting was quoting on BAD intel. As every other normal person in the world, INCLUDING Bush, has accepted the fact that Iraq did not possess and WMD, and any program at the time of attack was just a pipedream for Saddam when UN Sanctions would hopefully someday end.

Now I'll be mean and spin it liberal for you. Clinton and Bush, as I will agree with you, was making public statements on what was proven later as faulty, or at least not 100% credible intel. But the Clinton administration did "nothing" (ie not go to all out war) because it was not proof enough yet. He decided not to put American lives at risk for something that might or might not be true. Bush just took whatever intel he had AS proof and put our country to war. In my mind that makes Clinton the wiser of the two in that matter.

Excuse me for taking on this basic belief. IGNORANCE is NOT an excuse. It's a basic judicial belief in our country. And I hold that especially dear to my heart when you take a look at the body count.

But keep defending ignorance, it's pretty amusing. And you never answered my questions, how did all these evil purging, flip flopping liberals suddenly become your sources of knowledge?

[SNEET]

No one ever said toppling Saddam was a bad idea. Bush's ideal of expanding freedom is admirable and correct.

It's the way in which Bush went about it. Everything from financing the war with debt for our children to pay off, to not building a reputable alliance, to not arming our troops, to having no plan to win the peace, to neglecting the true threat, Al-Queda, and allowing their resurgence.

It's not the mission, it's the results. And the results? Utter and absolute failure. Period. End of story.

[NoCalMike]

Originally posted by KevinthePRF

Okay I think I get it now, all these democrats, which you can lump in with some endless Bush administration quotes, BELIEVED that Saddam had WMD through intel. If your going to keep quoting politicians, please clear it up as a BELIEF as none of your quotables had ever gone into Iraq themselves inspecting for them. And this belief by all parties involved justifies our military action.

Daily intel, changing intel, call it what you want, but now has been proven as BAD intel. That I believe went along with YOUR personal bad intel you spent a few months sharing on this messageboard. Can we at least agree that you, Bush, and every other politician you were quoting was quoting on BAD intel. As every other normal person in the world, INCLUDING Bush, has accepted the fact that Iraq did not possess and WMD, and any program at the time of attack was just a pipedream for Saddam when UN Sanctions would hopefully someday end.

Now I'll be mean and spin it liberal for you. Clinton and Bush, as I will agree with you, was making public statements on what was proven later as faulty, or at least not 100% credible intel. But the Clinton administration did "nothing" (ie not go to all out war) because it was not proof enough yet. He decided not to put American lives at risk for something that might or might not be true. Bush just took whatever intel he had AS proof and put our country to war. In my mind that makes Clinton the wiser of the two in that matter.

Excuse me for taking on this basic belief. IGNORANCE is NOT an excuse. It's a basic judicial belief in our country. And I hold that especially dear to my heart when you take a look at the body count.

But keep defending ignorance, it's pretty amusing. And you never answered my questions, how did all these evil purging, flip flopping liberals suddenly become your sources of knowledge?

Well all the above plus the fact that the UN inspectors were doing their job, and inspecting for weapons, however as the weeks went by and they weren't finding anything, it was apparent they were NOT going to come up with the results that Bush wanted. Kind of similar to Bush demanding the CIA to find links between 9/11 and Saddam, and everytime they tried they couldn't find any, yet Bush just wouldn't accept that as an answer.

Imagine just for a second, that we had not gone to war when we did, and the inspections continued, and once they concluded it was concluded and made known to the public that there were no WMDs. Do you honestly believe for one freaking second, Bush could have then said, "well, even though there are no weapons, and Saddam isn't the global threat we thought he was, umm, we're gonna go attack anyway to spread democracy and freedom"

YEAH F'N RIGHT......

[Kilmer17]

Originally posted by NoCalMike

Well all the above plus the fact that the UN inspectors were doing their job, and inspecting for weapons, however as the weeks went by and they weren't finding anything, it was apparent they were NOT going to come up with the results that Bush wanted. Kind of similar to Bush demanding the CIA to find links between 9/11 and Saddam, and everytime they tried they couldn't find any, yet Bush just wouldn't accept that as an answer.

Imagine just for a second, that we had not gone to war when we did, and the inspections continued, and once they concluded it was concluded and made known to the public that there were no WMDs. Do you honestly believe for one freaking second, Bush could have then said, "well, even though there are no weapons, and Saddam isn't the global threat we thought he was, umm, we're gonna go attack anyway to spread democracy and freedom"

YEAH F'N RIGHT......

Sure, it was only Bush who thought that way. Better tell these people.

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." – Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." – Robert Byrd, October 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." – Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." – Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." – Tom Daschle in 1998

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." – Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." – Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." – John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons.

He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." – John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction.

That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." – John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons.

Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable.

In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." – Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." – Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

[Art]

Originally posted by SNEET

No one ever said toppling Saddam was a bad idea. Bush's ideal of expanding freedom is admirable and correct.

It's the way in which Bush went about it. Everything from financing the war with debt for our children to pay off, to not building a reputable alliance, to not arming our troops, to having no plan to win the peace, to neglecting the true threat, Al-Queda, and allowing their resurgence.

It's not the mission, it's the results. And the results? Utter and absolute failure. Period. End of story.

Why do our children have to pay off our debt?

Why can't we pay off our debt?

You realize one can't have a debt if one doesn't spend more than taken in, don't you? Therefore, if you're concerned about the debt, you're willing to lower spending to pay it off. And we don't have to wait for our kids to have it paid off. We can do it ourselves. Ever occur to you?

As for a resurgent Al-Queda, I'm not sure I see what you mean. Certainly there are outside terrorists in Iraq -- in fact, flocking to Iraq -- which confirms the whole concept of taking the fight to them. We entered Iraq and the terrorists helped us out greatly by making it the central place for the war on terror. We couldn't have planned it better.

But, despite that, just as with post-war Germany when Newsweek was writing articles about how we were losing the peace, the fact is, the mission seems to be going exceedingly well. Our casualties are less than any conflict in history. Iraq is on the verge of having a national election that matters for the first time, since, when, ever?

To brand something an utter and absolute failure, period, one must have more to his arsenal than the most recent Barbara Boxer or Ted Kennedy speech.

[NoCalMike]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

Sure, it was only Bush who thought that way. Better tell these people.

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." – Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." – Robert Byrd, October 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." – Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." – Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." – Tom Daschle in 1998

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." – Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." – Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." – John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons.

He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." – John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction.

That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." – John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons.

Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable.

In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." – Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." – Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

Ok, just for future, reference, I am not a democrat. I disagreed when these democrats fell in line to support the war. So posting quotes from a Corporate-Duopoly minded group of people doesn't work. Save these quotes for someone that voted for any of these people. When Nader or Cobb or other members of the Green Party said these types of things, then post them, but don't waste your time posting something John Kerry said.

[NoCalMike]

Originally posted by Art

Why do our children have to pay off our debt?

Why can't we pay off our debt?

You realize one can't have a debt if one doesn't spend more than taken in, don't you? Therefore, if you're concerned about the debt, you're willing to lower spending to pay it off. And we don't have to wait for our kids to have it paid off. We can do it ourselves. Ever occur to you?

Not giving billionaire corporations, especially ones that are making huge profits from this war, huge tax cuts while we spend billions on a war that is not ending anytime soon occurred to me.

[Art]

Originally posted by NoCalMike

Not giving billionaire corporations, especially ones that are making huge profits from this war, huge tax cuts while we spend billions on a war that is not ending anytime soon occurred to me.

Not giving billions to people who don't pay taxes in the form of an EITC, or other forms of undeserving welfare that have been going on for decades with no end in sight might help too, right?

[Sarge]

Originally posted by NoCalMike

When Nader or Cobb or other members of the Green Party said these types of things, then post them, but don't waste your time posting something John Kerry said.

Ahhhhhhhhhhh. Sometimes I'm a little slow. Thanks for turning on the "light", such as it is

[NoCalMike]

Originally posted by Art

Not giving billions to people who don't pay taxes in the form of an EITC, or other forms of undeserving welfare that have been going on for decades with no end in sight might help too, right?

I suppose, but you would have to define "undeserving welfare"

[NoCalMike]

Originally posted by Sarge

Ahhhhhhhhhhh. Sometimes I'm a little slow. Thanks for turning on the "light", such as it is

Well I mean the thing is, I am not even registered Green Party or anything. Technically I think I am a registered democrat, but hey I was 18 at the time, and basically just went to the very first booth I found in the mall, haha. All I am trying to say is that since in general I am not much of a supporter of democrats, it doesn't help to throw their quotes in my face. :cool:

[Art]

Originally posted by NoCalMike

I suppose, but you would have to define "undeserving welfare"

Well, I'd start with any person who gets welfare. I'd presume no one deserves someone else's money as a rite of passage in our country. And when I see if you can agree that the jumping off point for any welfare discussion is individuals who earn money are more entitled to that money than any other individual, we can then determine who might be worth state assistance.

We might be able to decide no one is and that local communities and charities can help out as they long did before government began with forced charity.

[SnyderShrugged]

Originally posted by NoCalMike

I suppose, but you would have to define "undeserving welfare"

That would be wlefare $ for someone who shouldnt get it.

sorry, couldnt resist some sarcasm.

The deserved vs. undeserved welfare thread would be a monster by itself!

I don't mind welfare with work requirements for non-disabled people. Also, I feel that there should be very strict guidlines on who is considered disabled rather than allow someone to find an unethical Dr to say they can get gov't $.

I've known so many people who get a freee ride from welfare and SSI just be being lazy and smart.

[NoCalMike]

Originally posted by skin-n-vegas

That would be wlefare $ for someone who shouldnt get it.

sorry, couldnt resist some sarcasm.

The deserved vs. undeserved welfare thread would be a monster by itself!

I don't mind welfare with work requirements for non-disabled people. Also, I feel that there should be very strict guidlines on who is considered disabled rather than allow someone to find an unethical Dr to say they can get gov't $.

I've known so many people who get a freee ride from welfare and SSI just be being lazy and smart.

I don't disagree with any of that.

[Predicto]

wow has any thread ever gone over so many different topics in just 11 pages?

Those who use the pre war quotes of Democratic Senators supporting the war in 2002 realize, of course, that the executive branch is the one with control of the CIA and the NSA, right? A US Senator can't just drive over to Langley and say "show me all the stuff you have, good or bad..."

The reports that were given to those legislators were carefully crafted to support the push for war with Iraq, and they worked. That is why so many of those people are now so angry - because they were manipulated with innuendoes and half-truths, gussied up and "analyzed" using smoke and mirrors into a credible looking immediate threat that required an invasion NOW.

[Kilmer17]

Do I need to go back to quotes from previous administrations to prove this point?

EVERYONE thought he was a threat. EVERYONE knew he had WMDs and was trying to get more.

[SnyderShrugged]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

Do I need to go back to quotes from previous administrations to prove this point?

EVERYONE thought he was a threat. EVERYONE knew he had WMDs and was trying to get more.

This will be histories next "chicken or Egg" debate.

I think I will refuse to bicker on it any longer. I will not ever convince anyone else that a mistake does not make a lie, or on my views on the missing wmd's, nor on Sadaams goal to reconstitute again after sanctions ended, etc, etc, etc,.

It is becoming similar to arguing with Manson whether he is insane or not.

He says he's not.

[KevinthePRF]

Originally posted by Art

Well, I'd start with any person who gets welfare. I'd presume no one deserves someone else's money as a rite of passage in our country. And when I see if you can agree that the jumping off point for any welfare discussion is individuals who earn money are more entitled to that money than any other individual, we can then determine who might be worth state assistance.

We might be able to decide no one is and that local communities and charities can help out as they long did before government began with forced charity.

Art, that's a nice lofty welfare reform package you have. I'd almost agree with you if the government wasn't so hypocritical on the government spending.

A small example would be the 1996 welfare reform package. Did a great deal of help cutting down on spending on the poor, and also left Congress the wiggle room to pass a bill raising their salary soon after.

A bigger example would be Bush's immigration policy reforms. It would be nice to send everyone welfare recipient back to work BEFORE letting illegal immigrants fill the low income jobs available, for less salary.

And dropping welfare altogether certainly would give my profession a boost. Ever been convicted of a felony? Yes? Well then go out and rob, steal, and pillage to a greater degree cause you ain't working here. It's a dirty fact no politician dare admit, but welfare is a payoff for a lower crime rate.

[NoCalMike]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

Do I need to go back to quotes from previous administrations to prove this point?

EVERYONE thought he was a threat. EVERYONE knew he had WMDs and was trying to get more.

I seem to remember a mighty resistence to the war before it started. "EVERYONE" doesn't equal America and Tony Blair.

[NoCalMike]

Originally posted by KevinthePRF

Art, that's a nice lofty welfare reform package you have. I'd almost agree with you if the government wasn't so hypocritical on the government spending.

A small example would be the 1996 welfare reform package. Did a great deal of help cutting down on spending on the poor, and also left Congress the wiggle room to pass a bill raising their salary soon after.

A bigger example would be Bush's immigration policy reforms. It would be nice to send everyone welfare recipient back to work BEFORE letting illegal immigrants fill the low income jobs available, for less salary.

And dropping welfare altogether certainly would give my profession a boost. Ever been convicted of a felony? Yes? Well then go out and rob, steal, and pillage to a greater degree cause you ain't working here. It's a dirty fact no politician dare admit, but welfare is a payoff for a lower crime rate.

Well also, how does corporate welfare and the billions they get, tie into this?

[SnyderShrugged]

Originally posted by NoCalMike

I seem to remember a mighty resistence to the war before it started. "EVERYONE" doesn't equal America and Tony Blair.

again, that "resistance" has to be viewed closely. Now that we know more about the vested interest by those same naysayers in not attacking Iraq, it isnt really a credible point that they didnt agree.

Also, even though we assumed the bulk of the expense and troop deployment, we still had many other countries that at a minimum supported the war and many that had at least some troops or money invested towards the effort.

Australia, Japan, England, and Poland are all major international entities with a voice in the international community. Their contributions and opinions pre-war must not be diuscounted as unimportant.

[SNEET]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

Do I need to go back to quotes from previous administrations to prove this point?

EVERYONE thought he was a threat. EVERYONE knew he had WMDs and was trying to get more.

Incorrect. There was equal amount of intelligence saying there were NO wmd's as there was for wmd's.

Bush just cherry-picked what he wanted to make his case.

How do you explain Powell and Rice, pre 9-11, saying that he wasn't a threat, had not gained new weapons capability, and was easily contained???

Then 9/11 happened. CHA-CHING!!!