Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Oh, that's right. He had to ask the inspectors to leave so he could give SH 48 hours to leave. Let me rephrase the question then: Why did he give SH 48 hours notice knowing full well UN inspectors were in the middle of finding out whether the war was even necessary, let alone in compliance with congess' war resolution?
>>>my conservative freind says the goal is to remake the middle east into a pro-western capitalist economy<<<
Only the hopelessly delusional or those otherwise impaired still believe in that fantasy. Remember when Pat Buchanan and William F. Buckley Jr. were thought of as hard right conservatives? Both of them scoff and roll their eyes at the neocon's middle east dreams.
>>>i really think the dems are in on it too<<<
I agree. Chuck Hagel's raising more hell on his own than all democrats combined.
>>>using hindsight and your logic, the USSR was no threat, and the lives and money spent on the cold war was completely wasted<<<
Poor analogy since the USSR was unquestionably the central front in the cold war. In contrast to Bush's personal preference of designating Iraq as the central front in the war on terror for reasons only he and Cheney know.
All of which still avoids what we were really talking about - Bush's violation of the war resolution. He never did prove whether or not Iraq posed a threat but he could have had he allowed the inspection team to complete their work.
I've never seen a good explanation to why he pulled them out when he did, even as they were asking for just a bit more time to produce their final assessment. What's your explanation? (I already gave you mine)
>>>except for the blind bushbasherhaters -- this resolution covered that ground (and also Iran and Syria)<<<
"SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/bliraqreshouse.htm
Don't need to neither bash, nor hate to recognize that Bush violated the very first paragraph of the resolution's requirements for the use of force - the requirement that Iraq must pose a threat to the US.
Note that the resolution states "continuing threat posed by Iraq; and.....not or any of the subsequent requirements. In other words, if Iraq doesn't pose a threat to the US it doesn't matter how rotten of a man SH is or how many UN resolutions he's ignored.
Obviously the weapons inspectors were well on their way to establish the absence of a threat when Bush - probably gambling on the fact that HE ,one way or the other, would be able to establish evidence of a threat - threw the inspection team out before they had a chance to finish up and conclude something Bush didn't want to hear.
Face it.....he lost the gamble, he lost the war and he lost his presidency.
Seems like we've been down this path before.
"That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons"
Iraq's connection with 9/11 was never actually given as a reason for the war for the simple reason that Bush/Cheney failed to produce a credible story. With that in mind, how does the resolution you posted give authorization for the Iraq war?
>>>So the battle for Iraq is to set the stage for the destruction of the Iranian regime<<<
Another reason for Bush supporters to appreciate how well he lies. You obviously wouldn't have gotten your war in Iraq had he told the truth about the reason for it. "Iraq is not really a threat to us but we will invade, occupy and nation build there in order to create a launching pad for the next war which will be with Iran".
>>>there is no place secure from the Islamofacists<<<
Right, so now that you agree on that, do you also agree that spending upwards of a trillion dollars in an attempt to "win the w.o.t." by liberating Iraq is pure bullshit? Even if you pull off the impossible and turn Iraq into a regular rose garden it won't make a dent in the overall terror threat. You know that don't you?
Specter and the rest do a lot of grandstanding on the house floors but that's all they do and Bush knows it.
Paul Wolfowitz, head of World Bank & US ambassador
http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=9478
>>>the GWOT includes the regime in Iran as the primary enemy to be defeated -- Iraq is the key battle ground to effect that defeat -- The regime in Syria is also a target<<<
And once Iraq, Iran and Syria have been invaded, occupied and converted to western standards then the UK will be dealt with?
2006 transatlantic aircraft plot
The arrests were made in London, Birmingham, and High Wycombe in Buckinghamshire in an overnight operation. Two of the arrests were made in the Birmingham area, where firearms officers were not involved, and five were made in High Wycombe.[18] The key suspects are reported to be British-born Muslims, some of Pakistani descent.[19][20][2] Three of the suspects are recent converts to Islam.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_plot
You're not supposed to understand it. You're supposed to cheer and clap your hands.
>>>Our Military troops will never turn on the People if we are on the side of the Constitution...<<<
What if the military is told by the cic that the people have become part of the enemy by not allowing the government enough "flexibility" with the constitution? Plenty of people posting here already believe this.
>>>65,000 dead at home, 3,000 dead in Iraq, and yet not one celebrity will go to a rally but the likes of Jane Fonda show up for the war protest. I just don't get it.<<<
65,000 homicides out of a population of 300,000,000 since the war started is the price we pay for running the country the way people want it run per the votes they cast in local and national elections. 3,000 dead in Iraq out of 140,000 is the price we paid for eliminating Saddam Hussein's fictitious WMD arsenal that we were told threatened the future of america.
Actually, that number was probably closer to 1,000 by the time everyone agreed there never were any WMD. So another 2,000 have died since then and Bush says the death count will just keep ticking "until the Iraqis stand up".
By the way, if you want less homicides in the homeland, here are your models to aspire to. Only 4 countries on earth are worse than us so a good selection to pick from.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur-crime-murders
>>>Do you doubt that radical muslims want to destroy our way of life?<<<
I have no doubt they want to destroy us but I don't think our way of life has the first thing to do with it. If it did, western europe would be knee deep in blood by now since their lifestyle's no different than ours. They work half as much and drive smaller cars but other than that...
>>>So who do you think we are at war with?<<<
Radical muslims who want to destroy our way of life? Be honest.......is there another phrase you use more frequently in everyday speech?
>>>You've bought into the propaganda of the likes of al Qaeda.<<<
If that's the case then about 2/3 of the country have bought into it including one of George Bush's best friends - James Baker. Ever consider the possibility that YOU have been influenced by neocon propaganda? Is that possible in your mind or do you only consider those of opposing views susceptible to propaganda?
From the Iraq study group (which included 5 conservative republicans):
"Given the central importance of the Arab-Israeli conflict to many countries both in and out of the region, the United States must again initiate active negotiations to achieve a stable Arab-Israeli peace on all fronts and in the manner that we outline specifically in the report," former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, co-chairman of the 10-member bipartisan panel, said at a news conference on Capitol Hill Wednesday.
But according to U.S. officials who spoke with Insight Magazine, a conference planned according to Baker's vision would go off without Israel's presence.
“As Baker sees this, the conference would provide a unique opportunity for the United States to strike a deal without Jewish pressure,” an official is quoted saying in the magazine.
Another official said, “Baker sees his plan as containing something for everybody, except perhaps the Israelis."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,234918,00.html
>>>Does it bother you are in such agreement with terrorists?<<<
The more you expose yourself the harder it gets to take you seriously. I'm saying to myself....... "nobody sane reasons this way". Either you're way the hell out there on a George Bush induced fear of terrorism trip or you're instigating for pleasure.
>>>The problem is we haven't done anything wrong.<<<
Did america ever do anything wrong in your opinion?
>>>Why do you believe that statement?<<<
I don't have to read that statement to conclude that america has been meddling in middle eastern affairs forever and always on behalf of Israel no matter what their intentions.
Bush invaded Iraq at least in part due to ONE single violation of a UN resolution. Meanwhile, Israel has more UN resolution violations than any other country on earth and is rewarded with more economic and military american aid than any other country on earth. But you see no possible connection between these disparities and muslim hostility and simply label it "manufactured discontent" courtesy US bloggers and journalists?
"The most extensive violator of UN Security Council resolutions is Israel, by far the largest recipient of U.S. military and economic aid. Israel's refusal to respond positively to the formal acceptance last March by the Arab League to the land for peace formula put forward in UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338 arguably puts Israel in violation of these resolutions, long seen as the basis for Middle East peace. There can be no argument, however, that Israel remains in defiance of a series of other UN Security Council resolutions. These include resolutions 262 and 267 that demand Israel rescind its annexation of greater East Jerusalem, as well as the more than dozen other resolutions demanding Israel cease its violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention, such as deportations, demolitions of homes, collective punishment, and seizure of private property.
Unlike some of the hypocritical and mean-spirited anti-Israel resolutions passed by the UN General Assembly, such as the now-rescinded 1975 resolution equating Zionism and racism, these Security Council resolutions challenging Israeli policies have been well-grounded in international law."
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2002/0209bushspeech.html
>>>So what are the Liberals and the media doing when they spread the idea that "America is the bad guy" which you seem to believe.<<<
US troops, we are told, are in Iraq to defend our way of life, our freedom and our heritage. Allowing dissent including criticism of foreign policy is a big part of all that but you seem to have a problem with it....? If you have children that you love, does criticism when they stray mean you think they are bad to the bone?
>>>Do you actually think there is that much difference between the Bushes, Clintons, and Kerry????<<<
Not really except I think GW Bush has a few traits that sets him apart. Like indifference bordering on disdain toward the constitution and democratic principles in general and streaks of psychopathic behavior. How many times has he been caught on camera, smirking and giggling while talking about death, destruction and human suffering? Normal humans - and especially normal politicians - have built in emotional mechanisms that prevent such displays.
>>>"I'm The Decision-Maker" on Iraq<<<
really just a variation on.......ahem...well you know what. Somebody must have told him...."please don't say that again. If you have to say it, use different words".
>>>There was no war in Iraq on 9/11/01 yet the barbarians slaughtered 3000 Americans in NY, D.C. and Penn.<<<
Odd you would post that in response to this. Repeat:
"In the video, bin Laden accused Bush of misleading Americans by saying the attack was carried out because Al Qaeda "hates freedom." The terrorist leader said his followers have left alone countries that do not threaten Muslims.
"We fought you because we are free ... and want to regain freedom for our nation. As you undermine our security we undermine yours," bin Laden said.
He said he was first inspired to attack the United States by the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon in which towers and buildings in Beirut were destroyed in the siege of the capital.
"While I was looking at these destroyed towers in Lebanon, it sparked in my mind that the tyrant should be punished with the same and that we should destroy towers in America, so that it tastes what we taste and would be deterred from killing our children and women," he said.
"God knows that it had not occurred to our mind to attack the towers, but after our patience ran out and we saw the injustice and inflexibility of the American-Israeli alliance toward our people in Palestine and Lebanon, this came to my mind," he said."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137095,00.html
There was no war in Iraq on 9/11 but in the eyes of Al Qaeda, Israel and America have conspired against muslims for the past 30 years or longer. But you think they get all their inspiration from CBS news and bloggers...?
And you really mean it? That print media has a greater impact on US/radical muslim relations than america's love fest with Israel and the Iraq war where upwards of 600,000 civilians have been slaughtered?
"In the video, bin Laden accused Bush of misleading Americans by saying the attack was carried out because Al Qaeda "hates freedom." The terrorist leader said his followers have left alone countries that do not threaten Muslims.
"We fought you because we are free ... and want to regain freedom for our nation. As you undermine our security we undermine yours," bin Laden said.
He said he was first inspired to attack the United States by the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon in which towers and buildings in Beirut were destroyed in the siege of the capital.
"While I was looking at these destroyed towers in Lebanon, it sparked in my mind that the tyrant should be punished with the same and that we should destroy towers in America, so that it tastes what we taste and would be deterred from killing our children and women," he said.
"God knows that it had not occurred to our mind to attack the towers, but after our patience ran out and we saw the injustice and inflexibility of the American-Israeli alliance toward our people in Palestine and Lebanon, this came to my mind," he said."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137095,00.html
Haven't seen much if any evidence of him thinking on his own so when he says he does I happen to think he's lying. Course....you can also look at it as a ribbing in good jest and whichever one you choose I wouldn't get to stirred up about it.
he's lying again......obviously.
>>>What reading material does Bin Laden recommend to justify killing us American infidels?<<<
Seriously.......what do you think is more effective: William Blum's book or George Bush's war?
Bush to congress: "I'm The Decision-Maker" On Iraq
"(CBS/AP) President Bush, on a collision course with Congress over Iraq, said Friday "I'm the decision-maker" about sending more troops to the war. He challenged skeptical lawmakers not to prematurely condemn his plan.
"I've picked the plan that I think is most likely to succeed," Mr. Bush said in an Oval Office meeting with senior military advisers."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/26/politics/main2401079.shtml
>>>Turnaround in Baghdad....January 25, 2007<<<
definitely...
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Jan. 25, 2007
"A suicide car bomber struck a mostly Shiite neighborhood Thursday in central Baghdad, killing 26 people, hours after the prime minister promised the coming U.S.-Iraq security sweep in the capital would pursue militants wherever they were hiding.
The blast occurred shortly after two rockets slammed into the heavily fortified Green Zone. Two hours later, a second huge explosion rocked the area.
Police said they had blown up a second car bomb that had been disabled before its second suicide bomber could detonate it.
A massive plume of black smoke rose into the air on the east bank of the Tigris River and heavy gunfire rang out in the aftermath of the explosions.
The suicide bomber struck in the central neighborhood of Karradah, the second to hit the area in three days. At least three policemen were among the dead."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/25/iraq/main2397087.shtml
>>>They love failed wars and the free spending fools!<<<
Haven't figured that one out yet. Why borrow and spend republicans are national heroes and tax and spend democrats are dangerous traitors. Gives you an idea of what kind of mentality you're dealing with here when begging the chinese for billion $ loans while giving Exxon tax breaks should be admired as brilliant economic (and national security) policy.
"May I ask you a question, Mr. Chairman--the chairman of Exxon. Then I went down the line to the rest.
I said: Are you aware of the incentives in the Energy bill we passed last year--that I voted against--which provided over $2.6 billion in incentives to oil companies in order for them to go out and find, invest, drill, and seek new resources and increase their capability to deliver to the market?
He said: Yes, I'm aware of that.
I said: Do you need that? In light of a $35 billion profit, is there anything you can tell me that would justify us giving the industry, including you, an extra $2.6 billion in incentives?"
I might add, so we put this in proportion, for $1.4 billion, we could put portals at every single major port in the world that could detect whether a cargo container had a radioactive device and/or a radiological device or a nuclear device in that cargo container. But it would cost $1.4 billion. We are not doing that right now, in large part because of cost.
http://biden.senate.gov/newsroom/details.cfm?id=254832&&
>>>He had OBL in the crosshairs, but didn't pull the trigger- afraid of the legal consequences<<<
Actually, if you read enough accounts of this subject and if you read it with an open mind, you'll find that George Tenet, Bill Clinton and GW Bush all tried to get Bin Laden but politics got in the way. So what else is new. Bush and Tora Bora is another story which I will spare you for now unless you provoke me.
"Richard Clarke, the country’s first counter-terrorism czar, told me in an interview at his home in Arlington, Virginia, that he wasn’t particularly surprised that the Bush Administration’s efforts to find bin Laden had been stymied by political problems. He had seen such efforts fail before. Clarke, who retired from public service in February and is now a private consultant on security matters, has served every President since Ronald Reagan. He has won a reputation as a tireless advocate for action against Al Qaeda. Clarke emphasized that the C.I.A. director, George Tenet, President Bush, and, before him, President Clinton were all deeply committed to stopping bin Laden; nonetheless, Clarke said, their best efforts had been doomed by bureaucratic clashes, caution, and incessant problems with Pakistan."
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/030804fa_fact?030804fa_fact
>>>Yeah, the same Clinton that had the opportunity TWICE to have OBL taken care of and didn't pull the trigger<<<
Even a few republicans with integrity have called that characterization what it is: Horseshit.
John McLaughlin helped run the CIA in both the Clinton and Bush administrations.
"JOHN MCLAUGHLIN, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: President Clinton did aggressively pursue Osama bin Laden. I give the Clinton administration a lot of credit for the aggressiveness with which they went after al Qaeda and bin Laden."
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0609/24/cnr.04.html
"Clarke told me that in the mid-nineties “the C.I.A. was authorized to mount operations to go into Afghanistan and apprehend bin Laden.” President Clinton, Clarke said, “was really gung-ho” about the scenario. “He had no hesitations,” he said. “But the C.I.A. had hesitations. They didn’t want their own people killed. And they didn’t want their shortcomings exposed. They really didn’t have the paramilitary capability to do it; they could not stage a snatch operation.” Instead of trying to mount the operation themselves, Clarke said, “the C.I.A. basically paid a bunch of local Afghans, who went in and did nothing.”
In 1998, Al Qaeda struck the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing more than two hundred people. In retaliation, Clinton signed a secret Presidential finding authorizing the C.I.A. to kill bin Laden. It was the first directive of this kind that Clarke had seen during his thirty years in government. Soon afterward, he told me, C.I.A. officials went to the White House and said they had “specific, predictive, actionable” intelligence that bin Laden would soon be attending a particular meeting, in a particular place. “It was a rare occurrence,” Clarke said. Clinton authorized a lethal attack. The target date, however—August 20, 1998—nearly coincided with Clinton’s deposition about his affair with Monica Lewinsky. Clarke said that he and other top national-security officials at the White House went to see Clinton to warn him that he would likely be accused of “wagging the dog” in order to distract the public from his political embarrassment. Clinton was enraged. “Don’t you fucking tell me about my political problems, or my personal problems,” Clinton said, according to Clarke. “You tell me about national security. Is it the right thing to do?” Clarke thought it was. “Then fucking do it,” Clinton told him.
The attacks, which cost seventy-nine million dollars and involved some sixty satellite-guided Tomahawk cruise missiles, obliterated two targets—a terrorist training camp outside Khost, in Afghanistan, and a pharmaceutical plant thought to be manufacturing chemical weapons in Khartoum, Sudan—and were notorious failures. “The best post-facto intelligence we had was that bin Laden had left the training camp within an hour of the attack,” Clarke said. What went wrong? “I have reason to believe that a retired head of the I.S.I. was able to pass information along to Al Qaeda that an attack was coming,” he said.
Clarke also blames the military for enabling the Pakistanis to compromise the mission. “The Pentagon did what we asked them not to,” he said. “We asked them not to use surface ships. We asked them to use subs, so they wouldn’t signal the attack. But not only did they use surface ships—they brought additional ones in, because every captain wants to be able to say he fired the cruise missile.”
Asad Hayauddin denies that anyone in Pakistan even had enough knowledge to compromise the mission: “The U.S. didn’t tell us about it until forty-five minutes before the missiles hit.”
After the 1998 fiasco, Clinton secretly approved additional Presidential findings, authorizing the killing not just of bin Laden but also of several of his top lieutenants, and permitting any private planes or helicopters carrying them to be shot down. These directives led to nothing. “The C.I.A. was unable to carry out the mission,” Clarke said. “They hired local Afghans to do it for them again.” The agency also tried to train and equip a Pakistani commando force and some Uzbeks, too. “The point is, they were risk-averse,” he said. Tenet was “eager to kill bin Laden,” Clarke said. “He understood the threat. But the capability of the C.I.A.’s Directorate of Operations was far less than advertised. The Directorate of Operations would like people to think it’s a great James Bond operation, but for years it essentially assigned officers undercover as diplomats to attend cocktail parties. They collected information. But they were not a commando unit that could go into Afghanistan and kill bin Laden.”
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/030804fa_fact
Like you're the guy to talk about slammed and coward, lending your services to a political board where opposing views are banned.....lol. You're just another loud mouth GOP robot who thinks an argument has been won by calling the opponent a stupid liberal and then sign off. If i had a nickel for every clown like you who have come and gone here I'd own google by now.
Oh, so it's also ok for me to come to your vast right wing board and ridicule Bush republicans then?
Just noticed that the board you assist in moderating doesn't allow any bashing of neither Bush, nor republicans in general. Kind of suggests you don't believe bashing has a place on political boards.........except boards frequented by those with views different than yours it would seem since liberal bashing is all I ever see in your posts here.
From the VAST Right Wing (VRWC) board TOS column:
3- Bush & Republican bashing WILL NOT be tolerated here, all posting of this nature will be deleted without mercy,
As usual with chicken shit Bush republicans, what's good for the goose is NOT good for the gander. Which is why a lot of those you call liberals here are former republicans too embarrassed to stay in a party taken over by crackpots like yourself.
Looks awesome. My kind of fare..
>>>There's a difference between raiding a terrorist/insurgent house (what the troops are doing) and tormenting innocent citizens<<<
Actually they're doing a little bit of both. And if you support their mission you too would hope they refrained from the latter as it's not making their job any easier.
"Eight US Marines were charged yesterday over the killing of 24 unarmed Iraqi civilians, including women and children, in the town of Haditha last year.
Staff Sergeant Frank Wuterich, a squad leader and the alleged ringleader, was charged with 13 counts of murder. He is accused of ordering Marines under his charge to “shoot first and ask questions later” on entering a house."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2515579,00.html
>>>You'll stick to your anti-American propaganda that fits your agenda.<<<
Pointing out acts of warfare that's counterproductive to the mission is anti-american propaganda?
>>>I'd take some time to consider the source you are using for that quote.<<<
Adrian Miller, 19, of Bascom, Ohio, platoon leader 82nd Airborne Division
"We're lucky if we can get over here once a month, we're so busy raiding houses and kicking down doors in the middle of the night," said Miller, who bought $84 worth of food. "When we get free time and no one is using the trucks, then we come out here."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A46700-2003Oct18?language=printer
Let me know if you don't trust the troops themselves either. Endless supply of sources on this one.
>>>There's just one problem with your argument. George Bush isn't doing these things.<<<
"There's anger every time U.S. soldiers kick in a door in the middle of the night or search a woman. And outrage when innocent civilians die because an American soldier at a checkpoint gets jumpy and fires a volley from his automatic weapon."
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0806-03.htm
Hope so too. Just don't think he wears well. The more you listen to him and watch him the less you like him. Quirky and disingenuous comes to mind.
Never heard of that one. Does it work or is it just different? Some fusions I've tried seemed more geared towards originality than functionality.
Four years into this fiasco and you're still gasping for justification by pointing out that a couple of Iraqi scientists had documents on weapons research at home. That's just cause for endless occupation at infinite cost?
You hang with losers and I guess that's the kind of stuff that seems reasonable.
"On Eve Of State Of Union, President's Approval Rating Falls To 28%, A New Low'
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/22/opinion/polls/main2384943.shtml
1. Rockefeller's assessment is dated October 2002 and the inspection team report describing full compliance January 2003.
2. Documents in homes of scientists? I thought the war was started due to an imminent threat against the homeland.
3. Pelosi's quote is dated December 1998, more than 5 years before the war began.
Anything else?