Will the Board Bushies ever admit Iraq is a mess?

[church mouse guy]

Originally posted by LadyEagle:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Goering was a lifelong junkie who spent time in a Swedish mental hospital after World War I.

Exactly. Isn't it ironic that the lemmings who are not lifelong junkies spending time in mental hospitals are drinking the Kool-Aid of the neocons in the Republican Party?

Will Peroutkistas ever admit that their plan to pull out of Iraq and their calling of the war illegal implies that they may support the return to power of Saddam?

The power will not return to Saddam, but the power will go to whichever sect is victorious in the coming civil war in Iraq. Our military will be caught in the middle to be beheaded by either the Sunnis or the Shiites - which ever one gains ultimate control and implements the genocide of civilians which will follow. </font>[/QUOTE]Now you have me confused, Cassandra.

How am I drinking any Jewish (neocon) Kool-Aid? I didn't even care for the Kool-Aid at Jonestown. Saddam had ties to all of the other Arab terrorists and he was trying to buy yellow-cake in Africa and elsewhere. He is a junior anti-Christ and a junior Stalin.

You say, Cassandra

, that Saddam will not be returned to power. Well, we got him out of power. So the legal war had a good purpose. As for your comments about civil war and impending disaster, I think that you may be dining with John Kerry and his Mrs.

Don't worry, Bush is headed for a small landslide victory and Iraq will be stabilized sooner or later. The big setback goes to Islam.

 

[The Galatian]

Barbarian observes:
Don't fall for the Bush shuffle here. There were WMD at one time. But by the time Bush was ready to invade, there were no usable WMD in Iraq. The "evidence" Bush trotted out were "biological weapons trailors" later determined to be used for generating hydrogen. And the "WMD" were a couple of unusuable artillary shells with some sarin and mustard gas.

Bush is consistant with his stands,

Well, let's see...
First he says we are going to hunt down Osama. Then he says he doesn't even care where Osama is. First he says he objects to an 9/11 commission, and then he says it's a good idea. First he says that he won't allow his staff to testify, and then he flops and says he will. First, (pre 9/11) his administration says that terrorism is not a priority, and then (post 9/11) it is. First we are going to get Saddam because he has threatening WMD. Then, when we learn he didn't, we are doing it because we love Iraqis and want to remove a dictator. First Saddam is connected to terrorists, then he isn't.

And that's just on this one issue. Flipper George, indeed.

(and another clumsy shuffle-step)

the only shuffle going on, is the Kerry flip-flop shuffle, if there are no wepons of mass-destruction, or plans for making them

Don't know about "plans", but we know there were no WMD threatening the US, as Bush claimed.

then why are terrorist trying to get Sadams WMD scientist women released from the jail?

Because Saddam once had WMD, and they might know how to do it?

You actualy think thats all they found, a few unusable shells with sarin, and mustard gas?

Yep. And those two trailers that turned out to be for producing hydrogen.

They found more than they'll let us know about,

Sure they did. The guys who told you that are either gullible, or hoping you are.

and if Sadam had a little sarin, and mustard gas, you don't think there is more where that came from, or maybe he moved his WMD to a safer location, and maybe we havent hit the real pay dirt yet.

Nope. Hard to hide stuff like that, and still be able to use it. Since we now have evidence of destruction of much of it, I expect we won't find anything but an old shell or two that someone overlooked.

WMD are not the only issue here,

With Flipper George, the issue never stays the same. Remember "mission accomplished", when he was strutting around in a borrowed flight suit? Now he says we have years of dying and spending for his war.

Sadams evil dictatorship, makes people like Castro, or Kaddafi look like angels, Sadam had to go, no matter what it took, or takes, you seriously think terrorist have control of the war, or even a chance to win it? they are goming to a gun fight with a knife, they will lose.

So why aren't we taking those areas they hold? Why are our troops still dying? Why can't we leave without letting the country descent into civil war and a terrorist state?

Why aren't we winning?

 

[CoachC]

This has been an interesting debate. I guess I will throw my two cents in.

1)Saddam Hussein had WMD's, he used them against his own people on numerous occasions. This isn't in debate. President Bush spent so much time trying to smooch the but of the UN, French, German, Russian, the Left in America that Hussein moved the WMD's. Saddam knew that military victory was impossible even with chemical and nuclear weapons, he was hiding in a hole within a week of the start of the war as his army dissolved. Are we better off without him? Yes.

2) The WMD's will probably appear at an entry point into the US if we're lucky. If we're unlucky they'll appear at 9/11 part 2. God protect us all in that event.

3) Wars in general are a mess. However, every sabled son of Mohammed who flocks to Iraq to fight the great satan (us), isn't flocking to north of the Rio Grande or hometown USA to fight the great satan.

4) Kerry seems to think (or at least he did last week) that if we "cut and run" these animals will quit murdering Americans. That is naive, tragically and dangerously naive.

5) I just want to close by saying thank you to our men and women that read this board, that are serving in Afghanistan, Iraq and in the military as whole. Your service and your efforts are honorable. God Bless you all.

4)

 

[Pastor Larry]

It is a shame that with all of the available information, Galatian is still so grossly uninformed about the issues.

Let's remind ourselves of some vital facts.

1. The entire intelligence gathering community of the world believed Hussein had WMDs. If Bush lied, then so did every other nation, including France, Germany, and Russia. It is easy to say now that he didn't have them. We have the benefit of hindsight, though it is still limited.

2. There were connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The adminstration has not claimed a connection between Iraq and 9/11. That is a red herring. The 9/11 commission, the Butler report, and other investigations have confirmed that Bush was right to say that there were connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. (Galatian was shown that evidence before so we are left with the conclusion that he is willfully being dishonest. This is, unfortunately, not a first for him.)

3. We are winning. One of hte most murderous dictators of the post WWII era is now in prison, begging for mercy because Bush had the courage of conviction to stand up for freedom from tyranny. If you remember back to post WWII Europe, there were many problems of a similar nature, though in a different kind of warfare. It tooks years to get post war Europe and Japan back on their feet. It is very naive to think that we are not winning because 1 year later there are still problems. There are elections slated for 4 months from now. Anyone now how long it took post war Germany to have elections? What about post war Japan? Someone wanna take a guess (or look it up)? There are vast areas of the country that are peaceful and quiet. Those people are living in freedom for the first time in their lives.

4. The hunt for OBL has not been abandoned. There are many nations involved in the search and recent reports say they are close to capturing him. We will see ... but it is dishonest to say that Bush gave up the search got distracted. If that search was abandoned, someone forgot to tell the troops in Afghanistan. Why don't you page them Galatian. Let them know they can come home.

I realize that in teh face of such evidence, it is necessary to spin the lies and deceit faster. IT is necessary for Galatian to keep repeating the same old misinformation because he has nothing new to say. If he did his homework, he would learn how wrong he is. And then he would have to give up this position of his. So for him, he apparently would rather live in contentious ignorance than in peaceful knowledge of the fact.

If WWII had been bungled this badly, we would have probably saved several hundred thousand American lives. Of course, it was naive to think that the crumbling German empire could reach the American mainland. They were no real threat to us. The ships they could send this far could do enough damage. It is a good thing that the greatest generation didn't think like Galatian.

 

[Rooster]

This is something to think about! Since America is typically represented by an eagle. Saddam should have read up on his Muslim passages... The following verse is from the Quran, (the Islamic Bible)

Quran (9:11) -- For it is written that a son of Arabia would awaken a fearsome Eagle. The wrath of the Eagle would be felt throughout the lands of Allah and lo, while some of the people trembled in despair still more rejoiced; for the wrath of the Eagle cleansed the lands of Allah; and there was peace.
(Note the verse number...)

GOD BLESS AMERICA!

 

[KenH]

Sorry, Rooster, but someone lied to you about that -

www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/k/koran-war.htm

People really to check things like this out before passing them along. There is a lot of fictional stuff passed around on the Internet and in emails.

 

[Rooster]

AHG!!&lt; I hate false information, thankyou for straiting that out for me Brother Ken, that was an email I received, sounded good, I souldn't be so eager, and ready to belive something that I get in an email, a lot of this stuff I get is from my wife, and she is a very truthful person, sometimes I wonder is she is capable of lieing, so it is easy for me to belive such emails considering the source, but I will let her know too, thanks again.

 

[The Galatian]

And yes, Bush had been given an assesment of all the intelligence by his own Defense Intelligence Agency, which told him there was no reliable evidence that Saddam retained any WMD.

Doesn't Larry know that? Yes, he knows that.

But he's hoping the rest of you don't.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I actually took the time to do a little research. It actually didn't take long to find out that you have been being dishonest. I don't know why I was surprised at that. It happens so often.

In any event, here are the actual facts of that case.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/06/06/sprj.irq.wmd/

U.S. officials denied Friday that a Defense Intelligence Agency report from September 2002 in any way conflicted with U.S. claims about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. ... The report said there was intelligence suggesting that Saddam Hussein was distributing chemical weapons in advance of a possible war, and concluded, "Although we lack any direct information, Iraq probably possesses CW [chemical weapons] agent in chemical munitions." ... The DIA joined in the U.S. intelligence community's assessment that Saddam's regime had a program to develop weapons of mass destruction, Jacoby said. ...

...

So unless Galatian is talking about another report, he is not telling the truth ... again.

But even if he were, he is still misguided. As I have pointed out many times, the DIA was only one piece of many pieces of evidence. With the high stakes of this case, you cannot overrule the mountain of evidence assembled by the entire world with the molehill of evidence in one report.

Galatian, give it up. You are being caught over and over again in dishonesty. You know better. Hopefully one day you will learn that you are bad at lying. You get caught way too often. You ought to try a new tactic.

 

[JGrubbs]

Powell Fears Worsening Situation in Iraq

US Secretary of State Colin Powell says he sees the situation in Iraq “getting worse” as planned elections approach.

And the top US military commander for Iraq says he expects more violence in the months ahead.

Their comments yesterday followed a week in which President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi spoke optimistically about the situation, despite the beheadings of two more Americans and the deaths of dozens of people in car bombings.

In its latest report, the US military said four Marines died in separate incidents on Friday, adding to a toll that has topped 1,000 since the US-led invasion of Iraq.

SOURCE

 

[church mouse guy]

However, Powell does not want to cut and run as does the Constitution Party as well as much of the Democrat Party and all of the other leading third parties such as the Greens.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Powell Fears Worsening Situation in Iraq

US Secretary of State Colin Powell says he sees the situation in Iraq “getting worse” as planned elections approach.

This is certainly not news. It has been said for a long time that things would get worse before they get better, and that as the elections approach, violence would increase by those who would try to stop the elections. The only hope of the insurgents is to derail the elections, so they will do everything they can to make that happen.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by JGrubbs:
Powell Fears Worsening Situation in Iraq.....

We have the advantage of hindsight on some of the major decisions in US wartime history.

Should the US have quit when Washington was faced with a clearly hopeless situation at Valley Forge?

Should the US have quit when the British had so utterly routed our armies that they were able to burn Washington, DC?

Should Lincoln have given up his efforts to reunite the country and free the slaves when over 100,000 Americans had died and it seemed that the south was unbreakable?

Should Churchill have given up when the Germans had so easily over-run western Europe and were pounding England with daily bombardments? Note that 100's or thousands were dying every day.

Should the allies have given up in the face of fortress Europe?

Should the almost exclusively US effort in Korea have been abandoned when the Chinese over-ran almost all of S Korea?

Were Truman, Ike, Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush I all wrong about the Cold War... or were Kerry and Carter wrong? Would millions still be in communist bondage today if it weren't for US Cold War efforts?

We can either do what is necessary to win in Iraq or we can abandon it to terrorists.

Our lack of resolve in SE Asia resulted in death and oppression for millions. This is the one historical example of what happens when policies like those proposed by Kerry are enacted.

 

[JGrubbs]

Originally posted by Scott J:
Should Lincoln have given up his efforts to reunite the country and free the slaves when over 100,000 Americans had died and it seemed that the south was unbreakable?

Yes!!

Deo Vindice

 

[JGrubbs]

Scott J,

You can't compare the US invasion into Iraq with all of those other wars. It may sound good, and might even make a good email to forward around the Internet, but it's comparing apples to oranges.

 

[Rooster]

No its not, it shows how history repeats itself. And the reasons to stick-in there and fight a war, in the name of freedom many lives are lost, even for the freedom of our salvation, Jesus laid down his life for us, but realy it shouldn't matter to much, as this war is a sign of the end times, and soon someone from the east will come up with a plan for peace, and the anti-christ is walking the earth right now as we speak, we will be gaught up in the clouds soon, just keep an eye, and ear out for our Lord Jesus Christ he will be here very soon!

 

[JGrubbs]

We will have to disagree about "being caught up in the clouds soon", being of the pre-wrath viewpoint, I think you are right about the war being a sign of the end times, but I think we will be here during the first part of the tribulation to see the anti-christ rise to power.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by JGrubbs:
Scott J,

You can't compare the US invasion into Iraq with all of those other wars. It may sound good, and might even make a good email to forward around the Internet, but it's comparing apples to oranges.

No. Not at all- with the possible exception of the American Civil War which wasn't a matter of national defense. But that is debatable and a different issue.

There are good and evil ideologies in conflict in Iraq and the broader war on terror. One side says that everyone should be afforded liberty, self-determination, and basic human rights. The other side wants to deny these things. These have been common factors in all of the wars I mentioned (though not quite as clearly in the Civil War- the Union destroyed the 10th Amendment (good) along with slavery(evil)).

Again we have the advantage of hindsight. In the spring of 2002, GWB did not have this advantage.

The situation he faced was this:
-Everyone in a position to know thought Iraq had WMD's and intended to resume its development program as soon as the inspectors left.

-The fact is, that just as we haven't found WMD's, we haven't ruled out the possibility that they were hidden or moved to neighboring countries prior to the invasion. The one fact we know for certain is that Saddam NEVER accounted for all the weapons we knew he possessed after the first Gulf War. The intelligence Bush cited may have been true when he cited it. (I would suspect that this has something to do with our wanting to delay Saddam's trial).

-There had been contacts of unknown nature between al Qaeda and Saddam's regime.

-Saddam had a stated goal of fostering terrorism against the US and the west. (Confirmed not long ago by Putin)

-The military said that a summer invasion of Iraq increased the risks of failure and would increase casualties significantly. In fact, it was commonly held that if the invasion did not begin before the summer it should be delayed until October.

-If Saddam had still been in power by summer, the UN inspectors would have been kicked out.

-If Bush had acted differently, Dems would now be accusing him of creating a MAD like stand off due to inaction or of allowing Saddam the whole summer to prepare his defenses resulting in 10's of thousands of American casualties.

People quite often ignore the fact that military realities limited the time Bush had to make a decision. He took the safer route of not waiting.

 

[The Galatian]

I actually took the time to do a little research. It actually didn't take long to find out that you have been being dishonest.

Not long enough. As usual, you tried a little shuffle-step deception, and you got caught again.

In any event, here are the actual facts of that case.

Let's see...

"There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons, or where Iraq has -- or will --
establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities. Unusual munitions transfer activity in mid-2002 suggests that Iraq is distributing CW munitions in preparation for an anticipated U.S. attack. Iraq retains all the chemicals and equipment to produce the blister agent mustard but its ability for sustained production of
G-series nerve agents and VX is constrained by its stockpile of key chemical precursors and by the destruction of all known CW production facilities during Operation Desert Storm and during subsequent UNSCOM inspections. In the absence of external aid, Iraq will likely experience difficulties in producing nerve agents at the rate executed before Operation Desert Storm. "
http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2003/06/dod060703.html

That is precisely the opposite of what Bush told us. The report says that we don't know that they have any, but the analyst supposes that they might be induced by our impending invasion to make some, and thinks that maybe some of the activity noted is a sign of that.

Didn't Larry read this? Sure he did. But he supposed other people wouldn't. Larry is depending on the "clarification" one of Bush's people offered later, suggesting that it didn't mean what it says.

So unless Galatian is talking about another report, he is not telling the truth ...

The only definite statement in the report is that we don't know. The rest is full of "might" and "probably", and "although we lack any direction (sic) information"

Bush lied. He said he knew Saddam had WMD. And this report clearly says we didn't know. And Bush read this report.

Once you start telling lies, Larry, you'll end up telling new ones to cover the old. It's pretty much it's own punishment.

Next time, think first.

But even if he were, he is still misguided. As I have pointed out many times, the DIA was only one piece of many pieces of evidence. With the high stakes of this case, you cannot overrule the mountain of evidence assembled by the entire world with the molehill of evidence in one report.

If Bush had said: "I have contradictory information", at least it wouldn't have been a lie. But that's not what he said, was it?

Galatian, give it up. You are being caught over and over again in dishonesty.

You got yourself, this time, Larry. Never lie about something so easily exposed.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by The Galatian:
http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2003/06/dod060703.html

That is precisely the opposite of what Bush told us.

I would encourage everyone to actually read this link. It does not say what Galatian insenuates and his excerpt is not indicative of the report on whole.