Posted by no liberal bias!!!!! on January 29, 2007 at 13:19:13 (EST):
In Reply to: Re: 39 Pennsylvanians died this year in the war posted by Osama Bin Forgotten on January 29, 2007 at 11:43:39 (EST):
: Like I said, this is an example of ignoring the facts and pulling lies out of your ass. Americans were told by President Bush and his administration that the U.S. was going to war with Iraq because of the imminent threat of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and ties to terrorism.
: We now know this was all lies. It is now known that Bush and Co. cherry picked intelligence reports to bolster their claims for war and that is what Congress saw and voted on. The CIA told Bush that the intelligence was very suspicious and he ignored it. Secretary of State Colin Powell became alarmed at the level of intelligence distortion. When he read the first draft of his speech to the UN -- prepared for Powell by Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff (Libby, who‘s on trial now) -- he was so upset that he lost his temper, throwing several pages in the air and declaring, "I'm not reading this. This is bullsh--." Wasn’t long after that Powell resigned because I believe he didn’t want to be involved with all the lies. Saddam was allowing weapons inspectors to search for WMD. They had to leave Iraq before the war started. Bush’s own chief weapons inspector in Iraq said this, “I'm personally convinced that there were not large stockpiles of newly produced weapons of mass destruction," and "We don't find the people, the documents or the physical plants that you would expect to find if the production was going on."
: Removing Saddam only became an issue after no WMD were found. After Saddam was found, it changed to bringing democracy to Iraq. When that didn’t work out too well, it became “stay the course“. Then it because “it was never about stay the course“, and now it’s back to “stay the course“.
: Yes, Saddam Hussein had WMD (not nuclear), we know because we have the receipts. But after the first Gulf War the terms were for him to destroy them, which we now know he did. You say he hid them. Where? Phone Robert Gates and tell him quickly before they’re moved again.
: You should follow the news about Afghanistan. We turned over a large share of the military operation to the UN. We barely control one province, which is around the capital city of Kabul. The Taliban is regaining power and Osama is still free. Being you like to quote the Iraq Study Group so much, here is what they said about Afghanistan, “The group further described the situation in Afghanistan as so disastrous that they may need to divert troops from Iraq in order to help stabilize the country”. So go ahead and tell your friend that just got back from Afghanistan what I said, but I’m sure he already knows. Remember just one thing, the people who attacked us on 9/11, their leader and cohorts are here, not Iraq.
: Yes, I see that you are right about the ISG saying to put more troops into Iraq to help the Iraq army. What I find amazing about this is that the ISG final report was 160 pages long and had 79 recommendations and Bush chooses that one. They also “strongly urged" a large pull back of American troops in Iraq among other things, but Bush just chose one and discarded the other 78. I’m surprised you Bush Lovers have the courage to show your face in public.
: I must be blind, because there isn’t any “liberal bias” in the news media. That is just a right wing buzz word they use when the news reporting doesn’t go their way.
: Why would you bring Dan Rather into this conversation? Doesn’t make sense. But since you brought it up, Rather didn’t lie, the paper he had was bogus, but he didn’t know it at the time. But it doesn’t change the fact that Bush didn’t serve all his time in the National Guard. He was and still is AWOL. But you know who really lied? George Bush, many times. I’m surprised you want to argue about someone lying. Remember Bush flying onto the aircraft carrier with the “Mission Accomplished” sign behind him and he said, “Major combat operations ended on May 1, 2003. Now that’s a liar. In fact it’s such a lie that official photos of that day now on the White House web site cropped out the “Mission Accomplished” sign. You would have made a good person on the OJ jury. You see the truth before you but choose to ignore it, a true Bush disciple
: One last thing. If you are as certain about the age the military will take you as you are about why we went to war with Iraq, I can see why you are having problems. The Marines will take you between the ages of 17-29 and the Army will take you between the ages of 17-34. The Marine reserves ages are the same but the Army is 17-39. I also believe the Army will allow someone already in the military to enlist to the age of 42 (just raised it). So if you fall into those ages you can still go.
Yes, the reason WAS that "the U.S. was going to war with Iraq because of the imminent threat of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and ties to terrorism." Exactly, there were threats. There was the fact that Saddam WAS refusing to allow the IAEA INSPECTIONS. I'll repeat this again, because I have no idea what "inspectors" you are talking about. Saddam was refusing to allow the IAEA inspections.
"Cherry picked"? Of course they "cherry picked". What would you expect them to do, include every surveilace photo ever taken? Yes they "picked" the photos that they deemed to be proof of a threat. Why would they "pick" phtos that did not?
This guy you quote says "I'm personally convinced that there were not large stockpiles of newly produced weapons of mass destruction".
So he's convinced that there were not "LARGE" stockpiles of "NEWLY PRODUCED" WMD's.
I guess it would be OKAY if they had SMALL STCKPILES of PREVIOUSLY PRODUCED WMD's.
I guess you can't understand chains of events.
Yes, removing Saddam WAS an "issue" because he was the one prohibitting the inspections. Yes, democracy WAS an issue, because once we removed him from power, they had to replace his dctatorship with a democratically elected governent.
Therefore, as soon as we decided to invade, the end goal was democracy in Iraq.
Plain enough for ya?
We have not "failed" as you said in Afghanistan. We've wiped out thousands of terrorists, including many of the leaders of Al Qaeda. The fact that more still remain, or that Osamma is "still free" (by the way he hasn't been seen or heard of for quite some time, so he may very well be dead) does not mean we've "failed". Like I said, one of the biggest problems about this whole deal is that people like you actually WANT us to fail, so that you have more to blame on Bush.
Also, it's JUST GREAT for the troops morale when they are over there laying it on the line and people back here minimize everything they accomplish.
So you agree that what Bush is doing WAS suggested by the ISG, a bipartisan group.
Yeah, he select ONE course of action. If they suggested INCREASING troop levels, how in the hell could they ALSO "strongly urge: a large PULL BACK.
Yeah, he picke one of their options.
Oh my God!!! I can't b e l i e v e you can actually say that there is no liberal bias in the media today!!! Not with a straight face anyway!!
You gotta be freakin blind, stupid or both!!
I brought up Rather to SHOW the liberal bias. Yeah right, he didn't know it was a bogus paper, that's probably why they canned his ass.
The "mission accomplished" sign was put there by the ship's crew, not Bush. Besides that, THAT "mission" WAS accomplished. Saddam WAS removed from power.
Major combat operations for the war AGAINST Iraq were, and ARE over.
What is going on there no is a completely differnet war, a war AGAINST the insurgency.
I guess you missed the "mangled" part. NO I do not fall into those ages. Apparently the age has changed since I talked to the recruiter. That was probably about 10 or 12 years ago.