What next..Bush to blame for S.E. Asian quake/Tsunami ?

POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Friday, March 11, 2005 16:01
VIEWED: 8371
PAGE 5 of 6

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

HARDWARE

Saturday, February 26, 2005 5:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by jossisagod:
I don't want to debate anything, but the actual spelling is Al-Qaeda if you don't believe me Hardware look at your own link. for all who may become angry at this post it wasn't meant to cause anger but rather to gather all the facts. it also doesn't mean that I sympathize with Bin-Laden (because I DON'T)I'm just gathering facts(you know facts, the reason Sen. Kerry was accused of flip-flopping). Also, natural cause was to blame for the quake/tsunami, no one will debate that! (I hope!)

Actually I did look at my link. I never accused anyone else of spelling the name incorrectly. I merely stated that my spelling is also correct. Having more than one correct answer is a possibility if you don't live in a black and white world.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

SIGMANUNKI

Saturday, February 26, 2005 9:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

Wow. Amnesia on command. What a feat.

LOL, that's beautiful!!!

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

AURAPTOR

Sunday, February 27, 2005 3:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I just HAD to highlight your statement for everyone's consideration.

http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_admin_iraq_o
n_the_record_rep.pdf
And for your perusal, a lengthy report on the misleading statements in the public record made by the Bush admin about Iraq. Below is a brief exerpt:

"They (President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell, and National Security Advisor Rice) made 61 misleading statements about the strength of the Iraq-al Qaeda alliance in 52 public appearances.
For example:
• In a November 7, 2002, speech, President Bush stated: Saddam Hussein is “a threat because he is dealing with Al Qaida. . . . [A] true threat facing our country is that an Al Qaida-type network trained and armed by Saddam could attack America and not leave one fingerprint.”
• In his January 28, 2003, State of the Union address, President Bush stated: “Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.”"

Bush was right about all that, and there's nothing in the least 'misleading' in those statements. Still, the al Qaeda / Saddam link was never the primary reason for attacking Iraq. Your amnesia on demand seems to have blocked out multiple U.N. Resolutions and a 15-0 Security Council vote. Nary a word about al Qaeda in them either. Hmmm. I fail to see your motivation for posting any of this.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

SIGMANUNKI

Monday, February 28, 2005 2:35 AM

@rue:
I think we should include delusional as well, eh?

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

AURAPTOR

Monday, February 28, 2005 4:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
[B]@rue:
I think we should include delusional as well, eh?

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

No reply, other than ad hominems? Classic.

Still, wanting to ignore all those pesky U.N. resolutions and such might be called........

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

SOUPCATCHER

Monday, February 28, 2005 5:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Huh? OBL + Iraq was NEVER the reason for invading Iraq. You ask if it sounded familiar, and I reply - Nope. Never heard it, sorry. How soon do you forget the Gulf War, the agreements Iraq broke, the 17 U.N. Resolutions brought up, the 10+ yrs of 'Second chances' that Saddam got , only to fall back on his word.....

The UN resolutions concerning Hussein and WMD was one part of the rationale for war. The other two parts were that Hussein had ties to terrorists, including al Qaeda, and that those terrorists could get WMDs from Hussein to attack the US. That is how the war in Iraq was justified as part of the War on Terror(ism). This war was presented as necessary for the security of our own country.

If you look at the case for war this administration presented to the American people, in various speeches, you see those three components: WMDs, terrorist ties, terrorists getting WMDs to attack us here at home. Rue has pointed out two. I'll point out two more (and expand a bit on the SOTU). Now, whether or not you personally think this is justification for a preemptive war, that is the way it was presented.

"Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq" - October 2, 2002
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

Quote:

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

"President Delivers "State of the Union"" - January 28, 2003
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html

Quote:

Today, the gravest danger in the war on terror, the gravest danger facing America and the world, is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. These regimes could use such weapons for blackmail, terror, and mass murder. They could also give or sell those weapons to terrorist allies, who would use them without the least hesitation

...

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.)

"President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hour

SIGMANUNKI

Monday, February 28, 2005 7:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Still, wanting to ignore all those pesky U.N. resolutions and such might be called........

I never ignored them. I, just like the rest of the world, know that there were a number of resolutions and such.

BUT, what isn't admitted by people like you is that although the resolutions stated that non-compliance would result in consequences, they didn't state what those consequences were, nor how harsh they were to be.

So, given that the majority of the world was against the US's action because of the clearly, to put it lightly, WEAK "evidence" to what GW and friends were saying, I'd say, along with the rest of the world, that there was no actual justification to go to war.

Feel free to debate this... again amongst yourself. I have no time to debate against something that has already been proved in my favour.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

SAGRILARUS

Monday, February 28, 2005 8:36 PM

unsubscribe

ANTHONYT

Saturday, March 5, 2005 11:37 PM

I'm not politically informed, for the most part. I don't have articles to quote or whatnot. However, I remember clearly that one of the reasons we felt the need to go into Iraq was because they had weapons of mass destruction.

Iraq might choose to use these weapons, or sell them to terrorists to use.

So I said, at the time, "I sure hope we find those weapons, or we will look like idiots to the entire world."

And so we didn't find those weapons, and so we looked like idiots to the entire world.

And so that much has to be conceded. The administration was wrong. There weren't any weapons of mass destruction. I don't know if they were wrong deliberately, or they were wrong by accident, but they were wrong.

On the bright side, we haven't had any planes crash into buildings for a while, so the terrorists are either lazy or they're being stopped. So we have to grant THAT to the administration, too.

Which counts for more? I dunno. We won't know the true impact of this administration for another 6 or 10 years, and another administration will be praised or condemned for this administration's decisions.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

SOUPCATCHER

Sunday, March 6, 2005 9:36 AM

Yeah, AnthonyT, I've had the same thought myself in terms of how this all gets written down in the history books - we just don't know yet (and which country's history book it happens to be will also affect things ).

In more general Iraq War terms, for me, it partly comes down to decisions and outcomes. While I think going into Iraq was a bad decision, I'm hoping and praying that there is a good outcome.

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE