|
Cheney going to Hell
Republican Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina said Saturday that former Vice President Dick Cheney would likely end up in hell because of his role in the Iraq war. At a Young Americans for Liberty conference, Jones said it was impossible under current law to prosecute a president for intentionally manipulating intelligence reports to make the case for war. He explained he co-authored a bill to change the law, but the legislation was killed in committee by his Republican colleague Lamar Smith of Texas. “I have no malice towards Lamar, I have respect for him,” Jones remarked. “But that again is the problem. Congress will not hold anyone to blame. Lyndon Johnson’s probably rotting in hell right now because of the Vietnam War, and he probably needs to move over for Dick Cheney.” Jones initially voted in favor of the Iraq war in 2002. He infamous called for “French fries” to be renamed “freedom fries” after France refused to support the U.S. invasion of the country. The conservative Christian turned against the war after witnessing American causalities and once it became clear Iraq was not building any weapons of mass destruction. |
Cheney going to Hell
|
Cheney going to Hell
On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 17:57:11 -0800, jps wrote:
Republican Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina said Saturday that former Vice President Dick Cheney would likely end up in hell because of his role in the Iraq war. At a Young Americans for Liberty conference, Jones said it was impossible under current law to prosecute a president for intentionally manipulating intelligence reports to make the case for war. He explained he co-authored a bill to change the law, but the legislation was killed in committee by his Republican colleague Lamar Smith of Texas. “I have no malice towards Lamar, I have respect for him,” Jones remarked. “But that again is the problem. Congress will not hold anyone to blame. Lyndon Johnson’s probably rotting in hell right now because of the Vietnam War, and he probably needs to move over for Dick Cheney.” Jones initially voted in favor of the Iraq war in 2002. He infamous called for “French fries” to be renamed “freedom fries” after France refused to support the U.S. invasion of the country. The conservative Christian turned against the war after witnessing American causalities and once it became clear Iraq was not building any weapons of mass destruction. That last sentence is probably true of most conservatives. 'Once it became clear Iraq was not building any weapons of mass destruction.' The Iraq war was initiated because our intelligence, the intelligence of our allies, the leadership of Iraq, and our Congress believed or announced the building and storage of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The author's statement about the Iraq war makes one wonder why the hell we're in Afghanistan. Salmonbait -- "That's not a baby kicking, dear Bride, it's just a fetus!" |
Cheney going to Hell
On 2/26/13 8:30 AM, J Herring wrote:
The Iraq war was initiated because our intelligence, the intelligence of our allies, the leadership of Iraq, and our Congress believed or announced the building and storage of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Salmonbait -- That's just Herring lying to perpetuate the Bush Administration's lies. The Bush Administration and its neocon supplicants cooked the intel out of Iraq and cooked it over and over and over, and fed false intel to our allies, too. This has been discussed openly for years, the Brits have discussed how they were duped by cooked intel. The sad thing is that the righties are still trying to rewrite the reality of the Bush Administration's bull**** that got us into Iran. |
Cheney going to Hell
|
Cheney going to Hell
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message ... On 2/26/13 8:30 AM, J Herring wrote: The Iraq war was initiated because our intelligence, the intelligence of our allies, the leadership of Iraq, and our Congress believed or announced the building and storage of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Salmonbait -- That's just Herring lying to perpetuate the Bush Administration's lies. The Bush Administration and its neocon supplicants cooked the intel out of Iraq and cooked it over and over and over, and fed false intel to our allies, too. This has been discussed openly for years, the Brits have discussed how they were duped by cooked intel. The sad thing is that the righties are still trying to rewrite the reality of the Bush Administration's bull**** that got us into Iran. -------------------------------------------------------------- So, what was his motivations to "cook" the intel and "lie" to the nation and the world? I remember hearing, "It's all about the oil". No evidence of that ever came to be. I remember hearing, "Revenge for trying to assassinate his father". No real evidence of that, other than speculation by some. I remember hearing, "It's Cheney getting Hallibuton contracts" . Yes, Hallibuton got contracts but they were the only company with the resources to do them. So, what's the real reason Bush cooked the intel and lied to the world? Seems to me that even he is smart enough to realize what the historical and personal ramifications would be if he knowingly lied and conducted a war for personal reasons. I just can't buy that. If he cooked the intel, then so did many others, including many Republicans and Democrats in the Senate who saw the same reports, acquired domestically and by our allies. What was Bush doing, sitting at his computer, modifying the raw data and releasing it to Congress? |
Cheney going to Hell
On 2/26/13 8:58 AM, Eisboch wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message ... On 2/26/13 8:30 AM, J Herring wrote: The Iraq war was initiated because our intelligence, the intelligence of our allies, the leadership of Iraq, and our Congress believed or announced the building and storage of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Salmonbait -- That's just Herring lying to perpetuate the Bush Administration's lies. The Bush Administration and its neocon supplicants cooked the intel out of Iraq and cooked it over and over and over, and fed false intel to our allies, too. This has been discussed openly for years, the Brits have discussed how they were duped by cooked intel. The sad thing is that the righties are still trying to rewrite the reality of the Bush Administration's bull**** that got us into Iran. -------------------------------------------------------------- So, what was his motivations to "cook" the intel and "lie" to the nation and the world? I remember hearing, "It's all about the oil". No evidence of that ever came to be. I remember hearing, "Revenge for trying to assassinate his father". No real evidence of that, other than speculation by some. I remember hearing, "It's Cheney getting Hallibuton contracts" . Yes, Hallibuton got contracts but they were the only company with the resources to do them. So, what's the real reason Bush cooked the intel and lied to the world? Seems to me that even he is smart enough to realize what the historical and personal ramifications would be if he knowingly lied and conducted a war for personal reasons. I just can't buy that. If he cooked the intel, then so did many others, including many Republicans and Democrats in the Senate who saw the same reports, acquired domestically and by our allies. What was Bush doing, sitting at his computer, modifying the raw data and releasing it to Congress? I recall news reports quoting Bush in meetings discussing "getting back" at Iraq for targeting his dad. But, I think the real reason Bush started a war against Iraq is because after 9-11 and his failure to catch Osama, Bush's advisers, especially Cheney, told him that lying us into a war against Iraq would be a good way to assure his re-election. |
Cheney going to Hell
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 08:58:34 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message ... On 2/26/13 8:30 AM, J Herring wrote: The Iraq war was initiated because our intelligence, the intelligence of our allies, the leadership of Iraq, and our Congress believed or announced the building and storage of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Salmonbait -- That's just Herring lying to perpetuate the Bush Administration's lies. The Bush Administration and its neocon supplicants cooked the intel out of Iraq and cooked it over and over and over, and fed false intel to our allies, too. This has been discussed openly for years, the Brits have discussed how they were duped by cooked intel. The sad thing is that the righties are still trying to rewrite the reality of the Bush Administration's bull**** that got us into Iran. -------------------------------------------------------------- So, what was his motivations to "cook" the intel and "lie" to the nation and the world? I remember hearing, "It's all about the oil". No evidence of that ever came to be. I remember hearing, "Revenge for trying to assassinate his father". No real evidence of that, other than speculation by some. I remember hearing, "It's Cheney getting Hallibuton contracts" . Yes, Hallibuton got contracts but they were the only company with the resources to do them. So, what's the real reason Bush cooked the intel and lied to the world? Seems to me that even he is smart enough to realize what the historical and personal ramifications would be if he knowingly lied and conducted a war for personal reasons. I just can't buy that. If he cooked the intel, then so did many others, including many Republicans and Democrats in the Senate who saw the same reports, acquired domestically and by our allies. What was Bush doing, sitting at his computer, modifying the raw data and releasing it to Congress? I seem to recall ESAD being one of the biggest "it's all about oil" contenders - along with the rest of the liberals piling on. Of course, that's all conveniently forgotten. -- Salmonbait All decisions are the result of binary thinking. |
Cheney going to Hell
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message ... On 2/26/13 8:58 AM, Eisboch wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote in message ... On 2/26/13 8:30 AM, J Herring wrote: The Iraq war was initiated because our intelligence, the intelligence of our allies, the leadership of Iraq, and our Congress believed or announced the building and storage of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Salmonbait -- That's just Herring lying to perpetuate the Bush Administration's lies. The Bush Administration and its neocon supplicants cooked the intel out of Iraq and cooked it over and over and over, and fed false intel to our allies, too. This has been discussed openly for years, the Brits have discussed how they were duped by cooked intel. The sad thing is that the righties are still trying to rewrite the reality of the Bush Administration's bull**** that got us into Iran. -------------------------------------------------------------- So, what was his motivations to "cook" the intel and "lie" to the nation and the world? I remember hearing, "It's all about the oil". No evidence of that ever came to be. I remember hearing, "Revenge for trying to assassinate his father". No real evidence of that, other than speculation by some. I remember hearing, "It's Cheney getting Hallibuton contracts" . Yes, Hallibuton got contracts but they were the only company with the resources to do them. So, what's the real reason Bush cooked the intel and lied to the world? Seems to me that even he is smart enough to realize what the historical and personal ramifications would be if he knowingly lied and conducted a war for personal reasons. I just can't buy that. If he cooked the intel, then so did many others, including many Republicans and Democrats in the Senate who saw the same reports, acquired domestically and by our allies. What was Bush doing, sitting at his computer, modifying the raw data and releasing it to Congress? I recall news reports quoting Bush in meetings discussing "getting back" at Iraq for targeting his dad. But, I think the real reason Bush started a war against Iraq is because after 9-11 and his failure to catch Osama, Bush's advisers, especially Cheney, told him that lying us into a war against Iraq would be a good way to assure his re-election. -------------------------------------------------- Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, was becoming increasingly defiant of the UN resolutions agreed to after the first Gulf War. US and coalition aircraft patrolling the "no fly" zone were being fired upon. Iraqi fixed wing aircraft were flying, in defiance of the UN resolutions. Hussein bragged about his WMD's and was mass murdering many of innocent Iraqi citizens. His sons were basically thugs. This was all happening at the end of the Clinton administration and Clinton warned Bush of increasing problems again with Iraq. If you recall, Bush did not rush into invading Iraq. At least six months were spent holding meetings and presenting data in the UN. (I guess he fooled them too.) Bottom line was that Iraq was determined to be a serious threat again to stability in the region and to those allies we had in the area. Hussein refused to allow weapons inspectors to do their job, fueling more speculation that his claims of having WMD's was real. There were also conveys of trucks moving "something" out of Iraq and into Syria, not long before the invasion took place. Hussein was given an ultimatum for him and his sons to leave. He thumbed his nose at the UN and the world. I think mistakes were made, the biggest being underestimating the time it would take for the country to stabilize after Hussein was found and removed from power. But I am not convinced that Bush purposely invaded Iraq for personal political advantage. |
Cheney going to Hell
|
Cheney going to Hell
|
Cheney going to Hell
|
Cheney going to Hell
On 2/26/13 12:52 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 12:38:15 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 2/26/13 12:25 PM, wrote: We took out Saddam because he was threatening Israel. It is the same reason we will have a war with Iran. Ahh...another in the Heinz 57 rationales for the Bush Admin lying us into Iraq. When you look at what is happening in Iran, it is the most likely scenario. The current situation depends more on what Netanyahu does than anyone in Iran or Washington. The only question is whether we let Israel start the war or whether we do it. Politically it may be better for us to do it, like we did in Iraq. If Israel starts it we will still be drawn in but we won't have any cover. Ahh, I was referring to Iraq. I feel out of my league trying to predict what Iran, North Korea, or the Pakistanis will do about anything, since they are run by insane people. Saddam was a butcher, but I don't think he was in the same league of insanity as the leaders of the countries I referenced here. |
Cheney going to Hell
In article ,
says... On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 12:38:15 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 2/26/13 12:25 PM, wrote: We took out Saddam because he was threatening Israel. It is the same reason we will have a war with Iran. Ahh...another in the Heinz 57 rationales for the Bush Admin lying us into Iraq. When you look at what is happening in Iran, it is the most likely scenario. The current situation depends more on what Netanyahu does than anyone in Iran or Washington. The only question is whether we let Israel start the war or whether we do it. Politically it may be better for us to do it, like we did in Iraq. If Israel starts it we will still be drawn in but we won't have any cover. I don't for the life of me understand why we continue to babysit and coddle Israel. Unless, of course this is all about wars of the various gods. |
Cheney going to Hell
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 13:01:34 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 2/26/13 12:52 PM, wrote: On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 12:38:15 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 2/26/13 12:25 PM, wrote: We took out Saddam because he was threatening Israel. It is the same reason we will have a war with Iran. Ahh...another in the Heinz 57 rationales for the Bush Admin lying us into Iraq. When you look at what is happening in Iran, it is the most likely scenario. The current situation depends more on what Netanyahu does than anyone in Iran or Washington. The only question is whether we let Israel start the war or whether we do it. Politically it may be better for us to do it, like we did in Iraq. If Israel starts it we will still be drawn in but we won't have any cover. Ahh, I was referring to Iraq. I feel out of my league trying to predict what Iran, North Korea, or the Pakistanis will do about anything, since they are run by insane people. Saddam was a butcher, but I don't think he was in the same league of insanity as the leaders of the countries I referenced here. I'm not convinced that Jim Jung Whatever is crazy. They know they will be nuked if they should actually start something. Same with Iran. I'm not concerned about the current Pak leadership, but I am concerned about their nukes being taken over by religous zealots or if the leadership there and the Indian leadership miscalculate. If it was true that Israel was threatened by Saddam, they would have acted. As it was, we restrained Israel from acting, which was the only smart thing Bush did. Other than that, he lied about the reasons, and ****ed up Iraq and Afganistan. Of course, since Fretwell has so much worldly experience working at IBM 20 years ago, he's gotta be the ****ing expert in that, gun safety, raising kids, milking goats, and fixing drones. Whatever. How anyone can listen to him after all his bull**** and unsupported nonsense astounds me. |
Cheney going to Hell
"Boating All Out" wrote in message ... In article , says... Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, was becoming increasingly defiant of the UN resolutions agreed to after the first Gulf War. US and coalition aircraft patrolling the "no fly" zone were being fired upon. Iraqi fixed wing aircraft were flying, in defiance of the UN resolutions. Hussein bragged about his WMD's and was mass murdering many of innocent Iraqi citizens. His sons were basically thugs. This was all happening at the end of the Clinton administration and Clinton warned Bush of increasing problems again with Iraq. It was happening after 9-11. Bush and his neocons wanted their balls back. Any target would do, but since Afghanistan scared the bejesus out of them - and had no oil - Iraq was the best for nation building. Make everybody American. That's how they view the world. Bush senior and his crew were sure that Saddam would fall after the Gulf war. He didn't. Bush junior and his crew were sure the Iraqis would shower roses on the "liberating Americans." They didn't. Father and son and their crews were just dumb-asses. History bears witness. Oil was supposed to be the cherry on the cake. If you recall, Bush did not rush into invading Iraq. At least six months were spent holding meetings and presenting data in the UN. (I guess he fooled them too.) Bottom line was that Iraq was determined to be a serious threat again to stability in the region and to those allies we had in the area. It took time to build the fabric of lies. How many articles did Judith Miller of the New York Times write, based on lies fed to her from the Bush administration? How many appearances by Cheney, Rice, et al, on Sunday morning shows, lying about aluminum tubes, African uranium purchases, Atta meeting the Iraqi secret service, and mushroom clouds? It had to be a lengthy and well orchestrated process to get the dumb-ass Dems to vote for the war powers act, as they did. The UN never bought into it and never approved war. I don't know where you get that. Hussein refused to allow weapons inspectors to do their job, fueling more speculation that his claims of having WMD's was real. There were also conveys of trucks moving "something" out of Iraq and into Syria, not long before the invasion took place. Hussein was given an ultimatum for him and his sons to leave. He thumbed his nose at the UN and the world. Utter bull****. Saddam even allowed his palaces to be inspected. UN inspectors could chopper into any location in Iraq. The ultimatum came from GWB. The UN wanted no part of it. ----------------------------- ------------------------------ Inspections were allowed only in "approved" areas. Inspectors were *not* permitted in locations of their own choosing. There was an active, delaying action taking place. _______________________________ ______________________________- You're nuts even suggesting WMD were spirited out of Iraq in convoys of trucks. Don't you even know that Colin Powell showed clear satellite shots to the UN of what he claimed to be "mobile WMD production labs?" But he wouldn't give the UN inspectors the location. Later shots were taken from the ground by U.S. reporters. It was a ****ing tractor trailer junkyard. And the "something" you speak of was probably a ****ing convoy transporting goat milk. You really drank the kool-ade on this. I think mistakes were made, the biggest being underestimating the time it would take for the country to stabilize after Hussein was found and removed from power. But I am not convinced that Bush purposely invaded Iraq for personal political advantage. The biggest mistake was electing dumb-ass GWB as POTUS. What motivated him isn't even important. It's his dumb-ass conduct that matters. You're always going to get dumb-ass motivations from a dumb-ass. Krause and jps provide plenty of examples from the "other side" when they shoot off their mouths without thinking first. Get over it. Reality and facts are all over the internet, so your "opinions" mean nothing unless backed by facts. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Here's a chronology by that ultra right wing news faction .... The Public Broadcasting System: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl.../etc/cron.html worth a read. |
Cheney going to Hell
On 2/26/13 1:46 PM, J Herring wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 10:31:28 -0500, Gogarty wrote: (Snip) I have always wondered why the intelligence agencies did not contact foreign nationals doing business in Iraq. Who knows better what's going on in a country than those who buy and sell goods and services to that country? I would hope to hell those who sell goods and services to this country (aka Chinese, etc.) don't know better than us what's going on here in the way of weapons. Not to worry...Dick Cheney is analyzing those aluminum tubes and trailers. |
Cheney going to Hell
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 10:31:28 -0500, Gogarty wrote:
(Snip) I have always wondered why the intelligence agencies did not contact foreign nationals doing business in Iraq. Who knows better what's going on in a country than those who buy and sell goods and services to that country? I would hope to hell those who sell goods and services to this country (aka Chinese, etc.) don't know better than us what's going on here in the way of weapons. -- Salmonbait All decisions are the result of binary thinking. |
Cheney going to Hell
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 08:58:34 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message ... On 2/26/13 8:30 AM, J Herring wrote: The Iraq war was initiated because our intelligence, the intelligence of our allies, the leadership of Iraq, and our Congress believed or announced the building and storage of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Salmonbait -- That's just Herring lying to perpetuate the Bush Administration's lies. The Bush Administration and its neocon supplicants cooked the intel out of Iraq and cooked it over and over and over, and fed false intel to our allies, too. This has been discussed openly for years, the Brits have discussed how they were duped by cooked intel. The sad thing is that the righties are still trying to rewrite the reality of the Bush Administration's bull**** that got us into Iran. -------------------------------------------------------------- So, what was his motivations to "cook" the intel and "lie" to the nation and the world? I remember hearing, "It's all about the oil". No evidence of that ever came to be. I remember hearing, "Revenge for trying to assassinate his father". No real evidence of that, other than speculation by some. I remember hearing, "It's Cheney getting Hallibuton contracts" . Yes, Hallibuton got contracts but they were the only company with the resources to do them. So, what's the real reason Bush cooked the intel and lied to the world? Seems to me that even he is smart enough to realize what the historical and personal ramifications would be if he knowingly lied and conducted a war for personal reasons. I just can't buy that. If he cooked the intel, then so did many others, including many Republicans and Democrats in the Senate who saw the same reports, acquired domestically and by our allies. What was Bush doing, sitting at his computer, modifying the raw data and releasing it to Congress? The justification was different for every player. For Bush it was the insult to his dad and the fact that dad had screwed the Iraqis in the first gulf war. For Cheney it was the oil. If they could have controlled the outcome of the war and installed their puppet government, they could have controlled a ****load of oil. For Rumsfeld, who the **** knows. The guy is an asshole. For the Zionists (Wolfowitz and Pearl), it was to protect Israel. And everybody in the room was signed up for the other's objective. It all made sense to them but it was a giant miscalculation. They were all looking for an excuse to invade Iraq, long before 911. |
Cheney going to Hell
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 10:31:28 -0500, Gogarty
wrote: (Snip) I have always wondered why the intelligence agencies did not contact foreign nationals doing business in Iraq. Who knows better what's going on in a country than those who buy and sell goods and services to that country? They did. They knew the "yellowcake" story was a fabrication, they knew the "aluminum tubes" were the wrong size and gauge for refining nuclear material and they knew the Winnebagos were too small to be a "mobile weapons lab." It was ginned up intel proven wrong before any of it was presented. |
Cheney going to Hell
"jps" wrote in message ... And everybody in the room was signed up for the other's objective. It all made sense to them but it was a giant miscalculation. They were all looking for an excuse to invade Iraq, long before 911. ----------------------------------------- Indeed. The stage was set back in 1998 when then President Clinton signed the "Iraq Liberation Act" which passed the House by a vote of 360 to 38 and by the Senate by unanimous consent. The Act essentially established a policy for regime change in Iraq. Here's what Clinton had to say back then: "Iraq admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.... Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits.... It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.... Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal...." .... President Bill Clinton, 1998 One could say that Clinton talked the talk but Bush walked the walk. |
Cheney going to Hell
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 15:03:03 -0500, wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 13:01:34 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 2/26/13 12:52 PM, wrote: When you look at what is happening in Iran, it is the most likely scenario. The current situation depends more on what Netanyahu does than anyone in Iran or Washington. The only question is whether we let Israel start the war or whether we do it. Politically it may be better for us to do it, like we did in Iraq. If Israel starts it we will still be drawn in but we won't have any cover. Ahh, I was referring to Iraq. I feel out of my league trying to predict what Iran, North Korea, or the Pakistanis will do about anything, since they are run by insane people. Saddam was a butcher, but I don't think he was in the same league of insanity as the leaders of the countries I referenced here. We don't mind butchers. If Saddam would have signed a non-aggression pact with Israel like Mubarak, we would have let him kill all the Kurds he wanted. We actually supported him when he fought with Iran. They are building the same WMD case against Iran as they did against Iraq and I fear the result will be the same, except Iran may end up being a harder nut to crack. There are even people here who want us to get into the Syrian mess and that is another butcher we had a deal with. It is also clear the Russians are supporting with Assad. They seem to prefer the butcher they know to a new butcher they don't. I really wonder how many unstable governments we can have in that region before we reach critical mass and lose the whole thing to the ayatollahs Have you been reading Tom Clancy again? -- Salmonbait All decisions are the result of binary thinking. |
Cheney going to Hell
|
Cheney going to Hell
On 2/26/13 3:50 PM, Eisboch wrote:
"jps" wrote in message ... And everybody in the room was signed up for the other's objective. It all made sense to them but it was a giant miscalculation. They were all looking for an excuse to invade Iraq, long before 911. ----------------------------------------- Indeed. The stage was set back in 1998 when then President Clinton signed the "Iraq Liberation Act" which passed the House by a vote of 360 to 38 and by the Senate by unanimous consent. The Act essentially established a policy for regime change in Iraq. Here's what Clinton had to say back then: "Iraq admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.... Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits.... It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.... Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal...." .... President Bill Clinton, 1998 One could say that Clinton talked the talk but Bush walked the walk. One might say that Clinton was smart enough to talk the talk, and Bush was dumb enough to walk the walk. |
Cheney going to Hell
wrote in message ... On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 15:50:06 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: "jps" wrote in message .. . And everybody in the room was signed up for the other's objective. It all made sense to them but it was a giant miscalculation. They were all looking for an excuse to invade Iraq, long before 911. ----------------------------------------- Indeed. The stage was set back in 1998 when then President Clinton signed the "Iraq Liberation Act" which passed the House by a vote of 360 to 38 and by the Senate by unanimous consent. The Act essentially established a policy for regime change in Iraq. Here's what Clinton had to say back then: "Iraq admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.... Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits.... It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.... Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal...." .... President Bill Clinton, 1998 One could say that Clinton talked the talk but Bush walked the walk. People want to forget that. ---------------------------------------------------- Some people also want to forget that Clinton ordered the bombing and cruise missile strikes on targets in Iraq in 1998 based on "Iraq's failure to comply with United Nations Security Council resolutions as well as their interference with United Nations Special Commission inspectors." And he also ordered the famous strikes in Afghanistan and Sudan. The cruise missiles fired at suspected terrorist camps were an attempt to kill bin Laden, who was thought to be connected to the bombing of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Problem was, bin Laden wasn't there. It was also later determined that the strikes in Sudan at a pharmaceutical plant was based on bad intel or just bad decision making: "the evidence that prompted President Clinton to order the missile strike on the Shifa plant was not as solid as first portrayed." Indeed, officials later said that there was no proof that the plant had been manufacturing or storing nerve gas, as initially suspected by the Americans, or had been linked to Osama bin Laden, who was a resident of Khartoum in the 1990s." This is why I don't automatically buy into the "Bush lied us into war" routine, favored by many. Seems there were enough mistakes and bad intel to go around for everybody. |
Cheney going to Hell
On 2/26/13 5:48 PM, Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message ... On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 15:50:06 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: "jps" wrote in message ... And everybody in the room was signed up for the other's objective. It all made sense to them but it was a giant miscalculation. They were all looking for an excuse to invade Iraq, long before 911. ----------------------------------------- Indeed. The stage was set back in 1998 when then President Clinton signed the "Iraq Liberation Act" which passed the House by a vote of 360 to 38 and by the Senate by unanimous consent. The Act essentially established a policy for regime change in Iraq. Here's what Clinton had to say back then: "Iraq admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.... Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits.... It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.... Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal...." .... President Bill Clinton, 1998 One could say that Clinton talked the talk but Bush walked the walk. People want to forget that. ---------------------------------------------------- Some people also want to forget that Clinton ordered the bombing and cruise missile strikes on targets in Iraq in 1998 based on "Iraq's failure to comply with United Nations Security Council resolutions as well as their interference with United Nations Special Commission inspectors." And he also ordered the famous strikes in Afghanistan and Sudan. The cruise missiles fired at suspected terrorist camps were an attempt to kill bin Laden, who was thought to be connected to the bombing of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Problem was, bin Laden wasn't there. It was also later determined that the strikes in Sudan at a pharmaceutical plant was based on bad intel or just bad decision making: "the evidence that prompted President Clinton to order the missile strike on the Shifa plant was not as solid as first portrayed." Indeed, officials later said that there was no proof that the plant had been manufacturing or storing nerve gas, as initially suspected by the Americans, or had been linked to Osama bin Laden, who was a resident of Khartoum in the 1990s." This is why I don't automatically buy into the "Bush lied us into war" routine, favored by many. Seems there were enough mistakes and bad intel to go around for everybody. Once again, Clinton was smart enough to not invade Iraq with a huge military force and depose Saddam Hussein. G.W. Bush was not that smart. |
Cheney going to Hell
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message m... On 2/26/13 5:48 PM, Eisboch wrote: wrote in message ... On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 15:50:06 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: "jps" wrote in message ... And everybody in the room was signed up for the other's objective. It all made sense to them but it was a giant miscalculation. They were all looking for an excuse to invade Iraq, long before 911. ----------------------------------------- Indeed. The stage was set back in 1998 when then President Clinton signed the "Iraq Liberation Act" which passed the House by a vote of 360 to 38 and by the Senate by unanimous consent. The Act essentially established a policy for regime change in Iraq. Here's what Clinton had to say back then: "Iraq admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.... Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits.... It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.... Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal...." .... President Bill Clinton, 1998 One could say that Clinton talked the talk but Bush walked the walk. People want to forget that. ---------------------------------------------------- Some people also want to forget that Clinton ordered the bombing and cruise missile strikes on targets in Iraq in 1998 based on "Iraq's failure to comply with United Nations Security Council resolutions as well as their interference with United Nations Special Commission inspectors." And he also ordered the famous strikes in Afghanistan and Sudan. The cruise missiles fired at suspected terrorist camps were an attempt to kill bin Laden, who was thought to be connected to the bombing of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Problem was, bin Laden wasn't there. It was also later determined that the strikes in Sudan at a pharmaceutical plant was based on bad intel or just bad decision making: "the evidence that prompted President Clinton to order the missile strike on the Shifa plant was not as solid as first portrayed." Indeed, officials later said that there was no proof that the plant had been manufacturing or storing nerve gas, as initially suspected by the Americans, or had been linked to Osama bin Laden, who was a resident of Khartoum in the 1990s." This is why I don't automatically buy into the "Bush lied us into war" routine, favored by many. Seems there were enough mistakes and bad intel to go around for everybody. Once again, Clinton was smart enough to not invade Iraq with a huge military force and depose Saddam Hussein. G.W. Bush was not that smart. --------------------------------------- One might say that Bush was successful whereas Clinton was not. :-) We will never know what "could have been" had Hussein remained in power. We can only speculate. Not to dismiss or minimize the price paid in American or innocent Iraqi lives, but the reality is that it is a price that sometimes has to be paid and a pain to be borne. Dismissing it all as "lies" serves nothing but to make those who lost a loved one (who was doing his/her job) even more painful to bear. It has happened before and will certainly happen again. |
Cheney going to Hell
On 2/26/13 6:09 PM, Eisboch wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message m... On 2/26/13 5:48 PM, Eisboch wrote: wrote in message ... On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 15:50:06 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: "jps" wrote in message ... And everybody in the room was signed up for the other's objective. It all made sense to them but it was a giant miscalculation. They were all looking for an excuse to invade Iraq, long before 911. ----------------------------------------- Indeed. The stage was set back in 1998 when then President Clinton signed the "Iraq Liberation Act" which passed the House by a vote of 360 to 38 and by the Senate by unanimous consent. The Act essentially established a policy for regime change in Iraq. Here's what Clinton had to say back then: "Iraq admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.... Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits.... It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.... Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal...." .... President Bill Clinton, 1998 One could say that Clinton talked the talk but Bush walked the walk. People want to forget that. ---------------------------------------------------- Some people also want to forget that Clinton ordered the bombing and cruise missile strikes on targets in Iraq in 1998 based on "Iraq's failure to comply with United Nations Security Council resolutions as well as their interference with United Nations Special Commission inspectors." And he also ordered the famous strikes in Afghanistan and Sudan. The cruise missiles fired at suspected terrorist camps were an attempt to kill bin Laden, who was thought to be connected to the bombing of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Problem was, bin Laden wasn't there. It was also later determined that the strikes in Sudan at a pharmaceutical plant was based on bad intel or just bad decision making: "the evidence that prompted President Clinton to order the missile strike on the Shifa plant was not as solid as first portrayed." Indeed, officials later said that there was no proof that the plant had been manufacturing or storing nerve gas, as initially suspected by the Americans, or had been linked to Osama bin Laden, who was a resident of Khartoum in the 1990s." This is why I don't automatically buy into the "Bush lied us into war" routine, favored by many. Seems there were enough mistakes and bad intel to go around for everybody. Once again, Clinton was smart enough to not invade Iraq with a huge military force and depose Saddam Hussein. G.W. Bush was not that smart. --------------------------------------- One might say that Bush was successful whereas Clinton was not. :-) We will never know what "could have been" had Hussein remained in power. We can only speculate. Not to dismiss or minimize the price paid in American or innocent Iraqi lives, but the reality is that it is a price that sometimes has to be paid and a pain to be borne. Dismissing it all as "lies" serves nothing but to make those who lost a loved one (who was doing his/her job) even more painful to bear. It has happened before and will certainly happen again. One might say that Clinton was smarter and more successul, because during his watch, Americans weren't sent in to invade Iraq, 4000 Americans weren't killed, tens of thousands of Americans weren't injured, at least 100,000 Iraqis didn't die, and we didn't blow what will turn out to be $2 billion plus on a moronic war effort. |
Cheney going to Hell
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message m... On 2/26/13 6:09 PM, Eisboch wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote in message m... On 2/26/13 5:48 PM, Eisboch wrote: wrote in message ... On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 15:50:06 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: "jps" wrote in message ... And everybody in the room was signed up for the other's objective. It all made sense to them but it was a giant miscalculation. They were all looking for an excuse to invade Iraq, long before 911. ----------------------------------------- Indeed. The stage was set back in 1998 when then President Clinton signed the "Iraq Liberation Act" which passed the House by a vote of 360 to 38 and by the Senate by unanimous consent. The Act essentially established a policy for regime change in Iraq. Here's what Clinton had to say back then: "Iraq admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.... Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits.... It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.... Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal...." .... President Bill Clinton, 1998 One could say that Clinton talked the talk but Bush walked the walk. People want to forget that. ---------------------------------------------------- Some people also want to forget that Clinton ordered the bombing and cruise missile strikes on targets in Iraq in 1998 based on "Iraq's failure to comply with United Nations Security Council resolutions as well as their interference with United Nations Special Commission inspectors." And he also ordered the famous strikes in Afghanistan and Sudan. The cruise missiles fired at suspected terrorist camps were an attempt to kill bin Laden, who was thought to be connected to the bombing of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Problem was, bin Laden wasn't there. It was also later determined that the strikes in Sudan at a pharmaceutical plant was based on bad intel or just bad decision making: "the evidence that prompted President Clinton to order the missile strike on the Shifa plant was not as solid as first portrayed." Indeed, officials later said that there was no proof that the plant had been manufacturing or storing nerve gas, as initially suspected by the Americans, or had been linked to Osama bin Laden, who was a resident of Khartoum in the 1990s." This is why I don't automatically buy into the "Bush lied us into war" routine, favored by many. Seems there were enough mistakes and bad intel to go around for everybody. Once again, Clinton was smart enough to not invade Iraq with a huge military force and depose Saddam Hussein. G.W. Bush was not that smart. --------------------------------------- One might say that Bush was successful whereas Clinton was not. :-) We will never know what "could have been" had Hussein remained in power. We can only speculate. Not to dismiss or minimize the price paid in American or innocent Iraqi lives, but the reality is that it is a price that sometimes has to be paid and a pain to be borne. Dismissing it all as "lies" serves nothing but to make those who lost a loved one (who was doing his/her job) even more painful to bear. It has happened before and will certainly happen again. One might say that Clinton was smarter and more successul, because during his watch, Americans weren't sent in to invade Iraq, 4000 Americans weren't killed, tens of thousands of Americans weren't injured, at least 100,000 Iraqis didn't die, and we didn't blow what will turn out to be $2 billion plus on a moronic war effort. ------------------------------------------ Only time will tell. Until then, the debate will continue. |
Cheney going to Hell
On 2/26/13 6:30 PM, Eisboch wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message m... On 2/26/13 6:09 PM, Eisboch wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote in message m... On 2/26/13 5:48 PM, Eisboch wrote: wrote in message ... On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 15:50:06 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: "jps" wrote in message ... And everybody in the room was signed up for the other's objective. It all made sense to them but it was a giant miscalculation. They were all looking for an excuse to invade Iraq, long before 911. ----------------------------------------- Indeed. The stage was set back in 1998 when then President Clinton signed the "Iraq Liberation Act" which passed the House by a vote of 360 to 38 and by the Senate by unanimous consent. The Act essentially established a policy for regime change in Iraq. Here's what Clinton had to say back then: "Iraq admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.... Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits.... It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.... Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal...." .... President Bill Clinton, 1998 One could say that Clinton talked the talk but Bush walked the walk. People want to forget that. ---------------------------------------------------- Some people also want to forget that Clinton ordered the bombing and cruise missile strikes on targets in Iraq in 1998 based on "Iraq's failure to comply with United Nations Security Council resolutions as well as their interference with United Nations Special Commission inspectors." And he also ordered the famous strikes in Afghanistan and Sudan. The cruise missiles fired at suspected terrorist camps were an attempt to kill bin Laden, who was thought to be connected to the bombing of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Problem was, bin Laden wasn't there. It was also later determined that the strikes in Sudan at a pharmaceutical plant was based on bad intel or just bad decision making: "the evidence that prompted President Clinton to order the missile strike on the Shifa plant was not as solid as first portrayed." Indeed, officials later said that there was no proof that the plant had been manufacturing or storing nerve gas, as initially suspected by the Americans, or had been linked to Osama bin Laden, who was a resident of Khartoum in the 1990s." This is why I don't automatically buy into the "Bush lied us into war" routine, favored by many. Seems there were enough mistakes and bad intel to go around for everybody. Once again, Clinton was smart enough to not invade Iraq with a huge military force and depose Saddam Hussein. G.W. Bush was not that smart. --------------------------------------- One might say that Bush was successful whereas Clinton was not. :-) We will never know what "could have been" had Hussein remained in power. We can only speculate. Not to dismiss or minimize the price paid in American or innocent Iraqi lives, but the reality is that it is a price that sometimes has to be paid and a pain to be borne. Dismissing it all as "lies" serves nothing but to make those who lost a loved one (who was doing his/her job) even more painful to bear. It has happened before and will certainly happen again. One might say that Clinton was smarter and more successul, because during his watch, Americans weren't sent in to invade Iraq, 4000 Americans weren't killed, tens of thousands of Americans weren't injured, at least 100,000 Iraqis didn't die, and we didn't blow what will turn out to be $2 billion plus on a moronic war effort. ------------------------------------------ Only time will tell. Until then, the debate will continue. In the mid 1980's I had a friend from Iraq, a tech guy, who wanted me to join him in an import/export venture with his native country. I don't remember many of the details, but part of it involved exporting Pampers and similar baby products to Iraq and importing dates or figs and rugs. He gave up on that and actually started importing pretty decent leather gear - handbags, briefcases, et cetera - from somewhere in South America. He seemed to have some pretty decent contacts in Iraq. They're probably all dead now. |
Cheney going to Hell
"Urin Asshole" wrote in message ... I think your argument that we should not automatically buy into the "Bush lied" argument is valid. Unfortunately, he was highly motivated to get us into this war, and his cabinet and VP were motivated as well. So, while he may not have lied knowing the full extent of the bull**** he was proposiing, he certainly was culpable and by any reasonable definition knew or should have known that it was mostly bull****. He and his relied on very, very suspect intel and completely disregarded strong evidence that there was nothing to it. ----------------------------------------------------- I am of the opinion that Bush made a mistake in not listening enough to Colin Powell instead of Donald Rumsfeld. Their roles should have been reversed with Colin Powell as Sec of Defense and Rumsfeld as Sec of State. I think Powell's military background, including being the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff better qualified him to advise Bush about going to war. Powell was cautious about it. Rumsfeld was governed by his massive ego. |
Cheney going to Hell
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 21:05:43 -0500, wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 13:53:06 -0800, Urin Asshole wrote: On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 16:34:14 -0500, wrote: People want to forget that. More bull****. Clinton got the job done in Iraq and Saddam was contained. In fact, he'd give up his quest for WMDs, but Bush didn't give a **** and lied so we could invade. The only thing Clinton got wrong was that Saddam would use them. Dumb****s on the right want to forget that. If Clinton "got the job done" why were we still there bombing them a couple times a week? The air guard was still "flying the box" and bombing anything that lit them up on the day Clinton left office. Was that how we planned to "contain" Saddam forever? How many Americans died because of the air campaign? I guess zero is a failure? Well, let's see... how expensive is the Iraq war? Couple of trillion and counting? How many years could we contain them for the same price without an American dying? |
Cheney going to Hell
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 20:23:07 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:
"Urin Asshole" wrote in message .. . I think your argument that we should not automatically buy into the "Bush lied" argument is valid. Unfortunately, he was highly motivated to get us into this war, and his cabinet and VP were motivated as well. So, while he may not have lied knowing the full extent of the bull**** he was proposiing, he certainly was culpable and by any reasonable definition knew or should have known that it was mostly bull****. He and his relied on very, very suspect intel and completely disregarded strong evidence that there was nothing to it. ----------------------------------------------------- I am of the opinion that Bush made a mistake in not listening enough to Colin Powell instead of Donald Rumsfeld. Their roles should have been reversed with Colin Powell as Sec of Defense and Rumsfeld as Sec of State. I think Powell's military background, including being the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff better qualified him to advise Bush about going to war. Powell was cautious about it. Rumsfeld was governed by his massive ego. I tend to agree, but Powell didn't push hard enough and has some responsibility... sitting in front of the UN and the US population without a lot good info. Rumsfeld would have been a disaster in any position. |
Cheney going to Hell
|
Cheney going to Hell
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:23 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com