May 1, 2003: MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

did bush really start such? or did saddam by refusing to follow un resolutions?

Actually, in early 2003, the UN was working on verifying that Saddam was in compliance with the UN resolutions. They were bothered by only one party: the US administration that told them to get out 'cause they were going in. That's a fact whether you like it or not.

The bottom line is that the Congressional authorization to use force as a last resort had worked. The UN was doing it's job. Bush apparently didn't like it very much (as that was poison to the already made decision to go in and take Saddam out) and told the UN to get out. It wasn't Saddam this time keeping the UN from doing their work, it was Bush. That's a fact whether you like it or not.

did we need to give him another dozen years?

No. See above.

oh of course they come forward now. and tell me something? where were they back when the idea had consent from so many? now they crawl out of the woodwork. i just love it

Have you read the Senate debate on the resolution to authorize the use of force? I bet you haven't as you'd otherwise not make an uninformed statement as the one above. The critics were always there. And they spoke out as they were in the process to grant the authority. They didn't want to go to war. They wanted Saddam to be pressured into compliance. Which he was (see above) and Bush decided to go in anyways. That decision was made long before the marching orders were given.

Which is why he lied to trump up the case for this illegal wet dream of his (see many posts earlier - the farce about Saddam training AlQaeda in bio and chem weapons use and ####### like that). Plainly obvious BS that his troops were told by some AQ lunatic. The DIA told him that there's nothing to that claim of such cooperation and yet, Bush took the word of an AQ crook over that of the DIA.

To be sure: He trusted the enemy more than our intelligence community to then turn around and fault that very same intelligence community for this debacle. You find that acceptable? I sure don't.

oh how special. saddam after 12 years started following such. i find that very difficult to believe. if he showed any cooperation about anything, it was due to him having an angle. as always.

the un was NOT doing it's job. ask that guy named ritter. how can the un have done their job when it took 12 years and things still were not done? to think that 12 years of being given the run around is a pipe dream. don't bet that it would not have taken another 12 years as i stated earlier.

you say "the farce about Saddam training AlQaeda in bio and chem weapons use and ####### like that" obviously someone believed that - and i don't bet on it just being bush. but oh yes, it's a conspiracy! it has to be bush!

fact is, someone in the intel community also believed the source. but i know, it's bush's fault! yippee! it's ok, another 2 years and you'll be able to have something new to complain about.

Chuck, make a case. Use some facts when doing so for change. Ritter? Who the ** is Ritter? Try Blix. Hans Blix, that is. That was the guy who headed the weapons inspections until 2003 and the guy that couldn't finish his job for Bush pushed him and the UN staff out of Iraq.

And the AQ-Saddam bio and chem training link was sold almost exclusively by the Bush White House (that includes Rice, Powell, Cheney, Rumsfeld). It was done so despite them having been advised by the Defense Intelligence Agency that there was no merit to this claim. I provided the story earlier. Go ahead and prove me wrong on this one.

Edited May 3, 2006 by ET-US2004

[Ban Hammer 13,678]

If you don't believe Bush and his administration (as I will refer to him from now on, in case of any "confusion") pushed this country into a war based on false and trumped up intelligence - massively overstating the threat to the United States from Saddam Hussein, prove it. It's really quite simple.

I've shared my views and demonstrated the evidence backing them up - to my knowledge you haven't refuted ANY of the evidence provided.

Again:

What is it you specifically think is untrue?

The claims by intelligence officials that intelligence was 'selected to direct a course for war'?

The meetings attended by Tony Blair and the head of MI6 (minutes of which form the Downing Street Memos) that give an unvarnished account of what went on behind the scenes and state specifically that "Bush had already decided on war and wanted them to find a way to justify it and make it legal"

The 'intelligence dossier' that Colin Powell presented to the UN security council, that was taken verbatim from a PHD student thesis?

The statement by Joseph Wilson that contradicted claims made by Bush in his 2003 SOTU speech, and the subsequent outing of Wilson's wife as a CIA operative by members of Bush's adminstration? Officials who have since been fired or resigned...

I didn't pull this stuff out of my ###. These criticisms come from a wide variety of people, from several different countries and in varying degrees of political authority. Its all out there in the public domain, where do you want to start?

no, i don't believe bush pushed us into a war with a conspiracy.

if you wish to believe that, feel free. don't mean anything to me.

colin powell did that? yes, i know, it's bush's fault! everything is bush's fault!

ah i just love it. someday it will be a big movie. i'm sure you believe farenheit 911 too.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

colin powell did that? yes, i know, it's bush's fault! everything is bush's fault!

Remind me again where the buck stops these days in the Executive. Back when (as in prior to January of 2001), that was the Oval Office. Apparently that ain't no longer the case. So, where does the buck stop these days? The Chef?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

no, i don't believe bush pushed us into a war with a conspiracy.

That's your belief and your right, in spite of the evidence or regardless of it?

if you wish to believe that, feel free. don't mean anything to me.

Clearly it means enough to argue over it for 10 pages...

colin powell did that? yes, i know, it's bush's fault! everything is bush's fault!

ah i just love it. someday it will be a big movie. i'm sure you believe farenheit 911 too.

Colin Powell did indeed do it. But went to the UN at the request of his superiors, who would be....?

ET & I I've provided several pieces of specific information that supports a particular interpretation of the events.

If you don't agree with that interpretation, fine that's your prerogative. But don't rubbish the evidence unless you are 100% familiar with it and have specific countering evidence with which to do so.

What it comes down to, ultimately, is that either Bush is telling the truth and the furore over this whole issue is some sort of coordinated conspiracy to discredit his presidency, or else he is not telling the truth. For the former to be the case, the following would be required:

The DIA and other officials in the intelligence services to be wrong.

The UN weapons inspectors to be wrong.

Bush's ally Tony Blair to be wrong.

The boss of MI6 to be wrong.

The 'author' of the plagiarised dossier to be a liar.

Senator Joseph Wilson to be wrong.

You get the idea..

Now unless you have any specific new information that somehow slipped by the rest of us, there is more information supporting the one conclusion over the other.

[Ban Hammer 13,678]

no, i don't believe bush pushed us into a war with a conspiracy.

That's your belief and your right, in spite of the evidence or regardless of it?

if you wish to believe that, feel free. don't mean anything to me.

Clearly it means enough to argue over it for 10 pages...

colin powell did that? yes, i know, it's bush's fault! everything is bush's fault!

ah i just love it. someday it will be a big movie. i'm sure you believe farenheit 911 too.

Colin Powell did indeed do it. But went to the UN at the request of his superiors, who would be....?

ET & I I've provided several pieces of specific information that supports a particular interpretation of the events.

If you don't agree with that interpretation, fine that's your prerogative. But don't rubbish the evidence unless you are 100% familiar with it and have specific countering evidence with which to do so.

What it comes down to, ultimately, is that either Bush is telling the truth and the furore over this whole issue is some sort of coordinated conspiracy to discredit his presidency, or else he is not telling the truth. For the former to be the case, the following would be required:

The DIA and other officials in the intelligence services to be wrong.

The UN weapons inspectors to be wrong.

Bush's ally Tony Blair to be wrong.

The boss of MI6 to be wrong.

The 'author' of the plagiarised dossier to be a liar.

Senator Joseph Wilson to be wrong.

You get the idea..

Now unless you have any specific new information that somehow slipped by the rest of us, there is more information supporting the one conclusion over the other.

"that supports a particular interpretation of the events." very key phrase.

and i'll rubbish this all i want. blame bush. it's his fault!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

"that supports a particular interpretation of the events." very key phrase.

and i'll rubbish this all i want. blame bush. it's his fault!

It is indeed his fault. And as I said, I base that on solid testimonial evidence from a number of key political figures. Evidence that I have laid out, and has formed the basis of significant body of criticism against the war.

If you want to discuss any specific aspect of that evidence, I invite you again to do so.

Edited May 3, 2006 by Fishdude

[Ban Hammer 13,678]

"that supports a particular interpretation of the events." very key phrase.

and i'll rubbish this all i want. blame bush. it's his fault!

It is indeed his fault. And as I said, I base that on solid testimonial evidence from a number of key political figures. Evidence that I have laid out, and has formed the basis of significant body of criticism against the war.

If you want to discuss any specific aspect of that evidence, I invite you again to do so.

yes, the solid evidence that brought us the same thing about bush's service in the air guard. lol.

i think it's been beaten like a dead horse. you'll believe what you want, i'll believe what i want. but that's ok if i don't believe you - blame bush!

Edited May 3, 2006 by charlesandnessa

[iceyspots 0]

"that supports a particular interpretation of the events." very key phrase.

and i'll rubbish this all i want. blame bush. it's his fault!

It is indeed his fault. And as I said, I base that on solid testimonial evidence from a number of key political figures. Evidence that I have laid out, and has formed the basis of significant body of criticism against the war.

If you want to discuss any specific aspect of that evidence, I invite you again to do so.

yes, the solid evidence that brought us the same thing about bush's service in the air guard. lol.

i think it's been beated like a dead horse. you'll believe what you want, i'll believe what i want. but that's ok if i don't believe you - blame bush!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

"that supports a particular interpretation of the events." very key phrase.

and i'll rubbish this all i want. blame bush. it's his fault!

It is indeed his fault. And as I said, I base that on solid testimonial evidence from a number of key political figures. Evidence that I have laid out, and has formed the basis of significant body of criticism against the war.

If you want to discuss any specific aspect of that evidence, I invite you again to do so.

yes, the solid evidence that brought us the same thing about bush's service in the air guard. lol.

i think it's been beated like a dead horse. you'll believe what you want, i'll believe what i want. but that's ok if i don't believe you - blame bush!

Indeed you have the right to believe what you choose, as you also have the right to read what you choose. Yet you don't want to discuss the evidence at all, likening it as you have, to a politically motivated smear campaign - part of an extremely distasteful election campaign.

You don't discuss the evidence at all, but spend all this energy attacking the messengers. From what you say you might think that this were all some sort of elaborate conspiracy fabricated by the Democratic party. I find that interesting.

Edited May 3, 2006 by Fishdude

[Ban Hammer 13,678]

"that supports a particular interpretation of the events." very key phrase.

and i'll rubbish this all i want. blame bush. it's his fault!

It is indeed his fault. And as I said, I base that on solid testimonial evidence from a number of key political figures. Evidence that I have laid out, and has formed the basis of significant body of criticism against the war.

If you want to discuss any specific aspect of that evidence, I invite you again to do so.

yes, the solid evidence that brought us the same thing about bush's service in the air guard. lol.

i think it's been beated like a dead horse. you'll believe what you want, i'll believe what i want. but that's ok if i don't believe you - blame bush!

thanks...quoted me before i could fix that typo.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

"that supports a particular interpretation of the events." very key phrase.

and i'll rubbish this all i want. blame bush. it's his fault!

It is indeed his fault. And as I said, I base that on solid testimonial evidence from a number of key political figures. Evidence that I have laid out, and has formed the basis of significant body of criticism against the war.

If you want to discuss any specific aspect of that evidence, I invite you again to do so.

yes, the solid evidence that brought us the same thing about bush's service in the air guard. lol.

i think it's been beated like a dead horse. you'll believe what you want, i'll believe what i want. but that's ok if i don't believe you - blame bush!

thanks...quoted me before i could fix that typo.

Rubbishing the topic, because you are unable or unwilling to discuss specifics doesn't prove your point.

[Ban Hammer 13,678]

"that supports a particular interpretation of the events." very key phrase.

and i'll rubbish this all i want. blame bush. it's his fault!

It is indeed his fault. And as I said, I base that on solid testimonial evidence from a number of key political figures. Evidence that I have laid out, and has formed the basis of significant body of criticism against the war.

If you want to discuss any specific aspect of that evidence, I invite you again to do so.

yes, the solid evidence that brought us the same thing about bush's service in the air guard. lol.

i think it's been beated like a dead horse. you'll believe what you want, i'll believe what i want. but that's ok if i don't believe you - blame bush!

thanks...quoted me before i could fix that typo.

Rubbishing the topic, because you are unable or unwilling to discuss specifics doesn't prove your point.

basically it all comes down to this

1 - let's suppose your statements are true - if so, why is it bush has not been impeached? maybe because congress knows something you don't?

2 - if congress does know something you don't - maybe you should go impeach congress then. it's their job as part of checks and balances.

3 - bush was reelected in 2004. obviously many americans place more credibility with him than with the left wing media.

4 - all you have shown me so far is guilt by association. my previous statements stand. bush is the man!

Edited May 3, 2006 by charlesandnessa

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Flogging this dead horse again are we

Seeing as you miserably failed to deal with the accusations or evidence presented how can you have a counterpoint?

If you want to have a serious debate, let me know. Peace out.

Edited May 3, 2006 by Fishdude

[Fuzzness 2]

1 - let's suppose your statements are true - if so, why is it bush has not been impeached? maybe because congress knows something you don't?

could it possibly have something to do with congress being run by the republicans? i await an honest answer

[Ban Hammer 13,678]

1 - let's suppose your statements are true - if so, why is it bush has not been impeached? maybe because congress knows something you don't?

could it possibly have something to do with congress being run by the republicans? i await an honest answer

it's not entirely composed of republicans. the dems could quite easily bring such up.