New Poll:Majority Of Americans Don't Think Iraq War Is Worth Fighting

[blueturk]

Are people finally starting to figure out that the Bush administration has no fucking clue? One can only hope. http://abcnews.go.com/international/wireStory?id=347784

[DEMON CUNT]

What will the polls say after the Draft Board starts sending out the draft notices?

God help you if you ever studied Arabic!

[BigBadBrian]

There will be no draft. :gulp:

[whodat]

all i can say is consider the source. the 3 major networks are anti bush so i take what they say with a grain of salt. one would be an idiot to believe their rhetoric

[FORD]

Originally posted by whodat
all i can say is consider the source. the 3 major networks are anti bush so i take what they say with a grain of salt.

Anti bush??

What drugs are you on? If their noses were any farther up Junior's ass, the damn chimp wouldn't be able to walk.

[FORD]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
There will be no draft. :gulp:

There already IS a draft. When they're pulling Korean war vets back in on any technicality they can find, it's a draft. When the troops are being forced to stay 3 or 4 times longer than they signed up for, it's no longer a volunteer military, and therefore it is a DRAFT.

[fanofdave]

good morning, FORD. just thought I'd add a few comments:

i spent 21 years in the service. when you enlist (a voluntary action)
you are informed that your service obligation can be involuntarily
extended for the needs of the service. that is not a draft. that is
a condition of employment.

as for retired veterans; we retire with the understanding that we
may be called back to active service under certain conditions. that
is a term of retirement we also accept. that is not a draft, either.

i do side with you in thinking it is crazy to ask us old farts to climb
"back in the saddle" again; but those two examples above do not
constitute a draft.

[LoungeMachine]

you say tomato.........

Call it what you want, but it is a precurser of what's to come.

Back door draft is commonly used term as well. Regardless, enlistments are down, needs are up.

you do the math.

Either the Iraqis magically decide to secure and defend themselves, AND Iran and NK decide to play nice, or else Team Bush is going to need some more humvee suicide drivers.

They didnt order the 17,000 body bags for nothing.

[whodat]

i dont understand anyone who is against this war. someone said something about the hypocrisy of america and what would you do if your child was called. first, this is the kind of question michael moore idiots can only come up with. secondly, would i send myself or my child to fight this war? yes i would, why? because we removed a murderous tyrant who committed genocide on thousands of his own people and if we must make sacrifies i.e children, our own unselfish lives, then so be it for the greater good of the world. good vs evil? which do you choose FORD?

[FORD]

Sorry, I don't live in that mythological world.

You want to call Saddam a genocidal tyrant? Fine. then what does that make the pieces of shit who put him in power, and armed him, and gave him the chemicals that he used to commit his supposed "genocide"?

Good vs Evil?

They don't come any more evil than the Bush Criminal Empire. Saddam would not exist without the BCE. Neither would Bin Laden.

So I'd rather go directly to the source.

[whodat]

that makes the people who put him in power just like him, terrorists enablers?

[FORD]

Exactly. Prescott Bush enabled HITLER, who terrorized the entire planet, and certainly the Jewish race.

Poppy Bush enabled the Contras, Iranians, Al Qaeda, Saddam, and other terrorists worldwide while smuggling drugs here.

Now Junior is carrying on the family tradition. Only he's terrorizing people like yourself and blaming it on his semi-fictional boogeyman.

[whodat]

hitler terrorized the whole planet? how come the jews are the only ones acting victimized? i guess everyone else during that era was either brainwashed or just sucked it up.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by whodat
hitler terrorized the whole planet? how come the jews are the only ones acting victimized? i guess everyone else during that era was either brainwashed or just sucked it up.


You're a moron.


But my guess is I'm not the first to enlighten you on that fact.

[Big Train]

Originally posted by FORD
Anti bush??

What drugs are you on? If their noses were any farther up Junior's ass, the damn chimp wouldn't be able to walk.

If this were true, why make a story out of it then? Why not just let it die quitely?

[lucky wilbury]

in case anyone didn't already know ford only likes wars when democrats start them ex kosovo,bosnia etc etc and genocide is only a reason to go to war when a democrat is president.also don't waste your time with real facts on the board its always the bces fault weather its hacking peoples computer or why clinton bombed iraq in 98 over wmd/al queda connections. just had to throw that in here. one last thing. don't feed the trolls. carry on.

[Wayne L.]

If you actually believe the polls from the 3 major networks then John Kerry would have been president-elect right now instead of just another senator so it's the same old song & dance from the mainstream news media concerning the Iraq war & President Bush in general which is why they're slowly FADING into oblivion.

[blueturk]

Originally posted by whodat
i dont understand anyone who is against this war. someone said something about the hypocrisy of america and what would you do if your child was called. first, this is the kind of question michael moore idiots can only come up with. secondly, would i send myself or my child to fight this war? yes i would, why? because we removed a murderous tyrant who committed genocide on thousands of his own people and if we must make sacrifies i.e children, our own unselfish lives, then so be it for the greater good of the world. good vs evil? which do you choose FORD?

If you're so concerned about good and evil,why don't you go help out in Sudan? There's plenty of evil over there to fight.My guess is that you're all mouth,and you probably don't have any children any fucking way.I've got a 22 year old son and he says he'll go if he's drafted,but I wish he wouldn't.I would hate to lose a child in a vague,poorly run war where the Defense Secretary obviously doesn't give a fuck about the troops and Bush speaks of "sacrifice" when he's probably never sacrificed a fucking thing in his life.Oh hell,never mind! Major combat operations ended on May 1st,2003.I forgot about that.Everything's just FINE,you fucking idiot.

[lucky wilbury]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS...n.ap/index.html

Franks takes blame for 'mission accomplished'
'That's my fault'
Monday, August 9, 2004 Posted: 6:19 PM EDT (2219 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Retired Gen. Tommy Franks tried to take the blame Monday for President Bush's much-criticized comments declaring an end to major combat in Iraq more than a year ago.

"That's my fault, that George W. Bush said what he said on the first of May of last year, just because I asked him to," said Franks, former commander of forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Less than two months after the invasion of Iraq, Bush flew to a U.S. aircraft carrier and declared an end to major combat with a banner proclaiming "Mission Accomplished" in the background.

The event, Bush's words and the banner have been repeatedly criticized and mocked since that first day of May 2003. The Iraq occupation turned more violent, American deaths continued to mount and U.S. forces failed to find weapons of mass destruction, a main rationale for the war.

"I wanted to get the phase of military operation over as quickly as I could, because a lot of countries on this planet had said as soon as that major stuff is over, we'll come in and help with all of the peacekeeping," Franks said.

"On the first of May when Bush did what he did, I was proud of him because he did what I, as the commander, had asked him to do," Franks said in an appearance at the National Press Club. "So if there's a mistake there, it's mine, not a plot. So I thought I'd share that with you. "

Franks noted that the Bush administration has had limited success persuading other nations to participate in Iraq. Of some 160,000 foreign forces there now, about 140,000 are American.

[blueturk]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS...n.ap/index.html

Franks takes blame for 'mission accomplished'
'That's my fault'
Monday, August 9, 2004 Posted: 6:19 PM EDT (2219 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Retired Gen. Tommy Franks tried to take the blame Monday for President Bush's much-criticized comments declaring an end to major combat in Iraq more than a year ago.

"That's my fault, that George W. Bush said what he said on the first of May of last year, just because I asked him to," said Franks, former commander of forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Less than two months after the invasion of Iraq, Bush flew to a U.S. aircraft carrier and declared an end to major combat with a banner proclaiming "Mission Accomplished" in the background.

The event, Bush's words and the banner have been repeatedly criticized and mocked since that first day of May 2003. The Iraq occupation turned more violent, American deaths continued to mount and U.S. forces failed to find weapons of mass destruction, a main rationale for the war.

"I wanted to get the phase of military operation over as quickly as I could, because a lot of countries on this planet had said as soon as that major stuff is over, we'll come in and help with all of the peacekeeping," Franks said.

"On the first of May when Bush did what he did, I was proud of him because he did what I, as the commander, had asked him to do," Franks said in an appearance at the National Press Club. "So if there's a mistake there, it's mine, not a plot. So I thought I'd share that with you. "

Franks noted that the Bush administration has had limited success persuading other nations to participate in Iraq. Of some 160,000 foreign forces there now, about 140,000 are American.

That's really sad,either way you look at it.According to this,a self-proclaimed "war president" makes a total idiot out of himself because Tommy Franks "asked him to".That's what I call real fucking leadership.
Or else Dubya (slowly) realized that he had made a major mistake and Franks "tried" to take one for the team.
The really sad part is that both of these scenarios are totally believable.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
There will be no draft. :gulp:

I wouldn't be so certain. Now their talking about solving all our problems by fucking with Syria:

A.) They actually have weapons of mass destruction.

B.) The Syrian Army is well trained, numerous, and has the most effective generation of post-Soviet weapons.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by fanofdave
good morning, FORD. just thought I'd add a few comments:

i spent 21 years in the service. when you enlist (a voluntary action)
you are informed that your service obligation can be involuntarily
extended for the needs of the service. that is not a draft. that is
a condition of employment.

as for retired veterans; we retire with the understanding that we
may be called back to active service under certain conditions. that
is a term of retirement we also accept. that is not a draft, either.

i do side with you in thinking it is crazy to ask us old farts to climb
"back in the saddle" again; but those two examples above do not
constitute a draft.

They're calling back people that have service connected disabilities. And they are also trying to call back an artillery captain that resigned his commission, which is illegal. They just don't give a shit at this point.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
in case anyone didn't already know ford only likes wars when democrats start them ex kosovo,bosnia etc etc and genocide is only a reason to go to war when a democrat is president.also don't waste your time with real facts on the board its always the bces fault weather its hacking peoples computer or why clinton bombed iraq in 98 over wmd/al queda connections. just had to throw that in here. one last thing. don't feed the trolls. carry on.

Back to the faulty-logical comparisons I see. There is no comparison between Kosevo and Iraq. Not even close!

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS...n.ap/index.html

Franks takes blame for 'mission accomplished'
'That's my fault'
Monday, August 9, 2004 Posted: 6:19 PM EDT (2219 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Retired Gen. Tommy Franks...


Always somebody taking the buck for Dubya these days. How about the people that were told this would happen in the first place because they were sending too few troops?

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Back to the faulty-logical comparisons I see. There is no comparison between Kosevo and Iraq. Not even close!


not even close where have you been? clinton said there was genocide in kosovo and according to the un there was NONE and to top it all off clinton went into iraq without un approval. it was us all alone with britain. then agains its not like iraq your right there are 30+ countries in iraq and it kosovo there was two us and britian

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by blueturk
That's really sad,either way you look at it.According to this,a self-proclaimed "war president" makes a total idiot out of himself because Tommy Franks "asked him to".That's what I call real fucking leadership.
Or else Dubya (slowly) realized that he had made a major mistake and Franks "tried" to take one for the team.
The really sad part is that both of these scenarios are totally believable.

lack of leadership? did you even read the article?:

"I wanted to get the phase of military operation over as quickly as I could, because a lot of countries on this planet had said as soon as that major stuff is over, we'll come in and help with all of the peacekeeping," Franks said.


now it seems thats showing leadership because bush was doing the right thing to help the commanding officers on the field.

[McCarrens]

Originally posted by FORD
Anti bush??

What drugs are you on? If their noses were any farther up Junior's ass, the damn chimp wouldn't be able to walk.

You can't be that stupid. Do have such a short memory you forgot what got Dan Rather fired?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
not even close where have you been? clinton said there was genocide in kosovo and according to the un there was NONE

According to the UN there never is, and since when do you care what the UN says? By the way, is not Milsovec on trial for warcrimes WITHOUT the death of over 1300 Americans?

and to top it all off clinton went into iraq without un approval. it was us all alone with britain. then agains its not like iraq your right there are 30+ countries in iraq and it kosovo there was two us and britian

I'll answer that with a comment that John Stewart made after the first Presidential debate, "POLAND?!...Your next country (after Britain) is POLAND?!"

We're still doing most of the dying.

Those elite El Salvadorian death squad members may come in handy yet!

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh

According to the UN there never is, and since when do you care what the UN says? By the way, is not Milsovec on trial for warcrimes WITHOUT the death of over 1300 Americans?


so i guess the 200+ that died before during and after kosovo is ok since the got milosovic and they went there for false reasons without the proper equipment, spare parts or right ammo. i mean milosovic it must be ok since hes on trial for war crimes:rolleyes:



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I'll answer that with a comment that John Stewart made after the first Presidential debate, "POLAND?!...Your next country (after Britain) is POLAND?!"

We're still doing most of the dying.

Those elite El Salvadorian death squad members may come in handy yet!





so i guess the aussies,italians,czechs,japanese, koreans their nobodys. and how many of them were with us in kosovo?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
so i guess the 200+ that died before during and after kosovo is ok since the got milosovic and they went there for false reasons without the proper equipment, spare parts or right ammo. i mean milosovic it must be ok since hes on trial for war crimes:rolleyes:

Did I say 1300, I meant 1300 and counting. What false reasons? To prevent genocide and to insure the stability of Europe. Besides, why do you keep reaching back for this shit when we have a gapping wound in Iraq? Who gives a shit about Yugo-Igo-Wego-aslavia?...that was six-years ago. And we had the NATO Alliance on-board before we went a-bombing!


so i guess the aussies,italians,czechs,japanese, koreans their nobodys. and how many of them were with us in kosovo?

Yes, since they have a miniscule amount of people there and many are pulling out. I would have to say yes.

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Did I say 1300, I meant 1300 and counting.

and that kosovo number keeps going up as well.



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
What false reasons? To prevent genocide and to insure the stability of Europe.

stability and genocide? i didn't see a huge amount of instability in europe in the 1990's. i didn see the yugoslavs sponsering suicde attacks in other countries causing instability in europe. some genocide as well

http://www.counterpunch.org/biglie.html

"The UN figures," said Perez Pujol, director of the Instituto Anatómico Forense de Cartagena, "began with 44,000 dead, dropped to 22,000 and now stand at 11,000." He and his fellows were prepared to perform at least 2,000 autopsies in their zone. To date they've found 187 corpses.

-------------

One persistent story held that 700 Kosovars had been dumped in the Trepca lead and zinc mines. On October 12 Kelly Moore, a spokeswoman for the international tribunal, announced that the investigators had "found absolutely nothing." The Stratfor analysis cites another claim of a mass grave containing 350 bodies in Ljubenic that turned out to hold seven. In Pusto Selo, villagers said 106 had been killed by the Serbs, and NATO rushed out satellite photos of "mass graves." Nothing to buttress that charge has yet been found. Another eighty-two were allegedly killed in Kraljan. No bodies have as yet been turned up.



now if you wan to talk genocide and mass graves from the 1990's:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/05/14/sprj.irq.main/

MAHAWIL, Iraq (CNN) -- The head of an Iraqi forensic team said Wednesday he expects to find as many as 15,000 bodies buried at mass graves about 55 miles (90 kilometers) south of Baghdad.

Hundreds of relatives of missing Iraqis gathered at the site in Mahawil, seeking to find out the fate of their loved ones.

The forensic team has uncovered 1,500 bodies so far, identifying only a fraction of them.

if you want to talk about stability:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/14/world/main543981.shtml

Iraq gives $10,000 to the families of those killed within 30 days of death. In total, Saddam has given more than $35 million to West Bank and Gaza Strip families of Palestinians killed during the fighting, said Ibrahim Zanen, spokesman for the Arab Liberation Front in Gaza. Initially, families of suicide bombers received $25,000 from Saddam, but now everyone receives an equal $10,000.

"President Saddam considers the Palestinian people as part of his Arab nation. Both of us, the Iraqis and the Palestinians, are in the same trench facing an ugly aggression," Zanen said. "The President considers this small gift to the families as just a symbol of support for those who have reached the highest degree of martyrdom."

"It shows that Saddam is involved in every activity that is terrorism and murderous and leads to instability in the Middle East," counters Amira Oron, a spokeswoman for Israel's Foreign Ministry.


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Besides, why do you keep reaching back for this shit when we have a gapping wound in Iraq? Who gives a shit about Yugo-Igo-Wego-aslavia?...that was six-years ago.

because all of the problems with equipment can be track back to clinton. the 40 billion dollars that clinton used in kosovo was from the defense budget not a suplemental bill. that money was for armor and spare parts and the military was billions in the hole and behind on things because of it



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
And we had the NATO Alliance on-board before we went a-bombing!

thats funny but weren't you arguing againest pre emptive strikes nd no un support? thats funny because we did all those in kosov. we did them in iraq in 1998 as well.



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Yes, since they have a miniscule amount of people there and many are pulling out. I would have to say yes.

really pulling out? then why did the japanese just esxtend their tour? same with the koreans? itailians have said as long as we're there so are they. same with the aussies

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
and that kosovo number keeps going up as well.

because all of the problems with equipment can be track back to clinton. the 40 billion dollars that clinton used in kosovo was from the defense budget not a suplemental bill. that money was for armor and spare parts and the military was billions in the hole and behind on things because of it




You are out of your mind! You can't even BEGIN to compare Kosovo and Iraq. And Clinton didn't send occupation troops out to face daily road side bombs in shopping carts either. Muddle the facts all you want, this war is the direct result of the PNAC Neocon agenda. Clinton has nothing to do with it. They wrote him hoping to start an invasion of Iraq, and he laughed!

Oh yeah, you got me there, Clinton didn't build up our armored forces in anticipation of roadside bomb IED's and the fact that Rummy and Dickie, and Dubya would send an understrength army to Iraq to conquer and then fail to provide adequate security.

Are you going to give Clinton credit for the armored thrust that overthrew Saddam? You talk out of two sides of your mouth Lucky.

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
You are out of your mind! You can't even BEGIN to compare Kosovo and Iraq. And Clinton didn't send occupation troops out to face daily road side bombs in shopping carts either. Muddle the facts all you want, this war is the direct result of the PNAC Neocon agenda. Clinton has nothing to do with it. They wrote him hoping to start an invasion of Iraq, and he laughed!

if your going to bring in the pnac bullshit go talk to ford


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Oh yeah, you got me there, Clinton didn't build up our armored forces in anticipation of roadside bomb IED's and the fact that Rummy and Dickie, and Dubya would send an understrength army to Iraq to conquer and then fail to provide adequate security.

you fight with what you have which would be more if it wasen't for kosovo. the money that was too be used to mordernize and equip us forces was diverted because of kosovo:

http://www.house.gov/hunter/stm-kosovo2.htm
Now let us review the facts:

Today, we have short-changed our military $13 billion worth of ammunition. That is all the way from cruise missiles to M-16 bullets. That means, if we have to go to war tomorrow, because this administration has pulled money out of the cash register that was meant for bullets and used it for peacekeeping operations, we are going to have people die because they will run out of bullets.

Today, we are 13.5 percent below the civilian pay rate for our military. That has resulted in 10,000 military families on food stamps. That is a direct result of the President's leadership or lack thereof. If my colleagues think the President has paid our men and women in the military adequately, then vote for this resolution. But I am not going to do that.

Today our mission-capable rates have dropped like a rock for lack of spare parts, and that is because the President has not put enough money in the military budget for spares, for aircraft and the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps and the Air Force. I am not going to commend the President for that.

So, Mr. Speaker, if the President wants to really do something that thanks our military families for their valiant effort in this war, I suggest that he pay them, increase their pay to the full 13.5 percent like President Reagan did when he came in and closed a 12.6 percent pay gap, and I recommend that he supply adequate ammunition so that they can fight wars without running out of ammunition, and I recommend that he come forward with all the spare parts and modernization that is required to keep 55 airplanes a year from falling out of the sky and crashing, resulting in 55 deaths in peacetime operations like we had last year.

--------------------------------------

http://www.navyleague.org/seapower/pres_msg_june_sp.htm

Which brings one back to the previously mentioned "shortage of certain smart munitions"--an understatement of colossal dimensions. Almost all of the nation's armed services also are suffering from shortages of pilots, of technicians, and of maintenance personnel. There are not enough airlift aircraft. There may, possibly, be enough front-line combat aircraft for the Kosovo campaign, but there certainly are not enough of them to carry out the administration's own two-war strategy (which is carefully, but ambiguously, described as maintaining the ability to fight two "nearly simultaneous" wars, whatever that means).

There also are far too many shortages of spare parts--horrendous shortages, in some cases. Which means increased maintenance, a higher personnel tempo, reduced combat readiness, lower morale, and the cannibalization of CONUS-based aircraft to keep forward-deployed aircraft combat-ready. In many if not most cases such shortages can be predicted well in advance--simply by reviewing historical usage rates, for example--and should not happen.

The same is true, at the other end of the size scale, of the largest "item" in the Navy's inventory--aircraft carriers. The Joint Chiefs of Staff have told Congress that the Navy has a demonstrable, validated, need for 15 aircraft carriers. The Joint Chiefs are wrong. The United States has a demonstrable, validated, need for 15 aircraft carriers. There are now only 12 in the Navy's inventory. The lack of a spare part could mean a weapons system down, a sortie aborted, or a mission scrubbed. The lack of an aircraft carrier, though--more precisely, the lack of three aircraft carriers--could mean the loss of a war. Loosely translated, that also could mean the loss of South Korea, perhaps. Or Taiwan. Or Kuwait again--and Saudi Arabia as well.



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Are you going to give Clinton credit for the armored thrust that overthrew Saddam? You talk out of two sides of your mouth Lucky.

what the hell are you talking about? there weren't any new tanks under clinton. everything that was used in the gulf war 2 was used in gulf war one the only thing that clinton did was cut back on the tanks and their spare parts see the earlier point on this

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
if your going to bring in the pnac bullshit go talk to ford

I don't always agree with Ford's conspiracies. But there is something to it. And coming from a guy that believes in the WMD fallicy, I don't think you should be so quick to judge Ford:


PNAC logo.
The Project for the New American Century (PNAC), an influential neoconservative think tank, publishes a letter to President Clinton, urging war against Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein because he is a “hazard” to “a significant portion of the world's supply of oil.” In a foretaste of what eventually actually happens, the letter calls for the US to go to war alone, attacks the United Nations, and says the US should not be “crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.” The letter is signed by many who will later lead the 2003 Iraq war. 10 of the 18 signatories later join the Bush Administration, including (future) Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, Assistant Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Assistant Secretary of State Richard Armitage, Undersecretaries of State John Bolton and Paula Dobriansky, presidential adviser for the Middle East Elliott Abrams, and Bush's special Iraq envoy Zalmay Khalilzad (see also June 3, 1997, and September 2000). [Sunday Herald, 3/16/03, PNAC Letter, 1/26/98] Clinton does heavily bomb Iraq in late 1998, but the bombing doesn't last long and its long-term effect is the break off of United Nations weapons inspections. [New York Times 3/22/03]






you fight with what you have which would be more if it wasen't for kosovo. the money that was too be used to mordernize and equip us forces was diverted because of kosovo:

http://www.house.gov/hunter/stm-kosovo2.htm
Now let us review the facts:

Another Orwellian blame-shifter statement! What about the money pouring into Iraq that's not going into Homeland Security?

Today, we have short-changed our military $13 billion worth of ammunition. That is all the way from cruise missiles to M-16 bullets. That means, if we have to go to war tomorrow, because this administration has pulled money out of the cash register that was meant for bullets and used it for peacekeeping operations, we are going to have people die because they will run out of bullets...blah, blah..Blame CLINTON....

How about Bush has been in office? Four-years now. We need to debate from the present and let Clinton go. ;)


Which brings one back to the previously mentioned "shortage of certain smart munitions"--an understatement of colossal dimensions. Almost all of the nation's armed services also are suffering from shortages of pilots, of technicians, and of maintenance personnel. There are not enough airlift aircraft. There may, possibly, be enough front-line combat aircraft for the Kosovo campaign, but there certainly are not enough of them to carry out the administration's own two-war strategy (which is carefully, but ambiguously, described as maintaining the ability to fight two "nearly simultaneous" wars, whatever that means).

See statemant above:rolleyes:


I have an Idea! Tell 'em "you go to war with the army you have, not the army you would want to have! By the way, did I mention it's 2004 again yet? Hasn't Rummy been transforming the military for four years now? Has Clinton been sneaking into the Penatgon and been burning his memos again? Or is your only defense for Rummy "Clinton sucks?"

By the way Lucky, What do you think of Rumsfeld, quick, without posting more dated articles? In your own words! Is he doing a good job?

[TEUFEL HUNDEN]

Since im a Marine in The Reserves & i've been activated once already. I think I should add something to this thread. I signed up right after Sept 11th at the age of 31 to defend my country. I never thought in my wildest dreams I would be activated, afterall Osama started it...right?!? My unit also hadn't been activated since the Korean War!!!!! What Im trying to get across here to all of you is that #1, Congress Never Declared War. End of story. The War Powers Resolution that Congress cited is also a usurpation of trying to transfer power from Congress to the President. In giving President Bush the authority to carry out aggression against Iraq this Resolution hasnt been followed either. The President has 60 days after troops have been put into combat, a formal request to Congress to declare war otherwise he must bring the troops home. The President has obviously not done this either. For those of you against this "war". I suggest you use this as your argument from now on and not the for oil or to spread demoracy B.S. Also if you are unhappy about what is going on instead of bitchin and moaning about it, you should call or write to your Congressman or Congresswomen. They hold the "purse strings" and could send the President another Act that he must cease operations. If the President doesnt sign it then Congress could overide the veto. We live in a a Republic people not a democracy. Start taking more charge of those who represent you. And no, Im not sorry for this lecture.

[BITEYOASS]

Originally posted by TEUFEL HUNDEN
Since im a Marine in The Reserves & i've been activated once already. I think I should add something to this thread. I signed up right after Sept 11th at the age of 31 to defend my country. I never thought in my wildest dreams I would be activated, afterall Osama started it...right?!? My unit also hadn't been activated since the Korean War!!!!! What Im trying to get across here to all of you is that #1, Congress Never Declared War. End of story. The War Powers Resolution that Congress cited is also a usurpation of trying to transfer power from Congress to the President. In giving President Bush the authority to carry out aggression against Iraq this Resolution hasnt been followed either. The President has 60 days after troops have been put into combat, a formal request to Congress to declare war otherwise he must bring the troops home. The President has obviously not done this either. For those of you against this "war". I suggest you use this as your argument from now on and not the for oil or to spread demoracy B.S. Also if you are unhappy about what is going on instead of bitchin and moaning about it, you should call or write to your Congressman or Congresswomen. They hold the "purse strings" and could send the President another Act that he must cease operations. If the President doesnt sign it then Congress could overide the veto. We live in a a Republic people not a democracy. Start taking more charge of those who represent you. And no, Im not sorry for this lecture.

I'm in the same situation myself. But I'm tired of listening to both sides and would rather go into the shit to find out what all the bitchin is about. Fuck, I've been in for six years and this is my first overseas deployment; and my first 4 was active duty in Yuma. But the most truthful opposition I've heard about this war was from meeting a couple of former Marines who were snipers in the last years of Nam, while waiting at Hickam. Telling me that the rich don't lift a finger when it comes to war and they got a point there.

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I don't always agree with Ford's conspiracies. But there is something to it. And coming from a guy that believes in the WMD fallicy, I don't think you should be so quick to judge Ford:

quick to judge ford! ah thats funny. i've been dealing with his pnac bullshit for about 3 1/2 years. why don't you ask ford about pnac and he'll tell you how osama doesn't exsist, they planed out 9-11, those were military planes on 9-11 flown by remote control that fired missles yes missles into the wtc before the hit the buildings, the buildings were then brought down by a controlled demolition, flt 93 was shot down, all the passangers "dissappeared" and all of this was done over a imaginary pipeline that has yet to be built in afghanistan. now that was the FIRST rants about pnac. now its all of the above minus the pipeline and 9-11 happend so they could invade the middle east and control all the oil there. now those are just a summary of the "pnac" theories that have been posted on not only the net but this board as well. a few honarable pnac theories include wolfowitz is an israel agent, the planes on 9-11 never exsited, they flew obl out of tora bora and they killed off people who got in their way. you've seemed to get into the pnac theory when it evolved to be about iraq but that bullshit has taken on many forms and is used as an excuse for everything. oh yes there were no wmd and never were yet all the democrats said there. from earlier in the year:

http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=505&highlight=portugal

Former US president Bill Clinton said in October during a visit to Portugal that he was convinced Iraq had weapons of mass destruction up until the fall of Saddam Hussein, Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso said.

"When Clinton was here recently he told me he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime," he said in an interview with Portuguese cable news channel SIC Noticias.

--------

now is clinton lying or is he part of pnac? its one or the other





Originally posted by Nickdfresh

Another Orwellian blame-shifter statement! What about the money pouring into Iraq that's not going into Homeland Security?

that post was from 99 to point out the lack of money for the military and how clinton was running it inot the ground



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
How about Bush has been in office? Four-years now. We need to debate from the present and let Clinton go

those articles we're to back up what i said about the military being behind in its armorments because of kosovo. again the money that was to replace those funds didn't come till bush is first defense budget in 01. everything is two years behind where it should be



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
See statemant above


I have an Idea! Tell 'em "you go to war with the army you have, not the army you would want to have! By the way, did I mention it's 2004 again yet? Hasn't Rummy been transforming the military for four years now?Has Clinton been sneaking into the Penatgon and been burning his memos again? Or is your only defense for Rummy "Clinton sucks?"

i'm convinvced that you either don't read other peoples posts or you don't understand them. again why was clinton brouht up? to point out how the military is behind it what it wants to do because of lack of money in the late 90's because of clinton. is that hard to understand?


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
By the way Lucky, What do you think of Rumsfeld, quick, without posting more dated articles? In your own words! Is he doing a good job?

better then cohen considering he's had to clean up the mess clinton left and he's had bullshiting democrats bitching about no bid contracts then making them take bids for things then bitching again when things are moving to slow. thats what you get when there is bidding involved its not like they can call someone up an say we need x amount of this or that. no no can't do that you got to have bids and studies that can take 18 months to get done. he's also had to deal with bullshitters complaining about the lack of money yet those same bullshitters voted againest the 87 billion. has to deal with arm chair generals saying we need this or that yet the REAL generals don't asked for it. all this with the brac studies and the ideas of taking troops out of germany and moving them east to places like romania. so in closing pretty damn well considering all the naysayers that are like children in the back seat saying are we there yet?

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by McCarrens
You can't be that stupid. Do have such a short memory you forgot what got Dan Rather fired?

Dan Rather wasn't fired, you dummy. You just don't get anything right, do you? Poor Republican retard!

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Dan Rather wasn't fired, you dummy. You just don't get anything right, do you? Poor Republican retard!

Uh...actually, most insiders know Dan Rather retired BEFORE his ass was fired. That is a damn fact. Dan saw the writing on the wall and saw a graceful way out. He did not plan on stepping down quite so soon. :gulp:

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
quick to judge ford! ah thats funny. i've been dealing with his pnac bullshit for about 3 1/2 years. why don't you ask ford about pnac and he'll tell you how osama doesn't exsist, they planed out 9-11, those were military planes on 9-11 flown by remote control that fired missles yes missles into the wtc before the hit the buildings, the buildings were then brought down by a controlled demolition,...

Okay stop right there, if you read my posts in the "$100,000 Reward...9/11" thread, you'd know where I stand on this. I disagree strongley and believe that the events on 9/11 happened as reported but...

PNAC logo.
The Project for the New American Century (PNAC), an influential neoconservative think tank, publishes a letter to President Clinton, urging war against Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein because he is a “hazard” to “a significant portion of the world's supply of oil.” In a foretaste of what eventually actually happens, the letter calls for the US to go to war alone, attacks the United Nations, and says the US should not be “crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.” The letter is signed by many who will later lead the 2003 Iraq war. 10 of the 18 signatories later join the Bush Administration, including (future) Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, Assistant Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Assistant Secretary of State Richard Armitage, Undersecretaries of State John Bolton and Paula Dobriansky, presidential adviser for the Middle East Elliott Abrams, and Bush's special Iraq envoy Zalmay Khalilzad (see also June 3, 1997, and September 2000). [Sunday Herald, 3/16/03, PNAC Letter, 1/26/98] Clinton does heavily bomb Iraq in late 1998, but the bombing doesn't last long and its long-term effect is the break off of United Nations weapons inspections. [New York Times 3/22/03]


PNAC is very real, and Ford is often on to something, even though he goes overboard.



Former US president Bill Clinton said in October during a visit to Portugal that he was convinced Iraq had weapons of mass destruction up until the fall of Saddam Hussein, Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso said.

"When Clinton was here recently he told me he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime," he said in an interview with Portuguese cable news channel SIC Noticias.

Because while Saddam was telling the U.S. and the West that he had gotten rid of WMD's (basically the truth), he was telling the Iranians that he had large stockpiles of WMD's to deter an Iranian invasion since his army was greatly weakend.

The larger issue is that iraq allowed for UN inspections, and they found nothing. But we, mistrusting the UN, decised to go ahead with the attack.

now is clinton lying or is he part of pnac? its one or the other

No, he's the victim of "Slam Dunk Tenet" as well as bad intelligence. But his Administration did not include the neocon hawks who would ultimately hijack policy to invade Iraq!

that post was from 99 to point out the lack of money for the military and how clinton was running it inot the ground


those articles we're to back up what i said about the military being behind in its armorments because of kosovo. again the money that was to replace those funds didn't come till bush is first defense budget in 01. everything is two years behind where it should be

That's bullshit. Clinton's defense spending was still more than the total, culmative defense budgets of our five most potential advesaries. The Cold War ended and there was immense political pressure to reduce budgets. And as I've said before, what was the Republican majority in congress doing about Clinton's "cuts" other than approving them?


i'm convinvced that you either don't read other peoples posts or you don't understand them. again why was clinton brouht up? to point out how the military is behind it what it wants to do because of lack of money in the late 90's because of clinton. is that hard to understand?

Maybe you don't understand. How much does an armored Humvee cost? Not very much! It had to do more with competence that with money. The fact is that if you read what Rummy was saying, he's a fucking lyer! The contractors could produce nearly 100 more armored Humvees a month than they were and repeatedly told this to the Pentagon. But Rummy didn't give a shit.



better then cohen considering he's had to clean up the mess clinton left and he's had bullshiting democrats bitching about no bid contracts then making them take bids for things then bitching again when things are moving to slow. thats what you get when there is bidding involved its not like they can call someone up an say we need x amount of this or that. no no can't do that you got to have bids and studies that can take 18 months to get done. he's also had to deal with bullshitters complaining about the lack of money yet those same bullshitters voted againest the 87 billion. has to deal with arm chair generals saying we need this or that yet the REAL generals don't asked for it. all this with the brac studies and the ideas of taking troops out of germany and moving them east to places like romania. so in closing pretty damn well considering all the naysayers that are like children in the back seat saying are we there yet?

Rumsfeld has repeatedly acted in the most atrociously arrogant manner. He has been dismissive of his Generals and of anyone in a uniform. He has strove to place his cronies and yes-men into positions while destroying the careers of those that have opposed him. He's been "TRANSFORMING" the military for four years now and has had at best mixed success.

His war plan for Iraq was horrid and he overruled Generals that told him he needed far more troops to secure Iraq, not just run over the feeble Iraqi Army! He deserves much of the blame for the failings in Iraq. Was Gen. Shinseki an "arm chair" general? I think not, in fact it is Rummy and his "civilian" cronies that are the armchair generals. But don't take my word on it. You can even watch the Fronline program online about "Rumsfeld's War" here .

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by TEUFEL HUNDEN
I signed up right after Sept 11th at the age of 31 to defend my country. I never thought in my wildest dreams I would be activated, afterall Osama started it...right?!?

Huh? I'm not following you. 9/11 happens and you go out and enlist so that you can defend the country against terrorism, but you did so thinking you would never see action because Bin Ladin started it?

Why would you enlist to defend your country and then get upset when you are activated? And what is the connection with Bin Ladin and you thinking you would never get activated? I would pretty much guess that him "starting it" would up the chances of you getting activated.

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Okay stop right there, if you read my posts in the "$100,000 Reward...9/11" thread, you'd know where I stand on this. I disagree strongley and believe that the events on 9/11 happened as reported but...

PNAC logo.
The Project for the New American Century (PNAC), an influential neoconservative think tank, publishes a letter to President Clinton, urging war against Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein because he is a “hazard” to “a significant portion of the world's supply of oil.” In a foretaste of what eventually actually happens, the letter calls for the US to go to war alone, attacks the United Nations, and says the US should not be “crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.” The letter is signed by many who will later lead the 2003 Iraq war. 10 of the 18 signatories later join the Bush Administration, including (future) Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, Assistant Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Assistant Secretary of State Richard Armitage, Undersecretaries of State John Bolton and Paula Dobriansky, presidential adviser for the Middle East Elliott Abrams, and Bush's special Iraq envoy Zalmay Khalilzad (see also June 3, 1997, and September 2000). [Sunday Herald, 3/16/03, PNAC Letter, 1/26/98] Clinton does heavily bomb Iraq in late 1998, but the bombing doesn't last long and its long-term effect is the break off of United Nations weapons inspections. [New York Times 3/22/03]


PNAC is very real, and Ford is often on to something, even though he goes overboard.

again read what i said. the "pnac" thing has changed over time. first it was about 9-11 and afghanistan then it miraculously changed into all about iraq. you'll notice all your stuff points to it all being about iraq why don't you do this since you probably won't listen to me google: pnac afghanistan pipeline 9-11. and you'll get the first incarnation of pnacs plans. then when iraq came into the spotlight afghanistan and pipeline were change to iraq and oil. go ahead look it up. all off those pnac storys predate iraq. pnac is just internet bullshit that is the be all end all blame it on something. pnac does stand for something: people needing a conspriacy



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Because while Saddam was telling the U.S. and the West that he had gotten rid of WMD's (basically the truth), he was telling the Iranians that he had large stockpiles of WMD's to deter an Iranian invasion since his army was greatly weakend.

The larger issue is that iraq allowed for UN inspections, and they found nothing. But we, mistrusting the UN, decised to go ahead with the attack.

right :rolleyes: the entire world said saddam had wmd.



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
No, he's the victim of "Slam Dunk Tenet" as well as bad intelligence. But his Administration did not include the neocon hawks who would ultimately hijack policy to invade Iraq!

i guess all those times in the 90's clinton deciede to bomb iraq for fun. were the germans french and russians also worng about wmd as well?


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
That's bullshit. Clinton's defense spending was still more than the total, culmative defense budgets of our five most potential advesaries. The Cold War ended and there was immense political pressure to reduce budgets. And as I've said before, what was the Republican majority in congress doing about Clinton's "cuts" other than approving them?

clinton used the line item veto on the defense budget many times and if the defense budget was so high why were we scrapping planes just o keep others in the air? oh i know why there wasen't enough money because clinton kept using it for peacekeepers etc etc again:

http://www.navyleague.org/seapower/pres_msg_june_sp.htm


There also are far too many shortages of spare parts--horrendous shortages, in some cases. Which means increased maintenance, a higher personnel tempo, reduced combat readiness, lower morale, and the cannibalization of CONUS-based aircraft to keep forward-deployed aircraft combat-ready. In many if not most cases such shortages can be predicted well in advance--simply by reviewing historical usage rates, for example--and should not happen.



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Maybe you don't understand. How much does an armored Humvee cost? Not very much! It had to do more with competence that with money. The fact is that if you read what Rummy was saying, he's a fucking lyer! The contractors could produce nearly 100 more armored Humvees a month than they were and repeatedly told this to the Pentagon. But Rummy didn't give a shit.

it doesn't matter if they could produce them. they could make a thousand an hour but because you dems bitched about no bid contracts they now have to take bids from all companies then deciede what to do. a process that can take 18 months. again they just can't order things now



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Rumsfeld has repeatedly acted in the most atrociously arrogant manner. He has been dismissive of his Generals and of anyone in a uniform. He has strove to place his cronies and yes-men into positions while destroying the careers of those that have opposed him. He's been "TRANSFORMING" the military for four years now and has had at best mixed success.

His war plan for Iraq was horrid and he overruled Generals that told him he needed far more troops to secure Iraq, not just run over the feeble Iraqi Army! He deserves much of the blame for the failings in Iraq. Was Gen. Shinseki an "arm chair" general? I think not, in fact it is Rummy and his "civilian" cronies that are the armchair generals. But don't take my word on it. You can even watch the Fronline program online about "Rumsfeld's War" here

why don't you look up about the planing. the first reports said it would take 50,000 troops tops. rumsfeld said no to that. so another plan was drawn up and tommy franks approved it so did rumsfeld. the person that decides what is needed in theather isn't rumsfeld its abazaid he deciedes what is needed and tommy franks before him and they'll both tell you their getting everything they've been asking for.

[Phil theStalker]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
What will the polls say after the Draft Board starts sending out the draft notices?

God help you if you ever studied Arabic!
LOL

They'll end up in the desert like Lawrence...Lawrence!<marquee direction=left>TRANSLATION
"What am I doing here?"

[lucky wilbury]

here you go nick this the first incarnation of pnacs plans that have since moagically morphed into being all about iraq:

Project for the New American Century

- In 1997 a group of neo-conservatives founded the 'Project for the New American Century' (PNAC) - A year later PNAC called for the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq - In 2000 they predicted that the shift in US foreign policy towards that aim would come about slowly, unless there were "some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor". That event happened on September 11th 2001 - Ten people in the Bush administration are currently members of PNAC. They include Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Armitage, John Bolton, Zalmay Khalilzad and member of the advisory Defense Science Board, Richard Perle -


Oil
- Global oil production is on the brink of terminal decline - The rate of oil discovery has been falling since the 1960's - The vast majority of the world's remaining reserves are located in the Middle East and Central Asia - Over 60% of oil consumed by the US is imported - By 2015 the UK too, will be importing over 50% of its oil requirements - According to independant Geologist Dr Colin Campbell, the global decline will start by 2010 "It starts with a price shock due to control of the market by a few countries, and it is followed by the onset of physical shortage, which just gets worse and worse and worse" -



Afghan Pipelines

- Afghanistan is located in a prime position for the transportation of the vast amounts of oil & gas from the Caspian Basin – A UNOCAL-led consortium competing with Argentinian firm Bridas, proposed to build pipelines through Afghanistan years ago - In 1997 Taliban officials visited UNOCAL HQ’s in Texas to discuss the agreement – Negotiations between UNOCAL and the Taliban were conducted by Enron through Saudi intelligence - FBI Counter-Terrorism Chief John O’Neill resigned from the FBI in disgust, stating that he was ordered not to investigate Saudi-al-Qaeda connections because of the Enron pipeline deal (O’Neill was amongst the 3000 people that died at the World Trade Centre) - The US installed Afghan leader Sir Hamid Karzai, a former UNOCAL consultant – A pipeline agreement has now been signed - This pipeline may have saved Enron from collapse by providing cheap gas to one of its 'loss making' power stations in India - The invasion of Afghanistan was planned before Sept 11 – Taliban leaders & al-Qaeda fighters were flown to safety with secret US approval during the war - Opium production has increased by 1400% -



Terror Hijackings

- On the morning of Sept 11 2001, CIA official John Fulton and his team at the National Reconnaissance Office were running a pre-planned simulation to explore the emergency response issues that would be created if a plane were to strike a building - When it was known that four airliners had been simultaneously hijacked, the US National Command Authority waited 75 minutes before scrambling aircraft to intercept - Osama bin Laden has connections to the CIA, Le Figaro claim that whilst in hospital for kidney treatment in July 2001 he was met by the local CIA officer in Dubai. CBS News claim that he also underwent secret kidney dialysis at a military hospital in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, on the day before Sept 11 - During the months before the attack, Pakistani ISI Chief Gen. Ahmad (intelligence service) orders an aide to wire transfer $100,000 to Mohammed Atta. On the morning of Sept 11, Ahmad was at a meeting on Capitol Hill hosted by the chairmen of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees - At least 6 of the supposed hijackers have been found alive - It has been claimed that some of the hijackers were trained at secure US military bases - The CIA have overturned refusal of visa applications in Saudi Arabia, to people with terrorist connections - FBI agents were forced to close down investigations into the bin Ladens and terror networks by the US government -



Foreknowledge?

- Straight after the attacks, United Airlines’ stock prices plummeted. At the time it was reported that suspicious 'put options' had been purchased. Basically, if you buy put option shares you are taking a gamble that those shares are going to drop in price, because you can then sell them at the original high price but purchase them at the new low price. The amount of these put options bought was way above the norm. Investigations into who was responsible for these deals lead to Deutsche Bank/Alex Brown Inc. The bank’s chairman up until a few years ago was current CIA executive director, Buzzy Krongard - An Israeli shipping company with offices based at the World Trade Centre, broke its lease two weeks before the attacks -



Operation Northwoods Document - click here to view - adobe reader required:

- In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in US cities to create public support for a war against Cuba -

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Uh...actually, most insiders know Dan Rather retired BEFORE his ass was fired. That is a damn fact. Dan saw the writing on the wall and saw a graceful way out. He did not plan on stepping down quite so soon.

Wow, BigBland! Are you an insider?!? Are you like, a secret agent or something? Codename: Douchebag.

http://home.vicnet.net.au/~popcult/images/maxshoe.jpg

Shut yer damn LIE HOLE!

[blueturk]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
lack of leadership? did you even read the article?:

"I wanted to get the phase of military operation over as quickly as I could, because a lot of countries on this planet had said as soon as that major stuff is over, we'll come in and help with all of the peacekeeping," Franks said.


now it seems thats showing leadership because bush was doing the right thing to help the commanding officers on the field.

So Dubya told a lie (with photo op included) so other countries would help out? That's not leadership,that's just deception.

[TEUFEL HUNDEN]

Alley Cat, what Im saying is if Osama did it , then why did we mainly go after Iraq?? Im also not sure that Osama was behind all of Sept 11th. War is a racket. Its about money plain & simple. Some people in our present administration have ties to those companies that are rebuilding Iraq. BUT my biggest problem is having our own govt not following the "rule book"...that is our US Constitution. One of the 18 specific, delegated powers that ONLY Congress has the only authority on is To Declare War. Since they didnt vote to declare war then what is happening is unconstitutional. I swore an oath before God to protect & defend the Constitution against foreign & domestic enemies.The domestic enemy in this case would be those that wont adhere to it.
Alley Cat have you ever served in the military?? If not , dont question my bitchin & moanin. If so, Ive got solid reason to.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by TEUFEL HUNDEN
Alley Cat, what Im saying is if Osama did it , then why did we mainly go after Iraq?? Im also not sure that Osama was behind all of Sept 11th. War is a racket. Its about money plain & simple. Some people in our present administration have ties to those companies that are rebuilding Iraq. BUT my biggest problem is having our own govt not following the "rule book"...that is our US Constitution.

Thank you, TEUFEL!

And thank you for your service to our country. Five star vote for you, soldier!

DC

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by blueturk
So Dubya told a lie (with photo op included) so other countries would help out? That's not leadership,that's just deception.

and how is that a lie? tommy franks was told by other countries they would help out once major combat was over. bush said it was the end of major combat and those other countries balked. they are the ones that lied not bush

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
here you go nick this the first incarnation of pnacs plans that have since moagically morphed into being all about iraq:

...

Are you making my posts for me now Agent Zimmerman?:rolleyes: When did I imply any of the previous? My source was (indirectly) taken from the New York Times. Did you notice that I agree with you on the events of 9/11?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
and how is that a lie? tommy franks was told by other countries they would help out once major combat was over. bush said it was the end of major combat and those other countries balked. they are the ones that lied not bush

Since when do other countries make promises to our generals? Is he head of the State Dept. or something? Isn't that Colin Powell's job?

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Are you making my posts for me now Agent Zimmerman?:rolleyes: When did I imply any of the previous? My source was (indirectly) taken from the New York Times. Did you notice that I agree with you on the events of 9/11?


here the thing though for 2 years all we've heard on this board is that those were pnacs plans then when iraq came up it magically transformed into being about it and we've been hearing it that wa yever since. the nyt also covered pnac as being about a pipeline and afghanistan as well. hell moore even threw the pipeline shit into his movie. so what i'm saying is that you may be relitivly new to this pnac shit but that pnac shit is old and we've seen it evolved to being about iraq. stick around it'll magically morph again.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
here the thing though for 2 years all we've heard on this board is that those were pnacs plans then when iraq came up it magically transformed into being about it and we've been hearing it that wa yever since. the nyt also covered pnac as being about a pipeline and afghanistan as well. hell moore even threw the pipeline shit into his movie. so what i'm saying is that you may be relitivly new to this pnac shit but that pnac shit is old and we've seen it evolved to being about iraq. stick around it'll magically morph again.

I think I'm entitled to my own opinion regarding PNAC. The truth is they did have significant influence over policy and formulated the Neocon policies. My "take" is quite different than Fords. I do not view the work in conspiratorial terms. But I agree with him that we have some real idiots running this country though.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
and how is that a lie? tommy franks was told by other countries they would help out once major combat was over. bush said it was the end of major combat and those other countries balked. they are the ones that lied not bush

Baaaaaaaa

Bush never lied


Baaaaaaaaaa


Blame it on the the rest of the world, anyone but your wool covered leader


Baaaaaaaaaaa


pathetic

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Baaaaaaaa

Bush never lied


Baaaaaaaaaa


Blame it on the the rest of the world, anyone but your wool covered leader


Baaaaaaaaaaa


pathetic :D

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I think I'm entitled to my own opinion regarding PNAC. The truth is they did have significant influence over policy and formulated the Neocon policies. My "take" is quite different than Fords. I do not view the work in conspiratorial terms. But I agree with him that we have some real idiots running this country though.

just wait a few months and a new theory will be born

[blueturk]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
and how is that a lie? tommy franks was told by other countries they would help out once major combat was over. bush said it was the end of major combat and those other countries balked. they are the ones that lied not bush

How is that a lie? Well let's see.Dubya said major combat operations were over and they weren't.That's how it was a lie.
Or are you saying that the the other countries lies cancelled out Bush's lie,so really Bush didn't lie at all? What is this,"Seinfeld"? The whole thing sounds like something George would come up with.

[Big Train]

If you want points, which you obviously do, you can call it a flip flop. With this type of engagement, it is never really "over", so it was a huge tactical mistake to call it that. Left a gaping hole libs can run up and down repeatedly (as blue turk has shown to be his favorite-perhaps only-point to make).

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Big Train
If you want points, which you obviously do, you can call it a flip flop. With this type of engagement, it is never really "over", so it was a huge tactical mistake to call it that. Left a gaping hole libs can run up and down repeatedly (as blue turk has shown to be his favorite-perhaps only-point to make).

But it's more than that, BT

That was just the START of the Bushie Bullshit Brigade's major league fuck ups.

You know the list.

[Big Train]

I know the list of accusations, just don't agree with all of them, as you well know..

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by blueturk
How is that a lie? Well let's see.Dubya said major combat operations were over and they weren't.That's how it was a lie.



really a lie? well look here:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0408/16/pzn.00.html

FRANKS: There was. There was. And it was not too long after the 9th of April when the statue came down, so--maybe a couple of weeks that in a conversation with Secretary Rumsfeld, I said there is no more army, navy, air force here. Major combat, this is a done deal. And I'd really appreciate it if you'd have the President, you know, announce that.

-------------

now whereis there an army in iraq attacking us? where is there an air force in iraq attacking us? etc etc etc there isn't and thats the definition of major combat


Originally posted by blueturk
Or are you saying that the the other countries lies cancelled out Bush's lie,so really Bush didn't lie at all? What is this,"Seinfeld"? The whole thing sounds like something George would come up with.

:rolleyes: let me guess bush told everyone in the world to lie about wmd and he even got clinton to lie as well. were all these people lying as well?:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
------------------

oh wait i forgot bush is the liar:rolleyes:

[Sarge's Little Helper]

:rolleyes: let me guess bush told everyone in the world to lie about wmd and he even got clinton to lie as well. were all these people lying as well?:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
------------------

oh wait i forgot bush is the liar:rolleyes:

Oops. I wasn't paying attention. Tell me again what is going on.

[TEUFEL HUNDEN]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Thank you, TEUFEL!

And thank you for your service to our country. Five star vote for you, soldier!

DC

[TEUFEL HUNDEN]

Your Welcome BUT never call a Marine a soldier. I know you didnt mean to say that but its kinda like calling Dave in Van Halen, Van Hagar. Tuefel Hunden(Devil Dog)

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by TEUFEL HUNDEN
Your Welcome BUT never call a Marine a soldier. I know you didnt mean to say that but its kinda like calling Dave in Van Halen, Van Hagar. Tuefel Hunden(Devil Dog)

Got it!:D

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
really a lie? well look here:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0408/16/pzn.00.html

FRANKS: There was. There was. And it was not too long after the 9th of April when the statue came down, so--maybe a couple of weeks that in a conversation with Secretary Rumsfeld, I said there is no more army, navy, air force here. Major combat, this is a done deal. And I'd really appreciate it if you'd have the President, you know, announce that.

-------------

now whereis there an army in iraq attacking us? where is there an air force in iraq attacking us? etc etc etc there isn't and thats the definition of major combat


:rolleyes: let me guess bush told everyone in the world to lie about wmd and he even got clinton to lie as well. were all these people lying as well?:

Who cares about Clinton?! HE didn't invade Iraq! Who set this thing in motion! And that's the only thing that matters!



Lucky? Do you have a clue as too what guerilla war is? DO YOU READ these articles? Do you have any idea of how ridiculous and incredulous you make yourself sound. Are YOU TRIVIALIZING AMERICAN CASUALTIES by stating we are not in a war? WELL TELL ME WHAT THE FUCK IS IT?! A POLICE ACTION? PEACEKEEPING?? Again, your are playing with meaningless semantics and titles, and using meaningless comparisons to as a benchmark. Who gives a shit about whether they are being killed by a regular army or guerillas detonating a roadside bomb? IN WHAT CENTURY DID YOU GET YOUR MILITARY TRAINING? IT SURE AIN"T THE 20th!
:rolleyes:

BTW: Do you really think Tommy Franks would characterize the insurgency as any thing other than a war? If he did, he'd be laughed off the TV news set.

[TEUFEL HUNDEN]

Originally posted by BITEYOASS
I'm in the same situation myself. But I'm tired of listening to both sides and would rather go into the shit to find out what all the bitchin is about. Fuck, I've been in for six years and this is my first overseas deployment; and my first 4 was active duty in Yuma. But the most truthful opposition I've heard about this war was from meeting a couple of former Marines who were snipers in the last years of Nam, while waiting at Hickam. Telling me that the rich don't lift a finger when it comes to war and they got a point there.

Whats your MOS???

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Lucky? Do you have a clue as too what guerilla war is? DO YOU READ these articles? Do you have any idea of how ridiculous and incredulous you make yourself sound.

Let me answer for him.

No:D

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Who cares about Clinton?! HE didn't invade Iraq! Who set this thing in motion! And that's the only thing that matters!

yes lets us look at who set this in motion shall we. where do you want to start pl 235 or othe iraq liberation act? you do know what those are right? there both clinton era laws that were put in place to help get rid of saddam. from the iraq liberation act:

SEC. 3. POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES.
It should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the
regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the
emergence of a demo-cratic government to replace that regime.


or how about pl 235:

Whereas Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threaten
vital United States interests and international peace and security:
Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Government of Iraq is
in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations,
and therefore the President is urged to take appropriate action, in
accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States,
to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.

both signed by clinton. now again who put the idea of removing saddam out there? i guess only bombing iraq and using covert actions in iraq mean nothing because we weren't at "war"


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Lucky? Do you have a clue as too what guerilla war is? DO YOU READ these articles?

you don't read them and thats a fact. you just throw up shit unrealeted to anything that is posted.



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Do you have any idea of how ridiculous and incredulous you make yourself sound. Are YOU TRIVIALIZING AMERICAN CASUALTIES by stating we are not in a war? WELL TELL ME WHAT THE FUCK IS IT?! A POLICE ACTION? PEACEKEEPING??

and where did i do that? post it or apolgize. oh thats right i didn't you moron. your the one who seems to trivalize things around here. military personal die all the time weather its beruit in 83, kohbar towers in 96 the cole in 2000, kosovo or a training accident in the middle of nowhere in the desert. it seems that it only matters to you if troops die if they are at "war"


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Again, your are playing with meaningless semantics and titles, and using meaningless comparisons to as a benchmark.

yep thats it i'm playing semantics:rolleyes: nothing says palying semantics like posted what the head of the us armed forces says :rolleyes:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0408/16/pzn.00.html

FRANKS: Not a mistake in military parlance. Major combat is defined in a certain way. Major combat has to do with tanks and jets and ships and that sort of thing. What probably is wrong is to pass it along and not civilianize the term. Major combat operations, in my view as a military man were over and are over. But that does not imply that we're not fighting a heck of a fight over there today.

-------
now i guess that he knows just wee bit more about things then you



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Who gives a shit about whether they are being killed by a regular army or guerillas detonating a roadside bomb? IN WHAT CENTURY DID YOU GET YOUR MILITARY TRAINING? IT SURE AIN"T THE 20th!

and why do you go back to school on what the point of and who would be behind a "guerilla war" is. here i'll educate you:

guer·ril·la or gue·ril·la ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g-rl)
n.

A member of an irregular, usually indigenous military or paramilitary unit operating in small bands in occupied territory to harass and undermine the enemy, as by surprise raids.


its not to win militarly. its not to see how many peole that can be killed its to get the public at home to turn againest the war and call it a lost cause causing the army to retreat. thats what happen it veitnam. the north veitnamese after the war even conceaded that the us could win the military war but their use of propaganda cause public supprt to turn againest the war allowing them to win. they said the best weapon the ever had was the us media. just like today. people like you keep saying things are a mess and this and that when i real life the overwhelming majority of the country is fine. so tell if if things are a mess and its a guerilla war why has the been not attacks in arbil, bashur, kut,basrah,umm qasr,ar rutbah,al hadr,makamur, all al gharbi, al azizyah and on and on and on. now who is behid this "guerilla war" has to be locals to be called a "Guerilla war" but whos behind most of it?

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2004/WORLD/meast/02/24/sprj.nirq.main/vert.zarqawi.jpg

now he's not an iraqi now is he so it can't be an indigenous military unit now can it.



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
BTW: Do you really think Tommy Franks would characterize the insurgency as any thing other than a war? If he did, he'd be laughed off the TV news set.

i think he has ,paraphrasing here calling it more of a mop up mission to eleminate those saddam feedyeen elements that ran, the criminals that were released and the foreign fighters that were in iraq before the invasion sort of like these idiots:

http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2002/05/31/image510807l.jpg

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2004/WORLD/meast/02/24/sprj.nirq.main/vert.zarqawi.jpg

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/world/0304/timeline.abu.abbas/gallery.abbas.jpg

[BigBadBrian]

Lucky 1
Nick 0


:gulp:

[BITEYOASS]

Originally posted by TEUFEL HUNDEN
Whats your MOS???

6541 Aviation Ordnance Tech.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
really a lie? well look here:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0408/16/pzn.00.html

FRANKS: There was. There was. And it was not too long after the 9th of April when the statue came down, so--maybe a couple of weeks that in a conversation with Secretary Rumsfeld, [b]I said there is no more army, navy, air force here. Major combat, this is a done deal. And I'd really appreciate it if you'd have the President, you know, announce that.

So is it all ret. Gen. Tommy Franks fault? What is your point here? Tom said major combat is over. So it's over...Black is white! Less is more...Freedom is slavery! If a lie is said enough it becomes the truth. Is that what your agenda is?

No! It Bushes fault because he surrounded himself with incompetent yes-men!, which shows why he continually failed at business...NEOCONS that evaluate the world through a filter of delusion...Much like you my friend.

now whereis there an army in iraq attacking us? where is there an air force in iraq attacking us? etc etc etc there isn't and thats the definition of major combat

People dying on a daily basis is called Low-Intensity conflict...By the way, was Falluja "Major combat?" You call me the moron..:rolleyes:

:rolleyes: let me guess bush told everyone in the world to lie about wmd and he even got clinton to lie as well. were all these people lying as well?:

Again, your only defense of Bush is to cite the previous Adminstration that has been out of power for four years now. What did the "World" say about our invasion? They were so confident of WMD's they said "NO" to the coalition and we scorned them. You can cite words all you want, what are the DEEDS?



"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
------------------

oh wait i forgot bush is the liar:rolleyes:

Gee, I wonder who was feeding those Democrats the intelligence on which they made there statements?

I mean, it's not like Bush pressured the CIA to emphasize intelligence that propagated that Iraq had WMD's (mostly lying defectors that wanted Saddam out). Then he shit-canned "Slam Dunk Tenet" for telling him what he wanted to hear, and then using him as a scapegoat.. It's not like Bush had Powell present flimsy evidence to the UN in order to unsuccessfully sell his war. That fact was that people had made their minds up about Iraq having WMD's without a shred of real evidence. ANd the Congress was given exaggerrated and "spun" evidnence to manipulate them into the above statements.

I mean it's not like Rumsfeld asked Richard Clarke about bombing Iraq shortly after 9/11 even though no evidence provided a link and Clark knew it was Al-Qaida.


Are you finished showing stupid comments by Democrats yet. Good. Who cares! They weren't the ones making policy! Bush was fixated on Iraq from day one, and his Administration manipulated 9/11 to push his Neocon agenda. Lets have some telling quotes shall we...

[Nickdfresh]

Oh by the way, Franks also said this:


From Paula Zahn Now on CNN
ZAHN: In your book, you mention that you projected that you thought you needed a quarter of a million troops on the ground. FRANKS: Uh-huh.

ZAHN: You didn't get that. Why not?

FRANKS: Up to a quarter of a million troops and certainly not all of them Americans. My view was--and remains as still my view-- that the beginning of the operation and the movement through major combat operations was force-sized about perfectly. I wasn't sure how many troops it would take, once we began security and stability operations in Iraq, but I was pretty sure that the international community, a whole laundry list of countries, would provide troops to augment the Americans already on the ground as soon as major combat operations had been completed and so...

ZAHN: But that support never materialized?

FRANKS: Some did.

ZAHN: Not in the numbers you hoped.

FRANKS: No, no. Some did, but not at the level that I wanted. I'll be eternally grateful to the 22, 23 countries who are there and who are doing something.

Wow, what a glowing review of his bosses

FRANKS:...The latest report I think I saw on that was maybe dated 1999 from the inspectors. Well, it doesn't say that he had them, that he has the weapons. It says that we can't--we can't prove whether he does or does not have them, but he's not cooperating. The regime is not cooperating. Well, if have you that kind of information, within a context where a year or so earlier, America lost 3000 lives at the hands of terrorists, could you take the risk of not knowing with certitude that a guy who had used weapons of mass destruction against the Iranians, against his own people, the Kurds, wouldn't do that?

Wow! I guess maybe the "whole world" didn't think Saddam had weapons?!

BUSH: My fellow Americans, major combat operations in Iraq have ended and the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies, have prevailed.

Hmmmmmm

FRANKS: And as a result of that, unintended consequences. I mean, I'm the guy who did that.

ZAHN: We were all led to believe it was the White House press office or someone within that infrastructure that encouraged the President to do that.

FRANKS: I don't know--I don't know about the mission accomplished and the aircraft carrier and all that. I don't know about that. And I wouldn't try to defend it at all, but the idea of major combat finished. That came from me.


ZAHN: And what was the turning point? What made you believe that?

FRANKS: No more army, no more air force, navy. We had our tanks parked in the middle of the Republican Guard's formations and, in fact, the Iraqis were already making contact with us, seeking positions in the various ministries in Baghdad.

ZAHN: In retrospect, was it a mistake to believe that combat operations were over?

FRANKS: Not a mistake in military parlance. Major combat is defined in a certain way. Major combat has to do with tanks and jets and ships and that sort of thing. What probably is wrong is to pass it along and not civilianize the term. Major combat operations, in my view as a military man were over and are over. But that does not imply that we're not fighting a heck of a fight over there today.

What about low intensity conflict?

ZAHN: So do you think the American public was left with a false impression by the President's appearance on that aircraft carrier?

FRANKS: I think--I think maybe so, but I'm sure not an intentional one. I believe if the election were coming up from that day, the 1st of May, 2003 in November, then I can see some advantage to the President having sought to do something like that. But in May of 2003, I actually think that this commander in chief was given the general--me--what I asked for. That's what I believe.

By the way, you left this out Lucky. See, I do read (most) of your posts. You know, the ones you like to "SPIN" in order to prove your points.

I wonder why he won't comment on Rumsfeld?

[Nickdfresh]

Gen. Franks, did you have enough troops to fight in Iraq?

No..well sort of, I mean Yes, well-we would have if more showed up...maybe.......

Yeah, he's a great source!

Oh, we are not "mopping up" in Iraq. You obviously don't read much on the real insurgency.

Nice pic's though. By the way, which one is Osama...Oh I forgot...we haven't gotten him yet!

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
So is it all ret. Gen. Tommy Franks fault? What is your point here? Tom said major combat is over. So it's over...Black is white! Less is more...Freedom is slavery! If a lie is said enough it becomes the truth. Is that what your agenda is?

lets see hes the genral in charge so i think he would be the ultimate authority on it


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
No! It Bushes fault because he surrounded himself with incompetent yes-men!, which shows why he continually failed at business...NEOCONS that evaluate the world through a filter of delusion...Much like you my friend.

yep thats it. i'm delude and which one of us believes the pnac bullshit?


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
People dying on a daily basis is called Low-Intensity conflict...By the way, was Falluja "Major combat?" You call me the moron..

so which is it low intensity or major combat? under the definition that has been laid out its not major combat


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Again, your only defense of Bush is to cite the previous Adminstration that has been out of power for four years now. What did the "World" say about our invasion? They were so confident of WMD's they said "NO" to the coalition and we scorned them. You can cite words all you want, what are the DEEDS?

and what did the world say about iraq and wmd? france said they had them but the time wasen't right to remove saddam. germany said the same thing yet those. yes what did the world say. i guess these countries said lets take out saddam:

As of November 4, 2004, there were 28 non-U.S. military forces participating in the coalition and contributing to the ongoing stability operations throughout Iraq. These countries were Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, United Kingdom, Ukraine, and the Kingdom of Tonga.

and these countries were with us as well:

Nicaragua (Feb. 2004); Spain (late-Apr. 2004); Dominican Republic (early-May 2004); Honduras (late-May 2004); Philippines (~Jul. 19, 2004); Thailand (late-Aug. 2004); and New Zealand (late Sep. 04).

seems most of the world were with us


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Gee, I wonder who was feeding those Democrats the intelligence on which they made there statements?

I mean, it's not like Bush pressured the CIA to emphasize intelligence that propagated that Iraq had WMD's (mostly lying defectors that wanted Saddam out). Then he shit-canned "Slam Dunk Tenet" for telling him what he wanted to hear, and then using him as a scapegoat.. It's not like Bush had Powell present flimsy evidence to the UN in order to unsuccessfully sell his war. That fact was that people had made their minds up about Iraq having WMD's without a shred of real evidence. ANd the Congress was given exaggerrated and "spun" evidnence to manipulate them into the above statements.

again you've proven that you don't read anything any one posts. half those quotes were from the 90s so how can bush be behind it? oh thats right he wasen't. or better yet again i quote tommy franks:

http://archive.parade.com/2004/0801/0801_tommy_franks.html

In January 2003, two months before the Iraq War, Jordan’s King Abdullah and Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak both told Franks that Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction, or WMD. According to Franks, Mubarak told him point-blank: “Saddam has WMD—biologicals, actually—and he will use them on your troops.” Within an hour, he relayed that message to Washington.

were they lying as well? unless your going to read what people post don't respond to peoples posts otherwise your just wasting everyones time




Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I mean it's not like Rumsfeld asked Richard Clarke about bombing Iraq shortly after 9/11 even though no evidence provided a link and Clark knew it was Al-Qaida.

you want to talk about clark you want me to bump the threads where in the 90's he connected iraq to al aqeda?

http://archive.parade.com/2004/0801/0801_tommy_franks.html

In a bit of score-settling, Franks says: “I never received a single page of actionable intelligence from Richard Clarke.”



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Are you finished showing stupid comments by Democrats yet. Good. Who cares! They weren't the ones making policy! Bush was fixated on Iraq from day one, and his Administration manipulated 9/11 to push his Neocon agenda. Lets have some telling quotes shall we...

really fixated thats why the people who would know these things say no to that

yes lets have some quotes shall we:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/13/oneill.bush/index.html

"People are trying to make a case that I said the president was planning war in Iraq early in the administration," O'Neill said.

"Actually, there was a continuation of work that had been going on in the Clinton administration with the notion that there needed to be regime change in Iraq."


or better yet

Retired Army Gen. Hugh Shelton, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he saw nothing to indicate the United States was close to attacking Iraq early in Bush's term.

Shelton, who retired shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, said the brass reviewed "on the shelf" plans to respond to crises with the incoming Bush administration.

But in the administration's first six months, "I saw nothing that would lead me to believe that we were any closer to attacking Iraq than we had been during the previous administration," Shelton told CNN.

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Nice pic's though. By the way, which one is Osama...Oh I forgot...we haven't gotten him yet!

yep osamas the only one we want:rolleyes: lets just forget about the first world trade center bomber i mean what thats 11 years ago lets forget about him. and the murders that the other two were behind lets just throw them out the window right? :rolleyes:

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
yep osamas the only one we want:rolleyes: lets just forget about the first world trade center bomber i mean what thats 11 years ago lets forget about him. and the murders that the other two were behind lets just throw them out the window right? :rolleyes:

Yeah! I guess he's closer to the oil right? Even if he did kill about 2950 less people. Priorities! By the way, did we get him?

If the choice is to arrest a serial killer or a man who murdered once out of passion, I'll take the former.;)

[lucky wilbury]

we are still looking for yashin,the 93 bomber. he's slipped the net a few times and is currently involved with attacks on us forces. abbas we caught. he later died in our custody. and were still after zarqawi who was on the "al aqaeda scorecard" before the iraq war.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Lucky 1
Nick 0


:gulp:

See what happens when you let the Republicants count the votes?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
lets see hes the genral in charge so i think he would be the ultimate authority on it

Oh no! Rumsfeld had nothing to do with it! Who hired him? Why did the last guy quit? The buck stops on that guy I guess.



yep thats it. i'm delude and which one of us believes the pnac bullshit?

Which one grasps at straws when it comes to WMD's and nonexistent ties between Saddam and Al-Qaida? Not me.



so which is it low intensity or major combat? under the definition that has been laid out its not major combat

I saw that interview actually. He looked as if he was to be shot or maybe Paula was unzipping her shirt or giving him pussy flashes or something, but he clearly looked unconfortable! He clearly contradicts himself (paraphrase) no I didn't have enough troops, but actually I was quite confortable with the troops levels...He was qualifying his words, because he knows Low-intensity conflict is exactly the kind of war this Military has been trying to avoid because the Army is not trained or equipted to fight prolonged guerilla conflicts. The whole point has been to avoid them since Vietnam. The insurgents are doing just what they want, BLEEDING us to the point Iraq is not economically viable. That's how they win, when we leave and they have a really big civil war followed by wonderful days of ethnic cleansing!


and what did the world say about iraq and wmd? france said they had them but the time wasen't right to remove saddam. germany said the same thing yet those. yes what did the world say. i guess these countries said lets take out saddam:

Weapons of mass destruction? They thought Saddam had precisely because of what Franks said, "We can't prove they don't." Saddam didn't really fear the US or Europe, he was far more afraid of Iran invading, and that's why he always implied he still had chemical weapons, they were the only thing the Iranians still feared of the Iraqi Military.

As of November 4, 2004, there were 28 non-U.S. military forces participating in the coalition and contributing to the ongoing stability operations throughout Iraq. These countries were Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, United Kingdom, Ukraine, and the Kingdom of Tonga.

and these countries were with us as well:

Nicaragua (Feb. 2004); Spain (late-Apr. 2004); Dominican Republic (early-May 2004); Honduras (late-May 2004); Philippines (~Jul. 19, 2004); Thailand (late-Aug. 2004); and New Zealand (late Sep. 04).

seems most of the world were with us

In very tiny contingents. The only parts of the world that are with us are the ones that want something (i.e. NATO membership or investment). And some of those countries will shortly pull out (Ukraine) or will withdraw after their next elections (the UK).



again you've proven that you don't read anything any one posts. half those quotes were from the 90s so how can bush be behind it? oh thats right he wasen't. or better yet again i quote tommy franks:

http://archive.parade.com/2004/0801/0801_tommy_franks.html

No, most of those quotes were from late 2002 during the drums of war "Super-patriot, Freedom Fry land" period. The drums of war were beating, and anyone who tried to speak up was drowned out politically by them (i.e. Howard Dean). They were all trying to sound like Republican Hawks. Unfortunately they didn't realize the hawks were really wrong this time.

And we were never about to invade Iraq in 1998 to deprive Saddam of purported chemical weapons.

In January 2003, two months before the Iraq War, Jordan’s King Abdullah and Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak both told Franks that Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction, or WMD. According to Franks, Mubarak told him point-blank: “Saddam has WMD—biologicals, actually—and he will use them on your troops.” Within an hour, he relayed that message to Washington.

were they lying as well? unless your going to read what people post don't respond to peoples posts otherwise your just wasting everyones time

Yes they were! Because they were ironically trying to deter us from invading and causing a massive qaugmire on their borders. If they were so gung-ho about Iraqi WMD's, where was the Egyptian and Jordanian armies? Why did they not invade and relieve the Middle East of this pestulance? Those dictators stay in power for a reason.





you want to talk about clark you want me to bump the threads where in the 90's he connected iraq to al aqeda?

http://archive.parade.com/2004/0801/0801_tommy_franks.html

In a bit of score-settling, Franks says: “I never received a single page of actionable intelligence from Richard Clarke.”

Who did give him his INTELLIGENCE? Franks is an ass coverer who talks out of two sides of his mouth. Is he going to admit that he was hoodwinked?




really fixated thats why the people who would know these things say no to that

yes lets have some quotes shall we:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/13/oneill.bush/index.html

"People are trying to make a case that I said the president was planning war in Iraq early in the administration," O'Neill said.

"Actually, there was a continuation of work that had been going on in the Clinton administration with the notion that there needed to be regime change in Iraq."


or better yet

Retired Army Gen. Hugh Shelton, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he saw nothing to indicate the United States was close to attacking Iraq early in Bush's term.

Shelton, who retired shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, said the brass reviewed "on the shelf" plans to respond to crises with the incoming Bush administration.

But in the administration's first six months, "I saw nothing that would lead me to believe that we were any closer to attacking Iraq than we had been during the previous administration," Shelton told CNN.


Okay, lets examine some other stuff. Let's see the opinions of retired senior officers that are not directly connected to this mess:



(Lt. Gen., U.S. Marine Corps-Ret.).


…Presumably before the war, somebody was saying: "What about the other end of this thing? What if they take to the streets? What about suicide bombers?"

There were many voices who spoke both openly in public testimony to the media, and I'm aware of many cases where they spoke privately to those in key positions in the administration and warned them that this could be the result. They were dismissed, some publicly, like Gen. Shinseki, when he said several hundred thousand soldiers would be needed, and Mr. Wolfowitz said, "I can't imagine you'd need any number like that." So there was this humiliation whenever you challenged. …

…I didn't see a plan unfolding that was a plan that would really fight a war, fight this campaign. I saw one that would take care of a single operation, the capture of Baghdad, the takedown of the Saddam regime. And the question is, all right, what are you going to do with the country after you have it? How are you going to get this thing under control? I saw no planning, heard of no planning worthy of the name for the aftermath of the fighting.

And I said to myself, because I look back at history, and even in 1943 when what the results were going to be in Europe was still in question, the United States had people planning for what happened after the military operations, the active forces passed through. They were talking about how you reestablish civil government. They were talking about how you deal with a people that are occupied. There's a rich body of literature that was written after the Second World War. I knew of no one inside the Pentagon even looking at that. All that work was being done over in the State Department, and the Pentagon was ignoring it, and in fact, when they were offered, simply just refused to even look at it.


So the statue of Saddam falls. What are you thinking?

I was thinking two things -- one, obviously proud that this happened. As a Marine, I was proud that the Marines were involved as they were, that they moved so quick and as well as they did. I was proud of the Army forces, proud of all the joint forces. In the back of my mind, though, I had two concerns. One is, what are you going to do with the rest of the country, the northern part of the country that you haven't gone to? What is it you're going to do with all these places you bypassed down south? Literally, what is your plan now that the regime has fallen? I didn't know of one.

I guess deep in my heart I hoped that there was some sort of a secret plan that they were going to follow. ... Just imagine if the follow-on and support forces that were in the original plans had been there, [if] divisions had simply gone around Baghdad and gone up into what we now know is the Sunni triangle; clamped down; let them see the hard heel of occupation, at least for a short period; get secured; prevent the looting; go into places in the South that were bypassed; get ahold of the weapons; get them under control; get into some of these places where there were alleged weapons of mass destruction, find out what was really there; prevent this radioactive material from escaping. That's the kind of forces you needed. No one can quibble over the right size force for capturing Baghdad. But for a war with the nation of Iraq and for actually occupying the country as we claimed we wanted to do, totally insufficient. This is literally Operations 101.


…It's September of '03, and Rumsfeld has gone with a press entourage to Baghdad. Did you know then that the insurgency was more than just a handful of people?

I don't think anyone truly knew what the scope of this was going to be after the active fighting ended in May of 2003, but we understood what Saddam claimed he was going to do; we understood the possibilities of what you could do. And not to be prepared for that, even if you didn't know what was going to happen, to be prepared for all of the eventualities, is what I'm critical of.


Why would the secretary of defense not say: "We've got this problem here. We're going to go get it"?

I think to a degree, he's stubborn. Being stubborn, holding to your convictions, is good to a point, but when the evidence around you indicates your position is not tenable, then you ought to start to adapt to the situation. It got well beyond where it was tenable, and he was still holding the position. …



(Gen., U.S. Marine Corps-Ret), Commander, CENTCOM (1991-1994).


…With Desert Storm …..I never once, in all the conversations that took place between August and February, heard a discussion about war termination. What were the terms of ending the war? What kind of requirements were we going to impose on the Iraqis after we had thrown them out of Kuwait? Because you remember, the military mission was beautifully defined: Liberate Kuwait. That doesn't give you either peace or stability; it just gives you a liberated Kuwait. And I guess I'm as guilty as everybody else. I might have raised my hand in a meeting and said, "What are we going to do after we throw them out?" I never heard anybody talk about this.


This has weird and faint echoes into the future [Iraq] doesn't it, that we're not thinking about the aftermath of these things?

It's the human condition that we do the things we understand best. So the military planned for the military mission of liberating Kuwait. The State Department or somebody else should have been thinking, what are we going to do after we do this? We've got a bad guy, a thug, that runs that country. We used to help him, you'll recall, during the war with Iraq and Iran. But now he was a bad guy, bona fide bad guy. What are we going to do? How are we going to change the relationship here? ...

The interesting thing from my point of view was that President Bush had said, "I had been told that if we decisively beat the Iraqis in Kuwait that Saddam Hussein would throw in the towel and leave, that he'd abdicate." And I often thought that didn't square with my knowledge of that part of the world; that people gave up office usually after they'd been hung up at the end of a rope. ... Some years later, a distinguished admiral who I knew, who's since passed on, said that he had been in the White House when this discussion had come up, and he said that the president had indicated that Hosni Mubarak, the president of Egypt, had told him that Saddam Hussein wouldn't stay if the forces were defeated.

Now, I can't speculate on why Mr. Mubarak said that, but the Egyptians have a very different agenda in that part of the world than in the United States, and so it would seem to me that in this instance, that kind of information might not be very reliable if you were getting it from the head of state of Egypt. …


General, let's talk about the war plan. One fellow we talked to said, "We could have gone in there with 50,000 or less, decapitated the regime; it would have been over in nothing flat." The reason I'm quoting him is this is what the secretary of defense read and said, "Send this guy down to CENTCOM to talk to the other generals sitting around the table." That was in January of 2002. What do you think Gen. [Tommy] Franks' answer to that was, and what do you think of the idea?

I know what my answer would have been. I can't say it on public television. You can't get there from here. This is a labor-intensive business. If you're going to go in and change a country of 25 million people, you've got to have boots on the ground. The way you minimize casualties is you fight aggressively and with overwhelming strength. And so when you start up the road to Baghdad, you've got to have enough guys to protect your supply lines so hapless guys driving tanker trucks and supply trucks don't get shot and get captured. When you get into the big city, you have enough people to flood that city, that city that's second only in size to New York City in terms of how big it is. It's 6.5 million people.

50,000 people -- where would they go in Baghdad? What would they secure? Even if they were successful, how would you manage all of that? What would be the next step? I think it's absolutely impractical. And 50,000 people would have meant more casualties, because there would have been more of them caught on the roads. There would have been more of them that would have been killed in these small firefights around the city. It's just not workable.


Why would this be attractive to the secretary of defense?

There is this thread that moves through the Defense Department regardless of who's in charge, whether it's Democrats or Republicans ... that technology will take care of all of this. The more technology you have, the fewer guys you need on the ground. That's true for some missions, but it's not true when you're about to undertake a counterinsurgency campaign in a country of 25 million people. And the idea that they were going to dance in the street and welcome us when we got to Baghdad was just wrong. The last time they danced in the street in Baghdad was 9/11. Don't count on it.


Why did they count on it?

Because guys like [Iraqi National Congress founder Ahmad] Chalabi told them what they wanted to hear. This guy has been a fraud since the early '90s, and all of us have known that and spoken out publicly against him. But he told these guys what they wanted to hear: "It'll be easy. We'll take over the country. When I'm running the country, we'll recognize Israel. We'll reconstitute the pipeline to Haifa. It hasn't been in working order since 1948" -- all of the kinds of stories that these guys wanted to hear. …


At the same time that the war plan is finally evolved and guys are getting to the ground, you would think there's also a reconstruction plan.

I think that because it's essentially a political process, the principal person in the U.S. government to manage this should have been the secretary of state, not the secretary of defense. So decisions about military activity should have been cleared by this senior guy in the country who would have been described, I think, as the presidential special envoy to Iraq. And so it isn't that the military couldn't do what it wanted to do. ... It would have been a cooperative process. But the person that reported back would report primarily to the secretary of state and the secretary of state to the president, in my judgment.


That didn't happen. Why?

Because the president chose to have the Defense Department do this work and be preeminent, to be the agency that had the primary responsibility for the reconstruction.


Once that decision is made, what are the implications?

Well, I think there's a couple problems. First of all, [former Director of Operations in Somalia, Gen.] Tony Zinni, when he was at CENTCOM, had started to think about this and had a plan. Nobody ever asked to see it. Nobody ever looked at it. I'm told that the Army War College up at Carlisle in Pennsylvania put together a plan for the reconstruction. Nobody ever asked to look at it. ...

Now, the developmental piece has been equally screwed up. As you know, there was $18 billion authorized and appropriated for the rebuilding of Iraq. Only $600 million has been spent today. The fiscal year is about ready to end, and a very small portion of that money has been spent thus far. Clearly we're not doing very well on the developmental side either. I don't know why. But clearly the wrong people are out there trying to do the job.


The State Department did have a team, 60 or 70 people, who wrote a plan for what to do. The State Department people get moved over to the Defense Department, and then Rumsfeld tells all of them fairly quickly they've got to get out of the building before sunset. He doesn't like the idea of having the State Department people in the building. What is going on?

Well, I'm not encumbered with any firsthand knowledge, but I would say that this is the problem that you have when you're dealing with true believers. One thing that I have learned as a senior commander is, if you already know the answer to the questions, [and] you can be sure if you've already made it clear what the answers are, people are going to feed you back that information. That's the nature of the ways things are done in the military. Rare occasions you'll get guys who say, "Hey, General, your fly's open," or "You've got it wrong," but not many.


What does it mean to the uniformed services to have all this happen?

This is a very tough issue. Eliot Cohen wrote a piece in the Wall Street Journal last week saying generals shouldn't be getting involved in the politics, that they're generals and they weaken the resolve, and this is the issue of supporting the troops. Attacking the political leadership and supporting the troops are two very different things, in my judgment. But if you're on the ground and you're a commander, you have got to put whatever personal views you have about the war aside and meet your day-to-day commitments. And I believe that. We can't just fold up and get away. The second- and third-order consequences of failure in Iraq are enormous. We would have another theocratic state in Iraq. We would destabilize, potentially, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, all of those countries.

But the sure way, in my judgment, of getting that kind of a state is continually trying to influence the outcome. Sooner or later you're going to make these people so angry that the dominant force in this country, which is Shia Islam, is going to wind up running the country.


When did you know that it was a serious insurgency?

I've never heard Mr. Cheney characterize any of our opposition in Iraq as anything but terrorists, and that's pretty big spin in my judgment. Many of these people are people that have no work because of either their political connections or their service in the army before. They've been badly treated by the U.S. military for whatever reason, justified or not. To say that some of these people don't have legitimate reasons for wanting to see the United States out of there is to not understand the problem.

Hmmmm...People that don't understand the insurgency. "Know thy enemy" -Sun Tzu

I don't doubt that there are foreign terrorists there, but their numbers seem to be relatively small. I saw a figure that there were 12,000 detainees in Iraq that were held by the U.S. armed forces there, of whom 92 were foreign-born. Now, if you extrapolate that figure to our opposition countrywide, it would seem to me that the number of foreign people is relatively small. The guys that we're having so much trouble with -- whatever their motivations, there is certainly a nationalist overtone. I don't think you could fairly describe them as terrorists. You'd have to talk about them as insurgents.…



(Gen., U.S. Army-Ret.), Secretary of the Army, 2001-2003.

…Face-forward planning: What happened?


The working assumptions were that the Iraqi people would behave themselves. There will be a few dead-enders and former Baathists that will have to be dealt with, but by and large, they assumed away the problem. ... Now, mind you, Gen. Rick Shinseki was the only guy in the whole senior structure who had actually had hands-on, on-the-ground experience in running a stabilization force. In his case, it was Bosnia. So you would think that his views on the subject would have carried some weight, and unfortunately, they did not.

Wolfowitz says to a congressional committee that he can't conceive of a situation where the forces required for the stabilization phase would be greater than the forces required for the military operation. All of us in the Army felt just the opposite, that there was a long history of that being absolutely true; that the defeat of the Iraqi military would be a relatively straightforward operation of fairly short duration for all the reasons Doug Macgregor had to say. That was all true. ... But the securing of the peace and the security of a country of 25 million people spread out over an enormous geographic area would be a tremendous challenge that would take a lot of people, a lot of labor, to be done right. And nobody wanted to hear that. And we are dealing with the consequences of that to this day.

Gee, really?


What I don't understand is how a guy like Don Rumsfeld, who you've described as micromanager, down in the muck, wanting to know everything, can let the "winning the peace" side of the equation go.

A part of it was that we had had this operation in Afghanistan, and in the post-combat phase, the difficulties never bubbled up to significant levels. So there was kind of this mind-set, and also that the postwar deal is kind of a lower form of life; it's kind of a necessary evil. But they've got Chalabi and all these other guys who are blowing in their ear that this will not be a problem. ... To do that portion of the operation justice, you probably would have had to slow down the military operation itself, because you'd have to convince yourself you would be ready to do a phase four of that magnitude. It would have slowed down the whole thing because you would have needed to have the additional forces in place. An enormous amount of planning would have had to go on, and none of it went on. It was easier just to keep on the short track of the logic of the war: the imminent threat to the United States. Therefore we have to attack quickly, and oh, by the way, we'll just kind of bumble along when the war's over, and hopefully it will turn out okay. And it didn't.


In the planning phase, or lack-of-planning phase, there has been State Department activity.

Lots of people, lots of smart people, experienced people in that region. But that is an issue -- that means if we take in their views and their thought and ideas, apparently we have to give up control of this thing. And the Defense Department is going to exercise rigid control over this whole operation, and therefore none of those people, some of whom Jay Garner apparently wanted to hire, are deemed to be acceptable. And so we just exclude that.

Maybe some of it didn't track to this party line. The Iraqi planning group got into the details of currencies and markets and all of these things that would be necessary to consider to get the country back on its feet and moving. Secretary Wolfowitz goes in front of a congressional committee and says, "Well, the Iraqi oil revenues will pay for all of this, basically." We're $200 billion into this thing now, and the Iraqi oil, when it flows, is not paying for very much of it.


Is that idealistic or ideological?

I think it's ideological. I think he is a true believer in the neocon agenda, and that colors the way he looks at this. This business of the way to deal with the Islamic issue of fundamentalism is to make the world democratic or make it look like us, and therefore planting our flag in the middle of the Arab world and making Iraq a showplace for democracy is the right thing to do regardless of what the cost is. And I think he truly believes that.

You were saying about Neocons and PNAC?


When Gen. Shinseki testifies, he's uncomfortable answering the question, "What's the number? How many do we need?" He doesn't want to answer it, and then he kind of does a math problem, and then he answers it. I think it's two days later Wolfowitz comes in.

Oh, yeah. First of all, it's the Senate Armed Services Committee, and it's Sen. Carl Levin. And Levin wants a number, which is not an unreasonable thing for Sen. Levin to be asking for -- "What's going to happen when the war's over? How many people?" -- right? That's a reasonable question to ask.

And so Shinseki tells him, "Maybe as many as 200,000," or some words to that effect. But the number 200,000 was out there. I thought that was perfectly reasonable. So the next morning, I get a call from Wolfowitz, who is upset that Shinseki would give this number. And I forget exactly what I said, but I said: "Well, he's an expert. He was asked. He has a fundamental responsibility to answer the questions and offer his professional opinion, which he did. And there was some basis to the opinion because he is a relative expert on the subject ."... They go public shortly thereafter to discredit Shinseki. And [Wolfowitz] says "wildly off the mark," and he gives this little speech about he "couldn't conceive of how you would have a case where it takes more people to secure the peace than it does to win the war." Well, you can look over the past 50 years in stability operations, and it's quite clear that that's precisely how the equation normally comes out, that Shinseki has a basis for this view. And Rumsfeld says something about it as well at the time.

You mean they fired something because he told them what they don't want to hear?

So they discredit Shinseki. Then a week later, I get in front of the same committee. I see Sen. Levin before the hearing starts, and he says, "I'm going to ask you the same question." I said: "Good. You're going to get the same answer."

At that point, Shinseki and White are not on the team, right? We don't get it. We don't understand this thing, and we are not on the team. And therefore, actions are going to be taken.


And the implications for you personally were what?

That would have been April. And on the 26th of April, I was called in late on a Friday afternoon and told by Rumsfeld, with Wolfowitz standing there, that I was going to be replaced. And that was it. ... I said something to the effect of "Well, thank you very much." I consider the fact that I was secretary for two years to be an honor, and the chance to serve in the president's administration and to represent soldiers and their families. And the secretary is free to fire me anytime he wants. And if our positions were reversed, I would have fired him. …


The Army had been kind of getting out of the business of training for counterinsurgency, and now, of course, it seems to be job one.

Well, you'll recall when the administration came to office, the view was we've gotten too much into this nation-building stuff. And so we were looking seriously at how to reduce the commitment in the Balkans and those types of things, which I think were all appropriate things for us to be concerned with. And we were focusing our national training centers -- the one at [Fort] Polk [in Louisiana] and the one at [Fort] Irwin [in California] and the one in Hohenfels in Germany -- on complex situations, but mainly with combat-related tasks against a very disparate style of enemy, not just the Soviets reincarnate but lower-end-of-the-spectrum types of things. But we were not going to be in the stabilization business once we extricated ourselves from Bosnia.

And of course, you see, it really creates a conflict. On the one hand, you want to transform an Army using information technology and so forth that would cause you to be more labor-efficient, less labor-intensive. The Army's the most labor-intensive of all the services. And that would permit you to do more with a smaller force eventually. So you have that trend on the one side. On the other side, you have this trend towards stability operations in Iraq on a very large scale, which by definition are labor-intensive, take enormous numbers of boots on the ground to do these things right. So the Army's caught in the middle going in both directions. …

[LoungeMachine]

Nick,

You're spending Bandwidth on someone who wouldn't admit a Bush Administration mistake if it came from Jesus on stone tablets.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Nick,

You're spending Bandwidth on someone who wouldn't admit a Bush Administration mistake if it came from Jesus on stone tablets.

Such good sport though.

[rustoffa]

The majority of Americans don't know their refridgerator is about to burn their fucking house down.

Slack-jawed by sensationalism, they just stare and stare.

Ask the majority to define "rationale".....

"Druhhhh....that's the moist fancy feast packets".

Society Shmociety.

[Roth-Halen]

Russtofa!
Keep in touch, bro!

[Seshmeister]

I cunt believe that there are people out there like Lucky still trying to justify this war particularly comparing it to Kosova.

Let's get down to the fucking bare bones.

3 weeks after the intervention in Kosova Blair walked through the streets there to cheering crowds.

If Bush or Blair have the fucking guts to walk through Bagdhad in the next month and the people come out and cheer them then I will completely back down, say I was wrong, and suck Sammy Hagars dick.

Cheers!

:gulp:

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Such good sport though.

If you call shooting Lame Ducks or Busheep in a barrell "sport"

:D


Hey man, nice shot.

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
I cunt believe that there are people out there like Lucky still trying to justify this war particularly comparing it to Kosova.

Let's get down to the fucking bare bones.

3 weeks after the intervention in Kosova Blair walked through the streets there to cheering crowds.

If Bush or Blair have the fucking guts to walk through Bagdhad in the next month and the people come out and cheer them then I will completely back down, say I was wrong, and suck Sammy Hagars dick.

Cheers!

:gulp:


first off sesh i used it as a comparison secondly i never saw blair go down the streets of belgrade. you know they place that was bombed the shit out off. i sure bush could go to notrhern iraq and be welcomed with open arms by the kurds same way blair was like in kosovo but i'm bet anything he would have been a dean man in belgrade.us troops in the kurdish areas are extremly well liked

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Oh no! Rumsfeld had nothing to do with it! Who hired him? Why did the last guy quit? The buck stops on that guy I guess.

the last guy didn't quit its customary for the former centcom commander to stay on till the president picks a new one and they rotate about every two or three years


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Which one grasps at straws when it comes to WMD's and nonexistent ties between Saddam and Al-Qaida? Not me.

would you be refering to what previous administrions said about al qadea and wmd? sort of like the other article about this



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
saw that interview actually. He looked as if he was to be shot or maybe Paula was unzipping her shirt or giving him pussy flashes or something, but he clearly looked unconfortable! He clearly contradicts himself (paraphrase) no I didn't have enough troops, but actually I was quite confortable with the troops levels...He was qualifying his words, because he knows Low-intensity conflict is exactly the kind of war this Military has been trying to avoid because the Army is not trained or equipted to fight prolonged guerilla conflicts. The whole point has been to avoid them since Vietnam. The insurgents are doing just what they want, BLEEDING us to the point Iraq is not economically viable. That's how they win, when we leave and they have a really big civil war followed by wonderful days of ethnic cleansing!

right and im sure you said the same thing about afghanisthan as well when thigs were hairy there for a while.




Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Weapons of mass destruction? They thought Saddam had precisely because of what Franks said, "We can't prove they don't." Saddam didn't really fear the US or Europe, he was far more afraid of Iran invading, and that's why he always implied he still had chemical weapons, they were the only thing the Iranians still feared of the Iraqi Military.

yep thats it all the previous administrations were wrong the world was wrong the un was wrong and bush was just making it all up


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
In very tiny contingents. The only parts of the world that are with us are the ones that want something (i.e. NATO membership or investment). And some of those countries will shortly pull out (Ukraine) or will withdraw after their next elections (the UK).

thousands of troops aren't small contingents



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
No, most of those quotes were from late 2002 during the drums of war "Super-patriot, Freedom Fry land" period. The drums of war were beating, and anyone who tried to speak up was drowned out politically by them (i.e. Howard Dean). They were all trying to sound like Republican Hawks. Unfortunately they didn't realize the hawks were really wrong this time.

thats funny they don't look like they were from 2002

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
And we were never about to invade Iraq in 1998 to deprive Saddam of purported chemical weapons.

but wait you just claimed saddam never had them bush lied about them so which is it they only had them under clinton and bush made them up or was clinton lying about them and just made them up? its one or the other



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Yes they were! Because they were ironically trying to deter us from invading and causing a massive qaugmire on their borders. If they were so gung-ho about Iraqi WMD's, where was the Egyptian and Jordanian armies? Why did they not invade and relieve the Middle East of this pestulance? Those dictators stay in power for a reason.

same place they were in the first gulf war on the sidelines



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Who did give him his INTELLIGENCE? Franks is an ass coverer who talks out of two sides of his mouth. Is he going to admit that he was hoodwinked?

hood winked by who? do tell since it's been standing us policy that saddam had wmd and that he needed to be removed. i noticed you didn't say much about pl 235 or the iraq liberation act why is that? can't let the truth deflate your bull shit? don't like it how the iraq liberation act debunks you pnac theory that it was all their idea to get rid of saddam and democrotize the middle east? if you want i could post the whole things but i doubt you'd read them



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Okay, lets examine some other stuff. Let's see the opinions of retired senior officers that are not directly connected to this mess:

yes lets do that:


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/12/p...print&position=

Tape Shows General Clark Linking Iraq and Al Qaeda
By EDWARD WYATT

MANCHESTER, N.H., Jan. 11 — Less than a year before he entered the race for the Democratic nomination for president, Gen. Wesley K. Clark said that he believed there was a connection between the Iraqi government and Al Qaeda.

The statement by General Clark in October 2002 as he endorsed a New Hampshire candidate for Congress is a sign of how the general's position on Iraq seems to have changed over time, though he insists his position has been consistent.

"Certainly there's a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda," he said in 2002. "It doesn't surprise me at all that they would be talking to Al Qaeda, that there would be some Al Qaeda there or that Saddam Hussein might even be, you know, discussing gee, I wonder since I don't have any scuds and since the Americans are coming at me, I wonder if I could take advantage of Al Qaeda? How would I do it? Is it worth the risk? What could they do for me?"

At numerous campaign events in the past three months and in a book published last year, General Clark has asserted that there was no evidence linking Iraq and Al Qaeda. He has also accused the Bush administration of executing "a world-class bait-and-switch," by using the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, as an excuse to invade Iraq.

At a town hall meeting here on Jan. 4, for example, General Clark said, "There was no imminent threat from Iraq, nor was Iraq connected with Al Qaeda."

"If Iraq had been there as the base of Al Qaeda to organize and train everybody, then maybe we could have justified the attack on Iraq," he added.

In an interview, General Clark said his more recent remarks were not inconsistent with what he said in 2002. In those remarks, he said, he was trying to explain that based on his knowledge of how the intelligence community works, low-level contacts almost certainly existed between Iraq and Al Qaeda, But, he said, that does not mean that Iraq had anything to do with the Sept. 11 attacks.

The 2002 comments, he said, were based in part on a letter to Senator Bob Graham, Democrat of Florida and chairman of the Intelligence Committee, from George J. Tenet, director of central intelligence, which said that the C.I.A. had credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire weapons of mass destruction. The content of the letter was reported in a front-page article in The New York Times on Oct. 9, 2002, the day that General Clark made the comments at the New Hampshire endorsement.

"I never thought there would be any evidence linking Sept. 11 and Saddam Hussein," General Clark said. "Everything I had learned about Saddam Hussein told me that he would be the last person Al Qaeda would trust or that he would trust them."

"All I was saying is that it would be naïve to say that there weren't any contacts," he said. "But that's a far cry from saying there was any connection between the events of 9/11 and Saddam Hussein."

In his most recent book, "Winning Modern Wars," (Public Affairs, 2003), General Clark states, "No evidence thus far suggests any link between Saddam Hussein and the terrorists of Al Qaeda."

On Thursday, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said that despite his assertions to the United Nations last year, he had no concrete evidence of a link between the terrorist organization and Iraq.

The general's 2002 comments appeared on a home video of the press conference in Nashua at which he endorsed Katrina Swett for New Hampshire's Second Congressional District. A copy of the videotape was made available by a rival presidential candidate's campaign.

General Clark's appearance with Ms. Swett has come up before in the presidential race. He advised her at the time that if she were in Congress, she should vote for the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq. Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut used that statement to accuse General Clark of inconsistency on Iraq. General Clark subsequently said that at the time he did not understand exactly what was in the resolution and would have voted against it.

Similarly, on the first day of his campaign, General Clark said that he probably would have voted for the resolution on Iraq. He later said he "bobbled" the question and has asserted that he made clear well before the start of the war his belief that Iraq was not an imminent danger to the United States and, therefore, that an attack was not justified at that time.

General Clark had known Ms. Swett and her husband, Richard N. Swett, a former congressman and ambassador to Denmark, when they lived in Denmark and General Clark lived in Belgium as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO.

In an interview, Ms. Swett, who is a national co-chairwoman of Mr. Lieberman's campaign, said she recalled General Clark as "saying pretty unequivocally" that a link existed between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

Within days of the endorsement, General Clark was reported to be considering a run for the Democratic nomination. He had come to New Hampshire as a guest of George Bruno, a former ambassador to Belize who is now a co-chairman of General Clark's campaign in that state.
----------------

or better yet

http://www.drudgereport.com/mattwc.htm

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX WED JAN 15, 2004 11:28:25 ET XXXXX

WES CLARK MADE CASE FOR IRAQ WAR BEFORE CONGRESS; TRANSCRIPT REVEALED

**World Exclusive**

Two months ago Democratic hopeful Wesley Clark declared in a debate that he has always been firmly against the current Iraq War.

"I've been very consistent... I've been against this war from the beginning," the former general said in Detroit on October 26.

"I was against it last summer, I was against it in the fall, I was against it in the winter, I was against it in the spring. And I'm against it now."

But just six month prior in an op-ed in the LONDON TIMES Clark offered praise for the courage of President Bush's action.

"President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt," Clark wrote on April 10, 2003. "Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. Statues and images of Saddam are smashed and defiled."

MORE

Even the most ardent Clark supporter will question if Clark's current and past stand on the Iraq war -- is confusion or deception, after the DRUDGE REPORT reveals:

TWO WEEKS BEFORE CONGRESS PASSED THE IRAQ CONGRESSIONAL RESOLUTION WESLEY CLARK MADE THE CASE FOR WAR; TESTIFIED THAT SADDAM HAD 'CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS'

Less than 18 months ago, Wesley Clark offered his testimony before the Committee On Armed Services at the U.S. House Of Representatives.

"There's no requirement to have any doctrine here. I mean this is simply a longstanding right of the United States and other nations to take the actions they deem necessary in their self defense," Clark told Congress on September 26, 2002.

"Every president has deployed forces as necessary to take action. He's done so without multilateral support if necessary. He's done so in advance of conflict if necessary. In my experience, I was the commander of the European forces in NATO. When we took action in Kosovo, we did not have United Nations approval to do this and we did so in a way that was designed to preempt Serb ethnic cleansing and regional destabilization there. There were some people who didn' t agree with that decision. The United Nations was not able to agree to support it with a resolution."

Clark continued: "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we."

More Clark: "And, I want to underscore that I think the United States should not categorize this action as preemptive. Preemptive and that doctrine has nothing whatsoever to do with this problem. As Richard Perle so eloquently pointed out, this is a problem that's longstanding. It's been a decade in the making. It needs to be dealt with and the clock is ticking on this."

Clark explained: "I think there's no question that, even though we may not have the evidence as Richard [Perle] says, that there have been such contacts [between Iraq and al Qaeda]. It' s normal. It's natural. These are a lot of bad actors in the same region together. They are going to bump into each other. They are going to exchange information. They're going to feel each other out and see whether there are opportunities to cooperate. That's inevitable in this region, and I think it's clear that regardless of whether or not such evidence is produced of these connections that Saddam Hussein is a threat."

-----------

i figured i'd use him since you seemed to think highly of him that you used him in your avatar but let me guess he's lying as well :rolleyes:

[blueturk]

Originally posted by Big Train
If you want points, which you obviously do, you can call it a flip flop. With this type of engagement, it is never really "over", so it was a huge tactical mistake to call it that. Left a gaping hole libs can run up and down repeatedly (as blue turk has shown to be his favorite-perhaps only-point to make).

First, what kind of "points' am I obviously wanting? You lost me on that one, but let's move on.
Why would I have any desire to call anything a "flip-flop"? I really don't see why you made this indirect reference to Kerry.If you've read my posts (and you have) you know that I'm no big Kerry fan.
"A huge tactical mistake"? That's good! That's right up there with "catastrophic success" for Orwellian Bushspeak..Dubya LIED.Tell the troops that major combat operations are over.A war is a war.We've got more troops in Iraq than ever,but that's not a "major combat operation"? Give me a fucking break!
As for your final comment,I feel confident that as long as Dubya is president, I'll have no shortage of points to make.
Why don't you go write another interminable economics essay? By the time you're done,I'm sure another "gaping hole" (that's a good one too!) will open up.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
the last guy didn't quit its customary for the former centcom commander to stay on till the president picks a new one and they rotate about every two or three years

And the last Army Chief of Staff, Gen. Kinsheki was marginalized and attacked by Rumsfeld and Wolfoshitz for giving his military opinion. You see, he, unlike you does not selectively cite facts to justify stupid policy. Because he knew this would be, Rummy's favorite word....A QUAGMIRE!




would you be refering to what previous administrions said about al qadea and wmd? sort of like the other article about this

I've been saying WHO CARES about them. THEY DIDN"T INVADE IRAQ! Do you think Clinton would have invaded and gotten us pinned down in a guerilla war, NO! For all of his failings, he was too smart for that.





right and im sure you said the same thing about afghanisthan as well when thigs were hairy there for a while.

You don't have a clue as to what I said or thought about Afghanistan. Are you posting for me again now...I will say this, when we were still in "major combat" there, I thought the neocons were joking when they were talking about invading Iraq and to how easy it would be. I bet you thought we could take the place with 50K troops, eh?



yep thats it all the previous administrations were wrong the world was wrong the un was wrong and bush was just making it all up

Who cares what they said. The policy was containment and to try to get the Iraqis to change their own regimes. See first rebuttal. Also not ACTIONS vs. Rhetoric.




thousands of troops aren't small contingents
They sure as hell aren't dying in the thousands like are. There are 148K Americans in Iraq. How many Britons or Poles are there?





thats funny they don't look like they were from 2002

No, I just noticed you used your typical sophist modus operandi to not post the 2002 comments and only th 98' comments, which have a completely differnet conotation. Again, where were we talking about invasion and occupation?


"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

Right, by using "Containmant", the policy Bush overthrew against the advice of his Pentagon.


"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

Mission Accomplished! Clinton apparently did just that! There were no WMD's in Iraq.


"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

He wasn't just talking about Iraq there. He was also talking about Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, Israel, India,...And every non-Western Nation possessing Nukes. This war has seriously diminshed our ablitiy to deal with them unless we...DRAFT and train a new wing of the land forces.


"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

On who? Kurds. Iranians? He never used them on us during the Gulf Wars. And why ever would he give them to terrorists?


"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

Again, policy of containment, not INVASION! Which obviously worked better than invasion. You are essentually quoting him out of context! THis is again about policy, not rhetoric!


"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

Where did she mention invasion?


"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

So let's invade and take over those palaces?


"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

I wonder who was feed the shitty intellignece in order to justify their march to invade Iraq and falsy combine AL-Qaida with The Iraqi Baath Party, two distinctly different movements that are diametrically opposed philosophically!



but wait you just claimed saddam never had them bush lied about them so which is it they only had them under clinton and bush made them up or was clinton lying about them and just made them up? its one or the other

When did I say he never had them. He hasn't had them since the early 90's. Again, you cite rhetoric, I cite policy blunders!





same place they were in the first gulf war on the sidelines

No! They weren't. Egypt was on the ground with us! And Jordain was aligned with Iraq because they feared the wrath of Saddam! But again they live there and have to deal with the consiquences of our arrogant policy failures.



hood winked by who? do tell since it's been standing us policy that saddam had wmd and that he needed to be removed. i noticed you didn't say much about pl 235 or the iraq liberation act why is that?

Why? If Saddam needed to be removed, then why didn't we do it in 91'? Why did they leave him in power then. Because we knew the balance of power in the Middle East would be upset and cause a huge power vacuum in which Islamic Fundimentalism would fester and we have created far more terrorists than we have killed.

Why don't you read "Imperial Hubris" by anonymous. Oh, that would be nagative information you wouldn't want to hear.


can't let the truth deflate your bull shit? don't like it how the iraq liberation act debunks you pnac theory that it was all their idea to get rid of saddam and democrotize the middle east? if you want i could post the whole things but i doubt you'd read them

Truth. Ha ha, you speak of truth. You repeatedly deny that we are in a big fight in Iraq and you have compared the situation there to post-War Germany circa 1945. I called you on it because I am well read on the subject of WWII, apparently you are not. Ha ha, tell me all about the truth Busheep. You find quotes that are misrepresentative and out of context and imply that that is a logical proof!

Tell me how we are mopping up. Are things getting better, no, pick up a news paper and read how the insurgents are in a stronger position and the Iraqi security forces are in a shambles. You can appologize for this Administrations poor planning and blunders all you want. But sophist arguments that are not based on logic are not "proofs."







yes lets do that

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/12/p...print&position=

Tape Shows General Clark Linking Iraq and Al Qaeda
By EDWARD WYATT

MANCHESTER, N.H., Jan. 11 — Less than a year before he entered the race for the Democratic nomination for president, Gen. Wesley K. Clark said that he believed there was a connection between the Iraqi government and Al Qaeda....[/quote]


What the fuck "does that have to do with the price of tea in China?" Gen.Clark? He wasn't even on the ticket. Why do you not mention that this supposed link has been admitted to be wrong, even by Pres. Bush in the first debate (right after he implied there was one and got "called on it")
----------------


or better yet

The Matt (I like fudge) Drudge report is accurate or "better yet?" This guys a fucking partisan hack posing as an internet journalist. Who cares?


http://www.drudgereport.com/mattwc.htm

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX WED JAN 15, 2004 11:28:25 ET XXXXX

WES CLARK MADE CASE FOR IRAQ WAR BEFORE CONGRESS; TRANSCRIPT REVEALED

**World Exclusive**

Two months ago Democratic hopeful Wesley Clark declared in a debate that he has always been firmly against the current Iraq War.

"I've been very consistent... I've been against this war from the beginning," the former general said in Detroit on October 26.

"I was against it last summer, I was against it in the fall, I was against it in the winter, I was against it in the spring. And I'm against it now."

But just six month prior in an op-ed in the LONDON TIMES Clark offered praise for the courage of President Bush's action.

"President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt," Clark wrote on April 10, 2003. "Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. Statues and images of Saddam are smashed and defiled."

How did it all change? Why don't you address that one Lucky?

MORE

Even the most ardent Clark supporter will question if Clark's current and past stand on the Iraq war -- is confusion or deception, after the DRUDGE REPORT reveals:

TWO WEEKS BEFORE CONGRESS PASSED THE IRAQ CONGRESSIONAL RESOLUTION WESLEY CLARK MADE THE CASE FOR WAR; TESTIFIED THAT SADDAM HAD 'CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS'

Less than 18 months ago, Wesley Clark offered his testimony before the Committee On Armed Services at the U.S. House Of Representatives.

"There's no requirement to have any doctrine here. I mean this is simply a longstanding right of the United States and other nations to take the actions they deem necessary in their self defense," Clark told Congress on September 26, 2002.

"Every president has deployed forces as necessary to take action. He's done so without multilateral support if necessary. He's done so in advance of conflict if necessary. In my experience, I was the commander of the European forces in NATO. When we took action in Kosovo, we did not have United Nations approval to do this and we did so in a way that was designed to preempt Serb ethnic cleansing and regional destabilization there. There were some people who didn' t agree with that decision. The United Nations was not able to agree to support it with a resolution."

Clark continued: "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... Clark explained: "I think there's no question that, even though we may not have the evidence as Richard [Perle] says, that there have been such contacts [between Iraq and al Qaeda]. It' s normal. It's natural. These are a lot of bad actors in the same region together. They are going to bump into each other. They are going to exchange information. They're going to feel each other out and see whether there are opportunities to cooperate. That's inevitable in this region, and I think it's clear that regardless of whether or not such evidence is produced of these connections that Saddam Hussein is a threat."


i figured i'd use him since you seemed to think highly of him that you used him in your avatar but let me guess he's lying as well :rolleyes:

I guess the fact that he mentioned "we do not have evidence as Perle said" means nothing huh?

Again, a useless article that adds nothing to the discussion. And I'd rather think highly of Clark than of Rumsfeld.

Dude, you should be embarressed and ashamed to defend anything that asshole says or does!:rolleyes:

[ODShowtime]

Man I gotta give you two credit. With all the quotable bullshit in the media these days, I threw my hands up and said "fuck it" a long time ago.