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

[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.

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

[Sarge's Little Helper]

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

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


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!


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 nothing says palying semantics like posted what the head of the us armed forces says

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?



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:

[BigBadBrian]

Lucky 1
Nick 0

[BITEYOASS]

Originally posted by TEUFEL HUNDEN
Whats your MOS???

6541 Aviation Ordnance Tech.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
[B]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.

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..

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

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.