Six and a half Years after 9/11 And OBL Still Making Threats

[kwame k]

Originally posted by Deklon
Lounge...you forgot a few things.


The removal and execution of one of the worst WMD's of all time- S. Hussein.

The removal of same who had used and could produce more WMD's. And if given the chance would have tried to have them used against the US.

Deklon, watch this 60 Minutes video link:

http://60minutes.yahoo.com/segment/151/iraq_war_saddams_view

This is the guy who interrogated Sadam. Watch the all the clips and see what Sadam has to say about WMD's, the war in Iraq, and his ties to terrorists.

[thome]

YES! YES! Mission Accomplished!

We have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is a group of human Beings!!!! Grown ADULTS!!!

A whole society of MEN? MILLIONS OF GROWN MEN!!

Who really get in a tizzy over a car fukking TOON!





That is thier fighting stance, that is thier MANTRA.............clowns.

If you draw cartoon we KILL ALL YOU!(they don't just get angry and say it, they actually -KILL- over a cartoon)

Yeah, there is a quality group of Human Beings.

Perhaps Osama should lay down a rap that all muslims should just eat a gun.

Then the little pansies won't cry anymore.

Why doesn't Osama just put anyone who makes ,"those cartoons" on ignor .......get on with his life...... it worked for me.lol

[Deklon]

Well, if your team objective is to silence people like me - you win. I am open to intelligent debate and routinely agknowledge that I understand all of your positions and how you arrived at them. But ! can not have intelligent debates with people who won't even agree that 2 plus 2 equals 4.

For you nickdfresh...

- You said I claimed the Iraq invasion has made us safer. I did no such thing. I simply stated my opinion that taking out a potential threat like Hussein may have prevented possible huge problems for us in the near or long term future. I backed up mu opinion by citing the fact that Republicans and Democrats alike believed the guy was a threat.

-I cited the Bush accomplishment that thousands of Al Qaeda and other terrorists have been killed or captured under Bush's watch, your comment is that that all happened by 2002. A) Thousands more have been captured or killed since then. B) Then it was BUSH who got them in 2001-2002 in the first place. But again - no credit from you.

- I said he removed Hussein who "had used and could produde more WMD's". Your reply is "but he didn't have any". Again, not what I said. And the fact that nearly EVERYONE, including HIS OWN GENERALS, thought he had them is apparently irrellevent to you.

-When I mention that the President's strategy and tactics on protecting this country may some day prove to be right, you go back to sayin he bungled post-war Iraq. That has zero to do with my point.

- When I site that the President has captured or killed most of those responsible for 9/11, including the MASTERMIND and PLANNER, you say "but not their supposed leaders". Yet again, no credit for success but ridicule for not getting Bin Laden, which I can agknowledge as the Tora Bora mistake. But you can't even agknowledge some big successes.

-As far as my scenario/hypothetical, you can't even admit that that scenario was at least possible. The evidence I have to support it is that the man USED WMD's against his own people, financially supported families of terrorists who killed people, and publicly wished for the destruction of America. If you can't see how those FACTS could possibly result in problems for America, then again 2 plus 2 equals 5 to you. I didn't ask you to believe the scenario, just agknowledge that the possibility wasn't that far fetched. If you are the President, who is ridiculed for not stopping 9/11 because of a routine memo talking about planes as weapons, do you sit back and wait and HOPE all the intel is wrong?

- I said he is NEARLY solely responsible for PROTECTING the country becasue he, in the end, has to make all of the finall decisions. You, quote me as saying he is SOLELY responsible. Yet again...not what I said. My point is that having the awesome responsibility of making final decisions (with input from thousands of other people) is beyond your and my comprehension. Do you understand the fact that he knows that ONE single lapse, missed opportunity, or ignored threat could cost thousands or more American lives? CAn you not even accept that it is an enormous responsibility with no margin of error? I accept that fact, and therefore, feel I understand why he does what he does. But you won't agknowlegde that the threat is even real...2 plus 2 equals 5.

What is most frustrating for me individually, though, is that I have read dozens of books and hundreds of articles written by people who both support Bush and who hate him. I study these issues hard and, thus, form opinions. Yet you need to bring the discussion down to the "your a sheep!" and "Chimpy" level. It is my opinion that the Presient is a man and a human being just like you and me. I believe he is faced with extraordinary tasks and repsonsibilites that every day people like us will never know. I understand and have routinely criticized his many errors. But what you all do is belittle him to an object or a monkey (that sounded funny writing) and will not even believe that he has done ONE thing right. I believe your mind is so hateful and closed on Bush, that you can't even be the slightest bit rational. You have that right, and I again understand why, but it's no longer worth my time trying to discuss issues here since we can't even agree on a starting point. We will know for real over the next many years, or even decades, whether Bush was a genius or a fool and right or wrong. If you are all right, and I am misguided and wrong, we'll certainly be in big trouble.

Peace

[Seshmeister]

We've been in big trouble since enough people voted for that monkey to allow him to steal the office.

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by Deklon
Well, if your team objective is to silence people like me - you win.

sorry, dude. didn't mean to gang attack. it's just that the other side's been slightly lacking in debate lately, so you're likely to get a good response. that's a good thing; people are reading you...

though it often means you can't respond to everybody. no worries.

[kwame k]

Originally posted by Deklon

- I said he removed Hussein who "had used and could produde more WMD's". Your reply is "but he didn't have any". Again, not what I said. And the fact that nearly EVERYONE, including HIS OWN GENERALS, thought he had them is apparently irrellevent to you.

Bush knew before going to war with Iraq that they didn't have WMD's
This is an article called Bob Woodward Replies:
He mentions the meeting between Tony Blair and Bush.

"The March 10 disclosure was not the only Manning memo element missing from Woodward's account of the Bush-Blair meeting--and perhaps not the most significant element absent from Woodward's rendition. The once-secret memo also noted that Bush and Blair had acknowledged that no WMDs had been found in Iraq; that Bush had raised the possibility of provoking a confrontation with Saddam Hussein; that Bush had discussed the possibility of assassinating Saddam; that Bush had said that it was "unlikely there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups"; and that Blair had agreed that sectarian warfare was improbable.
Woodward maintains that Plan of Attack in prior sections had covered most of this. But some of his examples are not fully on point. The fact that Blix had told the UN that no WMDs had yet been found and that US intelligence sources had told Woodward the same makes for a different story than Bush saying to Blair that no unconventional weapons had been unearthed and suggesting they might stage an event to convince the public that war was warranted. According to the Manning memo, one idea Bush had was to paint UN colors on an American U-2 spy plane that would fly over Iraq and (Bush hoped) draw fire from Iraqi forces.

But is "their" focus the only, or the most appropriate, focus for a historian or journalist writing about this meeting? The meeting was important because of the politics--though ultimately the second resolution fizzled and Blair had to make do with an invasion not explicitly authorized by the United Nations. But the meeting was also important because it revealed that Bush was so eager to go to war he was considering--in the absence of WMDs--contriving an incident to start it. The Manning memo--the full contents of which have not yet been disclosed--also is significant in that it shows Bush and Blair dismissing the prospect of sectarian violence in post-invasion Iraq. (Woodward's reply does not direct us to a portion of his book in which Bush makes a similar comment.)"

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?pid=74954

[vh rides again]

Originally posted by Deklon
Lounge...you forgot a few things.

NO ATTACKS ON THE US BY PEOPLE WHO WOULD DO SO IN A SECOND IF THEY COULD.

10's of thousands of Al Qaeda and other terrorists killed and captured.

The removal and execution of one of the worst WMD's of all time- S. Hussein.

The removal of same who had used and could produce more WMD's. And if given the chance would have tried to have them used against the US.

The capture of most of the people resonsible for 9/11.

Prevention of perhaps many terrorist attacks here and abroad.

Now I know you don't possess the ability to understand the President's enormous responsibility nor can you allow yourself to give him any credit for anything. And I'm fairly confident you aren't in the oval office every morning during the security briefings. In other words, you hve about 20% of the knowledge you need right now to judge if the President's strategies and tactics will someday prove to be right or wrong.

I leave you with the following question. If we had never gone to Iraq, and then yesterday a WMD of some sort killed hundreds of thousands in LA, and we later found out that WMD originated in Iraq, you would have been the first to scream about "Chimpy" not taking out Saddam back in 2002 when their was ample evidence to suggest he COULD have WMD's. You would have sited the brilliant Democrats like John Kerry and both Clintons who all stated in the past that Saddam had to be taken out AND that he posesses WMD's and that "Chimpy" failed to act. But it is far easier for you Monday morning quarterbacks to spout on message boards nothing but vitriol for the man who is nearly solely responsible for the safety of America and it's citizens.

Amen.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Deklon
Well, if your team objective is to silence people like me - you win. I am open to intelligent debate and routinely agknowledge that I understand all of your positions and how you arrived at them. But ! can not have intelligent debates with people who won't even agree that 2 plus 2 equals 4.

Were you talking to me?

Who's "driving you out?"

No one has edited you or even attacked you...

For you nickdfresh...

- You said I claimed the Iraq invasion has made us safer. I did no such thing. I simply stated my opinion that taking out a potential threat like Hussein may have prevented possible huge problems for us in the near or long term future. I backed up mu opinion by citing the fact that Republicans and Democrats alike believed the guy was a threat.

I think you were in fact were making a hypothetical scenario which contained something of Saddam producing chemical weapons for terrorists. Something he never did, I merely pointed this out and you're blindly speculating with "what-ifs?" to rationalize the why we should all love fearless leader...

-I cited the Bush accomplishment that thousands of Al Qaeda and other terrorists have been killed or captured under Bush's watch, your comment is that that all happened by 2002. A) Thousands more have been captured or killed since then. B) Then it was BUSH who got them in 2001-2002 in the first place. But again - no credit from you.

Yes, right after 19 hijackers plowed airliners into the Twin Towers...

Killing and capturing terrorists was sort of an academic thing to do at that point...

I'm not sure he really deserves an award for that. He merely unleashed the CIA, FBI, and the special operatives of our military after pressuring Pakistan that supported the movement that worked with al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and that was a pretty academic decision after 9/11, but they did the actual work...

- I said he removed Hussein who "had used and could produde more WMD's". Your reply is "but he didn't have any". Again, not what I said. And the fact that nearly EVERYONE, including HIS OWN GENERALS, thought he had them is apparently irrellevent to you.

Um, his own generals knew he didn't have them and said that they would have used them if they did...

And I never said most didn't he did have WMDs, but certainly UN weapon's inspectors didn't find them.

More importantly, even if had chemical weapons, it simply didn't matter since would have used them to deter attack from Iran (who have them) because Saddam's army was in shambles from sanctions...

-When I mention that the President's strategy and tactics on protecting this country may some day prove to be right, you go back to sayin he bungled post-war Iraq. That has zero to do with my point.

Again, it's all belief with no real facts. And his "bungling the war in Iraq may produce more terrorists angered by US presence in the region and the invasion/occupation...

- When I site that the President has captured or killed most of those responsible for 9/11, including the MASTERMIND and PLANNER, you say "but not their supposed leaders". Yet again, no credit for success but ridicule for not getting Bin Laden, which I can agknowledge as the Tora Bora mistake. But you can't even agknowledge some big successes.

What are you talking about? They're "supposed leader" is Bin Laden. Did we capture him?

The "big successes" are old hat routinely crowed upon...

-As far as my scenario/hypothetical, you can't even admit that that scenario was at least possible. The evidence I have to support it is that the man USED WMD's against his own people,

But we provided the components to make those weapons.

And at the time, the US really didn't care all that much. It wasn't until he invaded Kuwait that anyone cared about Saddam.

It was about oil, not chemical weapons. I mean, our allies in Turkey have killed a lot of Kurds, but he haven't invaded them yet. Have we?

...financially supported families of terrorists who killed people,

In Israel, not the US...

and publicly wished for the destruction of America.

So? I see Americans crowing for the extermination of everybody in the Middle East on these forums all the time...

If you can't see how those FACTS could possibly result in problems for America, then again 2 plus 2 equals 5 to you. I didn't ask you to believe the scenario, just agknowledge that the possibility wasn't that far fetched. If you are the President, who is ridiculed for not stopping 9/11 because of a routine memo talking about planes as weapons, do you sit back and wait and HOPE all the intel is wrong?

Um, what?

- I said he is NEARLY solely responsible for PROTECTING the country becasue he, in the end, has to make all of the finall decisions. You, quote me as saying he is SOLELY responsible. Yet again...not what I said. My point is that having the awesome responsibility of making final decisions (with input from thousands of other people) is beyond your and my comprehension. Do you understand the fact that he knows that ONE single lapse, missed opportunity, or ignored threat could cost thousands or more American lives? CAn you not even accept that it is an enormous responsibility with no margin of error? I accept that fact, and therefore, feel I understand why he does what he does. But you won't agknowlegde that the threat is even real...2 plus 2 equals 5.

I accept that he has used one of the largest terrorist attacks in world history to justify a cynical, self-serving conquest of Iraq for it's oil rights...

Am I supposed to congratulate him and the cunts like Cheney for that?

Or even imagine that they were acting in America's best interests?

Yeah, right!

What is most frustrating for me individually, though, is that I have read dozens of books and hundreds of articles written by people who both support Bush and who hate him. I study these issues hard and, thus, form opinions. Yet you need to bring the discussion down to the "your a sheep!" and "Chimpy" level. It is my opinion that the Presient is a man and a human being just like you and me. I believe he is faced with extraordinary tasks and repsonsibilites that every day people like us will never know. I understand and have routinely criticized his many errors. But what you all do is belittle him to an object or a monkey (that sounded funny writing) and will not even believe that he has done ONE thing right. I believe your mind is so hateful and closed on Bush, that you can't even be the slightest bit rational. You have that right, and I again understand why, but it's no longer worth my time trying to discuss issues here since we can't even agree on a starting point. We will know for real over the next many years, or even decades, whether Bush was a genius or a fool and right or wrong. If you are all right, and I am misguided and wrong, we'll certainly be in big trouble.

Peace

LOL If you've read hundreds of books an articles, then that puts you one up on him. Because he notoriously reads only what he wants to (which isn't much other than Neoconservative shills), doesn't research, and listens only to sycophants that tell him what he wants to hear...

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Deklon


However, can you formulate a response to my points or to my to my scenario?

LMAO

Can? Sure.

Would I? Nope.

I have neither the time, nor the inclination to bother refuting FAUX NOISE Talking Points from a Busheep.

See, we've all read these before in here. You think you have us convinced you wrote those?

Many, many Busheep before you have tried the same, tired bullshit lines.

The thing you forget, is even though you want to lump us all in as foaming at the mouth Liberal Loonies, we happen to be considered RIGHT by the likes of Hans Blix, Chuck Hagel, Colin Powell, and thousands of others nowhere near us on the politcal spectrum.

So cite your Rushisms all you want, dittohead. The "prove the negative" and "how about this hypocthical" has been done to death in here.

The world knows the truth behind this "war" [occupation] and this "War President" [criminal, liar, idiot]

Like I said, enjoy supporting McCain come November

We'll be waiting for you.

[LoungeMachine]

However, I would like to point out the many people who DID bother to refute your talking points, and who all owmed you like a cheap mule.

That was fun to watch, even if I did already know it was coming.

[Dan]

Can Us Kiwi's Buy Some Cheap Oil Off The US Now?

[LoungeMachine]

Careful Dan.

We may "liberate" and "bring freedom" to you guys next.

[Dan]

BTW.....Gas Is Cheaper,More Than A $NZ A Litre Of Milk.

[Dan]

Lounge,Maybe Run Cars On Human Waste Maybe The Way To Go In The Future.

[LoungeMachine]

How can a car run on cadverdouche?