 sj |
||
|
||
BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Ron Davies Date: 27 Nov 05 - 11:56 AM Teribus-- In addition to your other qualities, you're getting sloppy. What is the date of your quote by George Tenet to the Senate Select Committee? (posting of 27 Nov 2005 11:07 AM) Hope you're preparing your remarks on the occasion of receiving the sophistry award. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: TIA Date: 27 Nov 05 - 01:47 PM Teribus – it might be time for you to give up soon (before the umpire invokes the mercy rule). The source of the previous "quote" is a press conference on September 25, 2004. But since that probably won't satisfy you and your chums, here's more… GWB, weekly radio address, February 8, 2003: "Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct, and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al-Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s." GWB May 1, 2003, speech aboard the Lincoln (under the banner – remember?): "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on Sept. 11, 2001. With that attack, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got". GWB Press conference, June 17, 2004: "…there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. For example, Iraqi intelligence agents met with bin Laden, the head of al-Qaeda in Sudan." Do you really still believe he never tried to say there was a link between Saddam and Al Quaeda? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST,Just Curious Date: 27 Nov 05 - 02:42 PM Behold! There lies Teribus at full fathom five, still clutching the soggy straw that he thought would keep him afloat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Bobert Date: 27 Nov 05 - 05:01 PM Hmmmmm, is the "proven liar" certificate gettin' ready to be issued here??? Maybe, maybe not... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo Date: 27 Nov 05 - 06:45 PM Teribus, Geoduck, OldGuy: [re: Dubya not saying that Saddam and al Qaeda were linked] Here's for ya:
Only problem here is that virtually none of that was true. Now are you folks going to be gentlemen and acknowledge that Dubya actually did his very best to tie the two together? Doubt it.... Certainly not Mr. "I tell ya, black is white, who you gonna believe, me, or your lying eyes" Teribus..... Teribus [quoting Tenet]: "We have solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda going back a decade. ... We have credible reporting that al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities." Couldn't be that these "credible" sources were Chalabi's thugs'n'liars (such as the famous "Curveball), eh? Teribus is bound and determined to go down with the ship.... But we can see from the link above where OldGuy and Geoduck get their "news".... The RNC puts out the spin points, and the media and the RW blogs and the rest of the RNC "spin machine" blasts the latest talking points around the world ... and then the RW sycophant crew all starts blabbering and saying the same wacky thing at the same time. Curious ... "we are the Borg -- you will be assimilated!" Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Bobert Date: 27 Nov 05 - 06:55 PM Ahhhhh, are we still payin Chalibi $450,000 a month for his expertize on Iraq, Arne??? (Hey, Bobert, that's a lotta dough fir a lotta crap!!!) B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Peace Date: 27 Nov 05 - 07:12 PM Just saw a cartoon depicting Bush at his desk writing a memo. "The United States will seek out terrorists responsible ofr 9/11 by invading afganiston/affganestan/afgannest--IRAQ." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: dianavan Date: 27 Nov 05 - 08:45 PM Bobert - I don't know about Chalabi's monthly salary but I did find this in the May 31 edition of Newsweek: "All told, Chalabi's INC has been paid about $33 million by State and some $6 million by the DIA." and this, "Chalabi's INC associates have been accused of using their connections at the Ministry of Finance and the major banks to commit fraud and embezzlement, according to charges that led to the raid on Chalabi's headquarters. Chalabi's men have also been accused of extortion and kidnapping by the Iraqi Central Criminal Court, which was set up by the U.S.-run CPA." Not only that, yesterday's guardian tells us, "In Iraq, an American-inspired deal to hand over development of oil reserves, the third largest in the world, to US and British companies is being rushed through by the oil minister and Deputy Prime Minister Ahmed Chalabi before next month's election." BTW - These are 30 year contracts. Hmmmm........ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST,TIA Date: 27 Nov 05 - 09:42 PM Someone upthread mentioned that gloating is not seemly. I agree. However, it's damn hard not to feel some level of vindication when we've been called cowardly, unpatriotic, treasonsous Saddam aopologists for several years now... and low and fucking behold, the stuff we were posting years ago all turns out to be TRUE! I know Bobert has got to feel al little bit of this - 'cause I remember Teribus, Old Guy, and others mocking him about his prediction that there would be house-to-house urban warfare in Iraq, and a multiyear to multidecade commitment of US troops, and tens of thousands of civilian casualties and... and ... and... The written record is so totally there for anyone who cares to look at it. Sorry folks. It ain't exactly gloating, 'cause we're not happy about this shit. But the other side has yet to admit that they were the least bit wrong, and we were the least bit right. They still insist on calling US (!) the fools. So, when we get a chance to show, using their own words, that they are full of crap, I'm not big enough to pass on it. A little petty? A lot immature? Guilty as charged. TIA |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Bobert Date: 27 Nov 05 - 10:00 PM Thanks TIA... BUt you and lots of others were in the pits wid me... Yeah, if an ol'hillbilly could see this without spending $33M on Chalabi lies then why couldn't BUsh and his gang of chickenhawks see it... I mean, there qwere millions, millions and millions of folks in the streets all 'round the world who saw the truth!!! Anf they were in the streets... I mean, like nuthin' that evr happened during thr Viet Nam war but here these millions and millions of folks sayin'. "Hey wait just a dog-gone minute!@!!" But di9d drunk frat AWOL boy wait just a minute to check his facts??? Well, Heell no, he didn't... LIke foremer Tresury Secretary under Bush said, "Bush was Hell-bent on invading Iraq from Day 2"... Yeah, not only has Bush really screwed up our country for atleast the next decade as folks try to figgure ways to extracate the US from everything he has messed up, but I gotta pay fir the clean up... Now some folks here think I'm jus' playin' about havin' to come up with money to pay taxes but I ain't... It is the single most hardship on me but I bite the bullet, borrow some years, but I do it... Now come drunk frat boy, who never had to make one sacrifice in his life who has plundered our country into an hopeless war and and a hopele4ss fiscal crisis and I have to pay fir it??? Hey, beyond the morals here, Americans gotta figgure out what I have figgured out... We are gettin' robbed!!! This Bush guy is an imposter and a crook and ought to be in friggin' jail!!! Yeah, I'm mad... Ain't just about immoral wars... It's also about outright theivery!!! Screw him and the horse he rode in on... I'm mad and America's gettin' mad, too... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo Date: 27 Nov 05 - 10:08 PM Bobert: Ahhhhh, are we still payin Chalibi $450,000 a month for his expertize on Iraq, Arne??? Dunno. They didn't let any reporters (or process servers) anywhere near Chalabi when he came and had his private audience with the maladministration a couple weeks back. Clinton had the good sense to cut off Chalabi and the INC because they looked to be more a bunch of opportunistic crooks that any actual "independence movement" or "government in exile". Millions went to Chalabi that were unaccounted for, so Clinton snipped the umbilical. Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Ron Davies Date: 27 Nov 05 - 10:23 PM Of course with giant intellects like the latest feeble incarnation of Teribus---who won't even admit that Bush and his minions were pushing a link between al Queda and Iraq at least since mid 2002---there's not much challenge. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Ron Davies Date: 27 Nov 05 - 10:38 PM It's just that there's a boundary between stubborness and bull-headed stupidity-- and Teribus wants to find out absolutely, precisely, where that is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Bobert Date: 27 Nov 05 - 10:45 PM Ahhhh, Ron, hate to tell ya' but looks like T-Chicken has flown the coop... Maybe got reassigned by his bosses??? All I know is that about 2 -3 days ago I challenged him to provide evidence that Bush had endoresed the "Saudi Proposal" with a simple yes/no, check the appropriate box question... He ahsd allready very much implied that Bush has supported the "Saudi Proposal" and was on the verge of gettin' labled "proven liar" status so he beat feet... De ja vu... When the going get tough, T-Chickenhawk takes off... (Hmmmm, Bobert... Maybe there's a song in there...) Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Teribus Date: 28 Nov 05 - 02:20 AM TIA - 27 Nov 05 - 01:47 PM "The source of the previous "quote" is a press conference on September 25, 2004." And this "quote" convinced how many American citizens in the run up to the US led invasion of Iraq? Unfortunately the dates seem to be a bit wrong for that, his quote came 18 months too late. With regard to your other "quotes". GWB, weekly radio address, February 8, 2003: Here he is referring to intelligence presented to Bill Clinton, which the latter used to justify the cruise missile attacks on Sudan and Afghanistan. GWB May 1, 2003, speech aboard the Lincoln (under the banner – remember?): In line with what he clearly stated in the 2002 State of the Union Address. GWB Press conference, June 17, 2004: Intelligence dating back to the Clinton Administration, the reason they launched a cruise missile at a powdered milk factory. As to your question....."Do you really still believe he never tried to say there was a link between Saddam and Al Quaeda?" When? between 11th September 2001 and 20th March 2003, or between 20th March to present. During the former period they were very clear to point out that Iraq had nothing to do with the 911 attacks. Since the invasion, Zarqawi's statements and actions have been the best confirmation ot the link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo Date: 28 Nov 05 - 04:02 AM Teribus: During the former period they were very clear to point out that Iraq had nothing to do with the 911 attacks. And the rest of it is "It's aaalllllllll CLINTONS'S fault! He made me do it. Geez, but us Republicans loathed him, loathed his foreign policy, attacked his strategery, but his hypnotic peni$ dangling there made us believe everything he said (or that we hallucinated that he said) ... so we acted on it." Waugh, waugh waugh..... Have some cheese with that whine, Teribus. Not to mention that Clinton didn't say anything like the lying scumbags in the Dubya maladministration did, and as definitively as they did, or go blow $300B and 2000+ soldiers' lives on a strategic disaster of a war which didn't even accomplish the purpose that it was started for, based on this totally ncompetent (or dishonest) assessment of Iraq. The good thing is that 2/3 of the U.S. population (and the greater number overseas) that aren't brain-dead are finally coming around and saying "Wha' da effin' happened? That was a load'o'crap!".... The only ones still sucking Dubya's hind teat are folks like you that have some reason only they can explain for their continuing obtuseness. But I'm thinking it sure has to gnaw on you to keep up the "brave front" day after day, while deep inside, you know you really f***ed the pooch on this one and that Lady Macbeth would change places with you in a heartbeat.... Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Ron Davies Date: 28 Nov 05 - 04:47 AM Teribus, you take the cake. You're probably the last one anywhere on the entire political spectrum who does not realize that Bush and co., between about mid-2002 and the invasion in 2003, engaged in a steadily increasing and eventually successful propaganda campaign to convince the American people that there was a clear link between Saddam and al Queda. A few eons ago you crossed the boundary I was mentioning--congratulations--you are no longer just stubborn. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Ron Davies Date: 28 Nov 05 - 04:51 AM Also, have you thanked the UN yet today for Bush's 2004 election? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Ron Davies Date: 28 Nov 05 - 05:08 AM We even already have a thread to describe Teribus' latest incarnation--"The Sad Passing of Common Sense" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: TIA Date: 28 Nov 05 - 08:24 AM You fellas demanded the quotes. You got the quotes. Now parse and quibble all you want. BTW: "Since the invasion, Zarqawi's statements and actions have been the best confirmation ot the link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq. " should read "Since the invasion, Zarqawi's statements and actions have been the best confirmation ot the link between Al-Qaeda activity in Iraq and the Bush invasion". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Teribus Date: 29 Nov 05 - 03:54 AM Status Check: 1993 - US World Trade Centre bombed Al-Qaeda admits responsibility for the attack. (Nothing to do with GWB or Tony Blair) 1997 - Saddam Hussein withdraws all co-operation from UNSCOM Inspection effort in Iraq (Nothing to do with GWB or Tony Blair) 1998 - Al-Qaeda attacks two US Embassies in East Africa and the USS Cole in the Yemen (Nothing to do with GWB or Tony Blair) 1998 - US President Bill Clinton, without going to Senate, House of Representatives or the United Nations, launches cruise missile attacks on Sudan and Afghanistan, at least one of which is a Sovereign State, a member of the United Nations and formally recognised as such. That was an act of war, it also tee-ed off OBL to the nth degree and planning for 911 commences. (Nothing to do with GWB or Tony Blair) 1998 - US President Bill Clinton is advised by his intelligence services and security advisors that Al-Qaeda/Iraq contacts have been made at high level aimed at future co-operation. Now Bill knows that he has pissed off OBL mightily, so should realise that something nasty approaches - that something might involve input from Iraq if something isn't done about it. (Nothing to do with GWB or Tony Blair) 1998 - US President Bill Clinton makes regime change in Iraq US foreign policy. (Nothing to do with GWB or Tony Blair) 1998 - US President Bill Clinton advises UNSCOM personnel to leave Baghdad and initiates "Desert Fox" series of attacks on various sites and installations in Iraq. He does this without going to Senate, House of Representatives or the United Nations, citing Iraqi non-compliance with existing UN Security Council Resolutions. Everybody in the good old US of A are all quite happy because they are in the middle of putting their elected Head of State through the wringer because of a blow-job - Nice to see everybody had their priorities right. (Nothing to do with GWB or Tony Blair) 2001 - WTC destroyed, Pentagon damaged in series of Al-Qaeda attacks 2001 - US President George W. Bush demands that the Taleban Authorities in Afghanistan hand over OBL and the Al-Qaeda leadership - They refuse, a number of times. 2001 - Unlike Clinton, US President George W. Bush does not start lobbing bombs in all directions. He focuses on the group inside Afghanistan fighting the Taleban and decides to give them support. Result Northern Alliance defeats Taleban and drives them from power - No US invasion as some claim, no act of war as with Clinton, but the anti-war, anti-Bush crowd are up in arms. 2001/2002 - US President George W Bush has House Security Committee with the aid of all of America's intelligence and law enforcement agencies carry out a threat assessment. The following countries are identified as posing a potential threat to the US by means of providing WMD material technology or expertise to an international terrorist group, such as Al-Qaeda, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Iran, North Korea. Note - this conclusion was reached by others not by George W. Bush or by Tony Blair. 2002 - Precedent set by Bill Clinton in 1998, would have allowed GWB to launch an attack on Saddam Hussein and his regime in Iraq, nothing has changed, Saddam is still in violation of UNSC Resolutions agreed to at Safwan, the contacts indicating possible co-operation between Al-Qaeda and Iraq have not been disproved. Iraq has been identified as a potential threat - So what does US President George W. Bush do? 2002 - US President George W Bush goes to the United Nations, result UNSC Resolution 1441, UNMOVIC inspections teams go back to Iraq, US build up of troops in Kuwait and elsewhere in the region to keep pressure on Saddam. (Damn sight more than Clinton did, 2002 - US President George W Bush goes to House of Representatives and to the Senate and requests their authorisation and approval to use military force if required, they agree, again a damn sight more than Clinton ever did. 2003 - With UNMOVIC head Dr. Hans Blix still complaining of lack of Iraqi co-operation (I know Bobert has his little quote but if he reads on a couple of paragraphs he'll find that it is rather heavily qualified) and there having been seven material breaches of 1441, US President George W Bush acts, his precedent for acting is the broken Safwan ceasefire agreement (remember the same reason that Clinton was allowed to invoke without a murmer). No point in going back to the UN although they do try, only to be told by France that France will veto any proposed resolution irrespective. So apart from consulting both houses of Congress, apart from involving the United Nations, apart from putting together a coalition of allies larger than for the first Gulf War in 1991, what has George W. Bush done that beloved Bill Clinton didn't do and get away with without a side-ways look or comment. Going back to Clinton's attack on the Sudan, if I had been Sudanese President my response would have been a bit different. All the anti-war, anti-Bush types along with the conspiracy theorists and looney-left prattle on about a movie called "wag-the-dog". Ever heard of another movie " The Mouse That Roared"? Had I been head of state of the Sudan in 1998, my immediate response to Clinton's attack would have been to put my country's case before the entire Assembly of the United Nations and declared war on the United States of America - Oh Sudan would have lost in damn short order, but we would not have let America out of our country until after you had fixed everything in sight. Which by the way is what we are going to have to do in Iraq, and that was a known factor long before action was taken in March 2003, what was not known was how long it would take. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: akenaton Date: 29 Nov 05 - 04:18 AM How are you going to "fix" the thousands of dead civilians? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo Date: 29 Nov 05 - 04:37 AM Teribus's New'Facts'R'Us litany: 1998 - Al-Qaeda attacks two US Embassies in East Africa and the USS Cole in the Yemen (Nothing to do with GWB or Tony Blair) You must have hired Dick Cheney's fact checkers. 1998 - US President Bill Clinton advises UNSCOM personnel to leave Baghdad and initiates "Desert Fox" series of attacks on various sites and installations in Iraq. He does this without going to Senate, House of Representatives or the United Nations, citing Iraqi non-compliance with existing UN Security Council Resolutions. Everybody in the good old US of A are all quite happy because they are in the middle of putting their elected Head of State through the wringer because of a blow-job... Ummm, nope. Not all are happy. In fact, the very Republicans busy licking the brown stuff out of Dubya's a$$ right now (but furtively looking sideways to see if they can slink off to keep from being drowned in the coming deluge [Cunningham's just the first drops of rain] were aghast at Clinton's temerity to take out Osama been Forgotten (nee "bin Laden" until Dubya figured he was too tough to catch with an entire military machine that spends as much as the next 10 combined, so he declared him "not important"). Unfortunately, Clinton's admitted extra-legal attempt wasn't successful, but in fact it at least came a lot closer than anything that Dubya's done.... 2001 - Unlike Clinton, US President George W. Bush does not start lobbing bombs in all directions. He focuses on the group inside Afghanistan fighting the Taleban and decides to give them support. Result Northern Alliance defeats Taleban and drives them from power - No US invasion as some claim, no act of war as with Clinton, but the anti-war, anti-Bush crowd are up in arms. And the local "help" that Dubya hired to do the grunt work takes money off both sides and lets Osama escape. Good, good, move. Yep, privatising and off-shoring security has to be one of Dubya's Einstein moments (of which there are legion). But just a FYI, Afghanistan is still a problem. In fact, it's looking quite dicey there too with Karzai dubbed the "President of Kabul", and the warlords and/or even Taliban running significant areas of the country. 2002 - Precedent set by Bill Clinton in 1998, would have allowed GWB to launch an attack on Saddam Hussein and his regime in Iraq, nothing has changed,.... Thought you were complaining about that "precedent". Sorry, silly me. It's good precedent when Dubya follows it. But FWIW, there's a difference bewteen going after someone who attacked you, and going after someone who didn't. And a difference (albeit not legally too significant) between cruise missiles and staging a friggin' invasion and occupation.... You left out the part where sane heads told the maladministration their "intelligence" was full'o'shite, the part where the UNMOVIC inspectors, working under authority of that self-same UNSCR 1441, were doing their job and reporting there weren't any WoMD, and then the part where Dubya said "F*ck Saddam, we're taking him out" (followed by a pumped up "Feels good!" from the former cheerleader) and then invaded Iraq against the authority of UNSCR 1441 (not to mention against the wishes and intentions of Congress that had given him authority to use force if necessary, not just because he felt like it..... And some of your other "facts" are also full'o'crap. Have a good day. Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo Date: 29 Nov 05 - 07:29 AM Teribus rewriting history again: No point in going back to the UN although they do try, only to be told by France that France will veto any proposed resolution irrespective. Ummm, Dubya said he'd call for a "show of hands" anyway just to show those cheese-eating surrender monkeys up for the iggnerant cowards they are. But cooler heads told him to drop that idea (as quietly as possible, and hope everyone forgot what he'd promised to do) because straw poll showed that even the U.S. arm-twisting and bribes would only garner 5 of 13 votes on the Security Council (and thus a veto by the French or Russians would have been just rubbing it in). So Dubya bravely turned his tail and fled, and went into Iraq anyway despite the opposition of most of the Security Council. Let's get the facts straight. Dubya pulled out prematurely, took his ball and went home. He never did "try" for the vote. Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST,TIA Date: 29 Nov 05 - 10:18 AM Incredible. It seems the T-lite argument has now evolved to "the invasion of Iraq was really Bill Clinton's idea, and GWB was innocently following that precedent." {or something like that...I think} Two questions: 1) does this mean that GWB will now continue to follow precedent and admit that the invasion was a "Big Mistake"? 2) should Clinton really get credit for the invasion when it was the Cheney cabal (then incarnate as the PNAC) that actually wrote the plan for the invasion in the 1990s, and tried (unsuccessfully) to sell it to Clinton? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Teribus Date: 29 Nov 05 - 10:52 AM "And some of your other "facts" are also full'o'crap." And how would you know Arne, so far you haven't addressed a single point. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Wolfgang Date: 29 Nov 05 - 12:28 PM Costly Withdrawal Is the Price To Be Paid for a Foolish War Wolfgang (sorry if that article has been linked to already in one of the threads) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Bobert Date: 29 Nov 05 - 02:42 PM Well, good point, TIA... When Richard Pearle and Paul Wolfowitz tried to get Clinto to attack Iraq he threw the bums outta of his office.... But, whatever... Seems that whenever the Bushites run outta of excuses fir their own failures, which BTW are pilin' up higher an' higher every day, they just drag Slick Willie out... I wouldn't be surprised if Bush proposed a new Department: The Department of Alabis!!! Or, maybe the Department of Revisionism, or maybe the Department of Bullsh*t??? Heck, there's a couple Bushites 'round there who would make excellent secretaries... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Teribus Date: 29 Nov 05 - 06:36 PM The article you linked to Wolfgang is rather on the ultra-pessimistic side. In forcing his historical parallels Martin van Creveld misses a few extremely important points: 1. The political process and progress in the country. Come 15th December the Sunni population will vote, they heeded the call to boycott back in the Spring and regretted it ever since, they ignored the threats to vote in the recent referendum and they will definitely vote on the 15th. 2. The US Forces present are not conscripts as was the case in Vietnam. 3. The US Forces present in Iraq are far from demoralised. 4. Zarqawi's recent attacks have even prompted OBL's second in command to order him to stop targeting innocent muslim civilians. 5. Attacks are becoming fewer, no doubt they will increase in the run up to the election as they have, but they are nowhere near as spectacular as before and nowhere near as effective. Apart from roadside bombs, the insurgents hardly ever take on either the MNF or Iraqi Army. I think that this article has been written in an attempt to frighten US politicians into staying the course. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Bobert Date: 29 Nov 05 - 08:08 PM T- As to yer points... 1. Don't be lookin' fir a big Sunni turnout and either way, the day before, the day of and the day after, Iraq will still be in a civil war that does not offer any future protection of Sunnis... Hey, not that I'm in love with Sunni's but I'm less inlove with idea of loosing 5 Americans a day to protect tem either... 2. No, today's army in Iraq is there based on a combination of the "Now Child Left Unrecruited" Act and something that the US hasn't done in my life time: "Stop loss" where you ahve 50 year olds in Iraq who thought they had done their time a long time ago... 3. How do you know about the moral of the troops in Iraq??? Oh yeah, you saw it on TV... Gee, can't argue with TV... 4. Zarqawi??? Hmmmmm, can't find Osoma so now ya gotta have a new Boggieman-da jour... Yeah, no boogie man??? That be bad... Always gotta have a boogie man... BTW, what nationality is Zarqawi??? 5. Attacks are getting fewer? How come the American death tolls are rising??? As fir tactics, why fight to yer opponent's strength's??? MST, 101... Sorry, W-gang, but these seemed to be purdy much powder puff questions on T-Lite's part... I'm seriously worried about the boy when I can go thru his pop quizes like a hot knife thru butter... They used to be tougher??? Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo Date: 29 Nov 05 - 09:41 PM All that Teribus wrote was: [Arne]: "And some of your other "facts" are also full'o'crap." And how would you know Arne, so far you haven't addressed a single point. Projecting again? Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST Date: 29 Nov 05 - 10:01 PM "Attacks are becoming fewer"... Hmmm. Teribus better call the Pentagon and correct their terrible misperception, because they think that attacks are at an all-time high !!! Little quote from the link: "Pentagon officials said that in October there were about 100 attacks a day in Iraq compared with 85 to 90 attacks a day in September" What does our friend T know that we don't? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST,TIA Date: 29 Nov 05 - 10:13 PM That was me at 10:01. Cookie drift. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Bobert Date: 29 Nov 05 - 10:19 PM Yeah, speakin' of 10:01, I mighta have throwed Ol' T off with my comment about MST 101.... That's "Military Science Training, 101" Whew, hate fir the boy to have to go back to Google yet again... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Ron Davies Date: 30 Nov 05 - 12:36 AM As I've already said, the main question will not be how many Sunnis participate in the December elections--since more than anticipated probably will--but what happens in the likely event that when they try to amend the constitution after the election---since most of the main questions of government have been put off--- all their amendments are soundly defeated. Will that cause them to support the insurrection in greater numbers, and if so what will Bush do? Putting in more troops is becoming progressively less of an option for him--virtually everybody across the political spectrum is talking about taking troops out, not putting more in. The only question is when and under what conditions to withdraw. Since Murtha's statement, there's been a sea change. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: akenaton Date: 30 Nov 05 - 05:56 AM Ron has pointed out clearly the flaws in Teribus's argument, but I have never seen Teribus acknowledge any point of view which contradicts his own. There is a possibility that all the factions in Iraq will embrace "democracy", setting aside their religious and historical differences and accepting a benevolent American presence in their country for the foreseeable future, but much more likely is the descent into civil war which is widely predicted. If not civil war the country will surely become lawless, ruled by mad fundamentalists , warlords and private militias. No matter what the pro-war people say, the intervention by USA/UK has made a bad situation many times worse , and we are still faced with the problem of making an organised withdrawal without too much loss of life. This will not be easy and will of course be perceived as a humiliating defeat...but there will be no other way. One positive point is that the endgame in Iraq will probably mean the end for the neo-con experiment in America...Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Bobert Date: 30 Nov 05 - 08:29 AM Yes, ake... You are very much on top of this one... In Afganistan you don't have to get far into the country side and find warlords in complete control of vast regions... And with this control you have Taliban-ish business as usual... That is one scenerio and, of course, the elections won't end the civil war... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Ron Davies Date: 30 Nov 05 - 09:47 AM Teribus-- Are you yet willing at least to acknowledge that Bush and his minions--- (NB not Clinton--try consulting your calendar or whatever else necessary to find out who was president)--carried out a steadily increasing and eventually successful campaign to convince the US public of a direct link between Saddam and al Queda? This happened between about mid- 2002 and Bush's 2003 invasion of Iraq. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Wolfgang Date: 30 Nov 05 - 10:00 AM With 93 U.S. troops killed, October saw the highest number of American deaths in Iraq in a month since January, when 107 died. (from the article linked to by TIA with the title '...all-time high') That's a very creative use of the expression 'all-time high'. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST,TIA Date: 30 Nov 05 - 12:09 PM Perhaps not so creative. Also in the article, it says that while deaths per attack are down, *number* of attacks is up. I happen to think that the number of attacks is a better measure of whether the insurgency is abating than is number of deaths. The former is completely under the control of the insurgents, while the latter has a large component of chance, defensive strategy, medical response, and other factors beyond the insurgents' control. Not an expert in this field though... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Teribus Date: 30 Nov 05 - 12:25 PM Ron Davies - 30 Nov 05 - 09:47 AM To my certain knowledge, to adopt Ebbie's phrase ther has never been any attempt on the part of the Bush Administration to convince the US public of a direct link between Saddam and al Queda - whoever, or whatever the latter might be. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Ron Davies Date: 30 Nov 05 - 01:00 PM Teribus-- "To your knowledge"---that says all we need to know about your knowledge. Thanks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST,TIA Date: 30 Nov 05 - 01:27 PM This article provides some "certain knowledge". Seems Bush is following a Clinton precedent after all (i.e. using verrry careful wording to maintain plausible deniability at some later date). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo Date: 30 Nov 05 - 02:16 PM Bobert: In Afganistan you don't have to get far into the country side and find warlords in complete control of vast regions... And with this control you have Taliban-ish business as usual... That is one scenerio and, of course, the elections won't end the civil war... Correctamundo. Iraq isn't Vietnam II. It's America's Afghanistan. Fits on the other end of the mantel from America's actual Afghanistan, which we chided the Russians for when it was their problem, but which the inept fools in the maladministration have managed to make their own. Afghanistan is no "victory", and little better (if at all) for our efforts there. Yes, even the elections there didn't do a whole lot but give the locals badges. But that was always a "we don't need no badges" type of place, and it's rather naive to think that we could make it anything else. And we're losing troops there as well (although arguably they're a tad closer to Osama bin Forgotten over there). Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Ron Davies Date: 30 Nov 05 - 02:30 PM Of course, what we are alleging in this thread now is that Bush and his cronies, whether or not they personally believed Saddam was tied to 11 September 2001, sought, successfully in the end, to persuade the US public that the two were in fact tied. It is clear that they did in fact make this case to the US public--as I said, successfully--indeed this is probably the major method they used to marshal support for their invasion of Iraq, especially by raising the spectre of September 11 devastation multiplied by the (phantom) WMD at Saddam's disposal. More later. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Ron Davies Date: 30 Nov 05 - 10:14 PM Teribus-- Meant to tell you--you're nothing if not entertaining. In fact you've just won another award--Creative Interpretations In Foreign Policy--otherwise known as the Disneyland award--as in Fantasyland. You can put it on your shelf--it'll look great next to your sophistry plaque. But the fans are still somewhat disappointed to have missed your acceptance speech--maybe you could combine the two. So--Bush was just following Clinton's precedent--Bush as Clinton's puppet. Congratulations!---that is by far the most imaginative basis I've heard yet for Bush's invasion of Iraq. Keep up the good work! But I thought Bush only took dictation from God. Does this mean Clinton is God? Isn't that idolatry? Sounds like there's a problem. I suppose there is some plausibility to the idea that Bush had to follow Clinton's lead--after all we have yet to hear a coherent sentence emanate from Bush. Perhaps you're right-- it's too much to expect that Bush could think for himself. But what about his advisors? Can't they think either? It's clear to any thinking being, at least on this side of the pond, that Bush and his "team", starting about mid-2002 and going up to Bush's invasion of Iraq, sought to portray to the US public a close linkage between al Queda and Saddam. It's certainly understandable that, not being American, you have a hard time understanding US politics (though many UK Mudcatters understand just fine.) However, it's rather baffling that you don't seem to understand English. I had thought it was your mother tongue. Just to pick one of the statements made by the Bush "team",--it's what's known as a target-rich environment-- let's try the statement cited by Arne in his posting of 27 Nov 2005 6:45 PM. Statement by Bush 8 Feb 2003. If you get out your calendar, count on your fingers and toes or whatever you need to do, you may possibly realize that this is before the Bush invasion of Iraq. Statement as follows--remember--made on 8 Feb 2003---do you follow so far? Statement: "Saddam Hussein has longstanding direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Queda have met at least 8 times since the early 1990's. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document-forgery experts to work with al Queda. Iraq has also provided al Queda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Queda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990's for help in acquiring poisons and gases." No links between al Queda and Iraq? Now if you sound these words out carefully and keep your dictionary close at hand, I'm confident you can eventually figure out what is being said here. But if by some chance you need a translation, I'm sure we can help you out. If Bush did not endorse these sentiments, why do you suppose he didn't end this statement by saying "But we know now that all the above is false information, used by President Clinton to justify the cruise missile attacks on Sudan and Afghanistan"? Somehow, he left this out. So, it appears a logical mind--(perhaps this excludes you)--would conclude that in fact Bush himself believed what he had just said in this radio address. Please let us know when this penetrates your skull. It makes no difference if this statement, one of many along these lines by Bush and his minions, has no basis in fact. This is what he said. Your quarrrel is with him, not us. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Ron Davies Date: 30 Nov 05 - 10:17 PM "quarrel" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Teribus Date: 01 Dec 05 - 02:25 AM In answer to Ron Davies question asked in the posts referred to below: Ron Davies - 27 Nov 05 - 10:23 PM Ron Davies - 30 Nov 05 - 09:47 AM I would refer Ron to the answer I gave TIA TIA "....."Do you really still believe he never tried to say there was a link between Saddam and Al Quaeda?" ME - When? between 11th September 2001 and 20th March 2003, or between 20th March to present. During the former period they were very clear to point out that Iraq had nothing to do with the 911 attacks. Pay particular attention to that last sentence Ron, you are rather keen on taking single sentences in isolation and at face value, and remember how this little section of the thread developed. It was the contention by you, Ron Davies, that GWB linked Saddam to the Al-Qaeda attacks on 11th September 2001. Well Ron HE DIDN'T. The reference to your post by the way is Ron Davies - 24 Nov 05 - 10:25 AM Teribus 23 Nov 2005 4:40 PM--G W Bush "establishes very early on that Saddam Hussein and Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with the attacks" (of 11 Sept 2001). Then asks: "And how long did that last? About 20 minutes?" As to the investigation into possible Iraqi/al-Qaeda links the evidence of those goes back well into the Clinton administration, plus the presence on Iraqi territory of a terrorist group associated, trained and inspired by Al-Qaeda. There is no doubt at all that prior to 911 there were links between Iraq and a number of terrorist groups, that after all was why the Security Committee set up to evaluate potential threats to the USA identified Iraq as being one of the most dangerous, particularly in the light of its ongoing non-compliance with UNSC Resolutions. And also remembering that its ruler Saddam Hussein was the only head of state to publically applaud and congratulate those who planned and carried out the attacks of 911. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST,TIA Date: 01 Dec 05 - 07:09 AM Teribus - please read the link I posted on Nov 30 at 1:27. You seem to br claiming that Bush et al carefully pointed out NO link before the invasion, but now (post-invasion) are making statements that assert a link. This is precisely backwards! Please go read the link. Also if "the presence on Iraqi territory of a terrorist group associated, trained and inspired by Al-Qaeda" means a link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, then there is an equal link between GWB and Al-Qaeda! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Bobert Date: 01 Dec 05 - 07:47 AM T- Are you claiming that the Bush administartion's PR War Machine didn't make staements that implied a connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq in the mad-dash to war? Yes_______ No________ |
