Building 7 Discussion Continued Here

the images from space showing the trailers that were supposedly wmd haulers or labs or whatever, were taken in 1991 during Saudi ... FACT.

Shit-for-brains Bush AND Blair pawned them off as RECENT intel even though they knew full fucking well they werent.

intentional LIE with intent to invade.


One of more than a FEW lies. Originally Posted by CJ7

Two presidents launched attacks against the same country for the very same reason; yet you and others maintain that only one of those presidents 'lied'. That is a bias; not an understanding based on facts.

'Slick Willie' 'believed' Saddam had WMD; hence, his $1 billion-war against Saddam in 1998. So how do you explain away Operation Desert Fox since Bush wasn't involved? How can you justify Clinton's actions then declaim Bush's actions? Both were based on the same intelligence sources. Both presidents came to the same conclusion: Saddam had WMD. Explain that fact away.

when country invades another country and places the lives of their own people at risk, and asks taxpayers to pay for it, a hell of a lot more than "believing" is necessary to justify the invasion.

HARD COLD FACTS come to mind.

something idiots have zero regard for. Take you for instance IB.

whistle through a comb all you want to, it was what it was, and it was a lie, just as the hard cod facts prove it was.

when country invades another country and places the lives of their own people at risk, and asks taxpayers to pay for it, a hell of a lot more than "believing" is necessary to justify the invasion.

HARD COLD FACTS come to mind.

something idiots have zero regard for. Take you for instance IB.

whistle through a comb all you want to, it was what it was, and it was a lie, just as the hard cod facts prove it was. Originally Posted by CJ7

Notice once again, CBJ7, you didn't explain away or criticize why Clinton mobilized about 30,000 personnel, launched 600 bomber sorties and over 400 Cruise missiles; thus, spending some $1 billion when he attacked Iraq in 1998 – based on the same sort of intel Bush would use to attack Iraq in 2003.

Notice once again, CBJ7, you didn't explain away or criticize why Clinton mobilized about 30,000 personnel, launched 600 bomber sorties and over 400 Cruise missiles; thus, spending some $1 billion when he attacked Iraq in 1998 – based on the same sort of intel Bush would use to attack Iraq in 2003. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

once again you failed to notice the key word

INVASION.


notice this ...

The End.

once again you failed to notice the key word

INVASION.


notice this ...

The End. Originally Posted by CJ7

1,000 sorties into Iraq's airspace constitutes an 'INVASION'; ask former Defense Secretary Robert Gates!

Answer this question: “Did ‘Slick Willie’ lie when he said he was attacking Saddam’s WMD program when he launched his war against Iraq in 1998?”

Yes or no?

You cannot have it both ways. If Clinton didn't lie in 1998, then Bush wasn't lying in 2002/2003: it's that simple.

did you just write that.....you sheep crack me up.......too funny. Originally Posted by dearhunter

Trust me, I’m not a sheep. I’m all about being the hawk. We will kill you back should be our national defense policy, but it isn’t. We will kill you selectively or not at all is or banner cry. Even if we do take military action, we should be like Rome and exact our tribute, but we don’t. We don’t take anything; in fact, we will rebuild your shitty little country that we tore up because you started a fight with us.

Olivia will you make a statement that Clinton lied (but didn't take action), Kerry lied (but did not support), Gore lied (but was distracted by a melting ice cube in his drink), Edwards lied (but was distracted by a blonde), the Mossad lied (professional habit), the CIA lied (once again, professionals), MI-5 lied (the British would never lie to us...), the Russians lied (&@#*&^). So Olivia let me hear you say that everyone lied or.........that everyone thought they were telling truth as they knew it. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Clinton bombed Iraq because Saddam put a hit out on Daddy Bush.

Clinton, Kerry, Gore, Edwards, MI-5, the Mossad, the Russians lied about what? Getting laid? If they lied, none of their lies started a ten year war that cost 4,500 American lives, God knows how many Iraqi lives and untold trillions of dollars.

MI-5, the CIA, the Mossad and, oh hell, I’ll give you the Russians, presented mountains of data. The Bush administration cherry picked the it. Bush, was drawing up plans to invade Iraq BEFORE 9/11. The message was passed that Bush and Cheney wanted to go to war with Iraq and the intelligence community got the message and presented only data and interpretations that would support an unprovoked attack on Iraq. Even the British, after Blair lost his seat, said the intel was distorted to support the historic and unprovoked attack on Iraq. And Bush, after he left office, came out and said the faulty intel was the biggest failure of the his administration. It is well known that unfavorable interpretations of the data were suppressed. Warnings about the reliability and truthfulness of WMD intelligence from Chalabi and the other Iraqi exiles were disregarded by the administration. In fact, one of chief Iraqi sources admitted that he deliberately lied. After the attacks the call to arms was inevitable. Saddam was going to destroy the whole fucking world with their shitty little, short-ranged chemical weapons.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4996218

Here’s the Saddam weapon’s time line. He HAS HAD WMD’s, but when we invaded Iraq he didn’t. If Bush wanted to invade, he should have done it without all the subterfuge and WITH AN ARMY BIG ENOUGH TO DO THE JOB RIGHT AND QUICKLY. Rumsfield said you go to army with the army you have. He’s right; you do IF YOUR ATTACKED not if you are the aggressor. Can someone say Japan?

It’s ten years later, and we’re still fighting over there. We’re still not getting any oil. We’re still not any closer to peace in the Region. We’re still broke, and – again - not getting any oil out of the deal.

..................
Saddam was a dangerous buffoon. Uday and Qusay were worse. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

For true. Not our job to save the Iraqi people from themselves.

Oil has been a factor in international politics since the 19th century and will continue to be so into the foreseeable future. The belief that Saddam had WMD was not a ruse. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

What has also been the prevailing belief since Teddy Roosevelt is that we do not engage in regime change and starting unprovoked wars.

Yes it was a ruse. It was Saddam’s ruse. He said, before he was hanged when asked why he didn’t allow the inspectors unfettered access to the “sites” and deny the WMD’s existence, is that he feared that if people thought that he didn’t have WMD’s his internal and external enemies would destroy him.

But you were talking about war and oil. It is all about the oil but not Iraqi oil. It was about the oil in Saudi and the Emirates, and W’s Oedipus Complex not WMD’s.

Saddam was at peace with us. He was at peace with his neighbors, including Israel. And he was a balancing force in the Middle East. Now we have Iran saber rattling with no one but us or, the enemy of all the Middle Eastern countries, Israel to do capable about it.

This discussion is meaningless withhout you telling us your definition of "lie/liar" .....

Does it invovle "intent" or "intentionally" ?

If not, every weatherman across the US is a liar by your weak definition. If yes, then what proof do you have that Bush knowingly made false statements intentionally? Originally Posted by Whirlaway

It is a lie to say there are WMD’s when there aren’t any you just hope to fucking hell against the odds there are so you can justify your war. You are a dogmatic right-winger who probably isn’t even rich. You drank the Kool-aid and took the blood oath years ago. Arguing with you is like arguing with a brick wall so as far as I’m concerned, you and I are done here; I don't want to argue what the definition of is is.

Olivia, please give it up. You are starting to sound like a loon. Some of us went to the Gulf war (yes, CJ/WTF my background is pertinent) and we recieved extensive training in chemical/biological warfare. That also involved a massive shipment of MOPP suits and gear to the units. The Germans provided some of the best detection gear in the world. There is massive evidence that someone BELIEVED that Hussein had WMDs and believed he would use them when his regime was at stake. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Ok, one more time. There was POTENTIAL for chemical warfare; it doesn’t mean there was a probability of them. All your training was part of a comprehensive military training program.

Starting from the bottom Olivia; what training we recieved prior to the Gulf War hold a candle to the training we recieved in the months leading up to the invasion. Kind of like 10-1 or maybe 50-1. That kind of intensity indicates a specific fear.

You admit that there were WMDs...so what happened to them? We didn't get them. Saddam did not show that he destroyed them. As I said, Iraqi generals said those weapons went to Syria. Ever wonder why this administration is dragging its feet on the Assad verdict. Maybe because they are afraid that when the music stops the Muslim Brotherhood will end up with the WMDs. So answer that question, where are the WMDs that existed in 1990?

To belabor the point, you say that it was a ruse. The ruse that Saddam STILL had WMDs. There is no question he had them before, he used them on his own people and the Iranians. So his ruse worked and instead of being critical of the intelligence unenlightened people claim that Bush lied (and by extension Clinton lied) instead of saying that his intelligence was fooled.

Back to the top; you said that saving the Iraqi people is not our job then why do you have to drop in how many Iraqi people died. Seems diametrically opposed. Either they count or they don't. Another term you used Olivia "cherry picking" is a term used exclusively by the left to try to discredit Bush. Intelligence is all about "cherry picking". Not everything counts, not everything is true, not everything is important in intelligence. It takes a professional intelligence analysis, and not a politician, to decipher what is what and sometimes they're wrong. Military analysis's were wrong about the guns at Pont du Hoc on the beaches of Normandy and many men died taking those heights for no good reason. There were no torpedoes or North Vietnamese torpedo boats in the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964 but the Congress essentially gave LBJ a blank check. In 1990 Iraqi was described as having the fifth largest army in the world and it was composed of veterans. Pundits said that thousands of US body bags were going to be filled. These people were all wrong based on the known intelligence.

One more thing, there are generals in the Pentagon drawing up plans to invade Canada right now, and Englan, and France, and Mexico. That is what they do. It doesn't mean that we are going to but we are not going to be caught flat footed again. So saying that the plans for the invasion of Iraq were already drawn up means absolutely nothing. Why do you think Schwarzkopf was selected to lead in 1990? He wasn't senior but he was the general who lead the group who drew up the plans. He was the "expert".

To conclude; Bush didn't lie (anymore than Clinton if you want to believe that), the intelligence had holes in it, we still don't know what happened to what we know did exist, and why are people still karping on this (I'm looking for your personal reasons, historians are always looking)?

Starting from the bottom Olivia; what training we recieved prior to the Gulf War hold a candle to the training we recieved in the months leading up to the invasion. Kind of like 10-1 or maybe 50-1. That kind of intensity indicates a specific fear.

You admit that there were WMDs...so what happened to them? We didn't get them. Saddam did not show that he destroyed them. As I said, Iraqi generals said those weapons went to Syria. Ever wonder why this administration is dragging its feet on the Assad verdict. Maybe because they are afraid that when the music stops the Muslim Brotherhood will end up with the WMDs. So answer that question, where are the WMDs that existed in 1990?

To belabor the point, you say that it was a ruse. The ruse that Saddam STILL had WMDs. There is no question he had them before, he used them on his own people and the Iranians. So his ruse worked and instead of being critical of the intelligence unenlightened people claim that Bush lied (and by extension Clinton lied) instead of saying that his intelligence was fooled.

Back to the top; you said that saving the Iraqi people is not our job then why do you have to drop in how many Iraqi people died. Seems diametrically opposed. Either they count or they don't. Another term you used Olivia "cherry picking" is a term used exclusively by the left to try to discredit Bush. Intelligence is all about "cherry picking". Not everything counts, not everything is true, not everything is important in intelligence. It takes a professional intelligence analysis, and not a politician, to decipher what is what and sometimes they're wrong. Military analysis's were wrong about the guns at Pont du Hoc on the beaches of Normandy and many men died taking those heights for no good reason. There were no torpedoes or North Vietnamese torpedo boats in the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964 but the Congress essentially gave LBJ a blank check. In 1990 Iraqi was described as having the fifth largest army in the world and it was composed of veterans. Pundits said that thousands of US body bags were going to be filled. These people were all wrong based on the known intelligence.

One more thing, there are generals in the Pentagon drawing up plans to invade Canada right now, and Englan, and France, and Mexico. That is what they do. It doesn't mean that we are going to but we are not going to be caught flat footed again. So saying that the plans for the invasion of Iraq were already drawn up means absolutely nothing. Why do you think Schwarzkopf was selected to lead in 1990? He wasn't senior but he was the general who lead the group who drew up the plans. He was the "expert".

To conclude; Bush didn't lie (anymore than Clinton if you want to believe that), the intelligence had holes in it, we still don't know what happened to what we know did exist, and why are people still karping on this (I'm looking for your personal reasons, historians are always looking)? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Bush inherited CIA director George Tenet from Bill Clinton. Tenet reviewed the intelligence supporting the existance of WMDs in Iraq and told Bush it was "a slam dunk".

Bush acted in good faith. He did what was appropriate based on the information he had. No one can be expected to do more. The fact that the socialist/Democrats have accused Bush of lying to take us to war against Iraq is despicable. It show's their complete lack of integrity.

Starting from the bottom Olivia; what training we recieved prior to the Gulf War hold a candle to the training we recieved in the months leading up to the invasion. Kind of like 10-1 or maybe 50-1. That kind of intensity indicates a specific fear. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

The invasion was based on WMD's. Of course you received chemical warfare training.

You admit that there were WMDs...so what happened to them? We didn't get them. Saddam did not show that he destroyed them. As I said, Iraqi generals said those weapons went to Syria. Ever wonder why this administration is dragging its feet on the Assad verdict. Maybe because they are afraid that when the music stops the Muslim Brotherhood will end up with the WMDs. So answer that question, where are the WMDs that existed in 1990? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

He used them on his own people and / or destroyed the rest when the inspections were inevitable.

No, I do not think he had WMD's leading up to the war.

I believe you are wrong. I believe you drank the Kool-aid.

To belabor the point, you say that it was a ruse. The ruse that Saddam STILL had WMDs. There is no question he had them before, he used them on his own people and the Iranians. So his ruse worked and instead of being critical of the intelligence unenlightened people claim that Bush lied (and by extension Clinton lied) instead of saying that his intelligence was fooled. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Read what I wrote and referenced. Clearly, I know he used them on his enemies. Adding flowery wording and stating he used the WMD's on his enemies doesn't mitigate the fact that I said he did.

I never said Saddam said he had WMD's; I said he never denied it. there is a difference.

I say again, Clinton bombed Iraq because Saddam tried to kill Daddy Bush.

Back to the top; you said that saving the Iraqi people is not our job then why do you have to drop in how many Iraqi people died. Seems diametrically opposed. Either they count or they don't. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

We started an illegal war. The hundred or so dead Iraqis probably would have rather not have been saved. Your point is mute and is not germane. What village was it in N. Vietnam that we had to destroy to "save" the people?

Another term you used Olivia "cherry picking" is a term used exclusively by the left to try to discredit Bush. Intelligence is all about "cherry picking". Not everything counts, not everything is true, not everything is important in intelligence. It takes a professional intelligence analysis, and not a politician, to decipher what is what and sometimes they're wrong. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

In this case the conclusion was determined before the intel gathered. You proved my point. It was political intelligence not statistical or professional intelligence. Cheney kept saying al-Quaida and Saddam were linked. They were not; they are not; and it has never been shown by anyone that they were.

Military analysis's were wrong about the guns at Pont du Hoc on the beaches of Normandy and many men died taking those heights for no good reason. There were no torpedoes or North Vietnamese torpedo boats in the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964 but the Congress essentially gave LBJ a blank check. In 1990 Iraqi was described as having the fifth largest army in the world and it was composed of veterans. Pundits said that thousands of US body bags were going to be filled. These people were all wrong based on the known intelligence. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

LBJ was wrong then, and we are wrong now. This war is unjust. Period.

One more thing, there are generals in the Pentagon drawing up plans to invade Canada right now, and Englan, and France, and Mexico. That is what they do. It doesn't mean that we are going to but we are not going to be caught flat footed again. So saying that the plans for the invasion of Iraq were already drawn up means absolutely nothing. Why do you think Schwarzkopf was selected to lead in 1990? He wasn't senior but he was the general who lead the group who drew up the plans. He was the "expert". Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

That all may or may not be true, but no one has made a decision to invade Canada since 1812. The administration had made a decision to invade Iraq prior to 9/11.

To conclude; Bush didn't lie (anymore than Clinton if you want to believe that), the intelligence had holes in it, we still don't know what happened to what we know did exist, and why are people still karping on this (I'm looking for your personal reasons, historians are always looking)? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Clinton has fuck all to do with the invasion of of Iraq. I have no personal reasons. I've lost no one in Iraq. Bottom line, we've fought a 10 year war for nothing.

So now, as always we differ on opinions. I bid you well on this topic as I have in the past on literally every other thing we've discussed.

It is not the "cherry picking" it is the charge. Have you heard any republican say, in all seriousness, that Obama "cherry picked" his intelligence about Libya, Egypt, or Yeman? None of them have. Think about the mind of the individual (Hillary Clinton) or the group (democratic party) that would go along with something and then charge that the intelligence was "cherry picked" to win a political point. That is your modern democratic party. In the past ten years they have approved of, and helped write, the Patriot Act afterwhich they condemned it. They voted for war against Iraq and Afghanistan afterwhich they condemned both. They, including cherry senator from Illinois, approved when the SCOTUS stripped provisions the Bush Affordable Drug Act, which was partially written by democrats, and then whined when it looks like the SCOTUS is going to gut Obama's Affordable Health Care Act. How do you people know who or what you are against or for today. Do they send out a scorecard?

That all may or may not be true, but no one has made a decision to invade Canada since 1812. The administration had made a decision to invade Iraq prior to 9/11. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

This is a curious but little-known piece of anecdotal American history: A military force from the U.S. (not government sponsored) did invade Canada in 1866.

Colonel John O'Neill crossed the Niagara River (the Niagara is the international border) at the head of at least 800 (O'Neill's figure; usually reported as up to 1,500 in Canadian sources) men on the night and morning of 31 May/1 June 1866, and captured Fort Erie, defeating a Canadian force at Ridgeway. Many of these men, including O'Neill, were battle-hardened veterans of the American Civil War.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fenian_Brotherhood

Yes it was a ruse. It was Saddam’s ruse. He said, before he was hanged when asked why he didn’t allow the inspectors unfettered access to the “sites” and deny the WMD’s existence, is that he feared that if people thought that he didn’t have WMD’s his internal and external enemies would destroy him. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

Certainly a valid interpretation. It was also one of the factors substantiating Bush, et al., belief Saddam was reconstituting his WMD program.

It is not the "cherry picking" it is the charge. Have you heard any republican say, in all seriousness, that Obama "cherry picked" his intelligence about Libya, Egypt, or Yeman? None of them have. Think about the mind of the individual (Hillary Clinton) or the group (democratic party) that would go along with something and then charge that the intelligence was "cherry picked" to win a political point. That is your modern democratic party. In the past ten years they have approved of, and helped write, the Patriot Act afterwhich they condemned it. They voted for war against Iraq and Afghanistan afterwhich they condemned both. They, including cherry senator from Illinois, approved when the SCOTUS stripped provisions the Bush Affordable Drug Act, which was partially written by democrats, and then whined when it looks like the SCOTUS is going to gut Obama's Affordable Health Care Act. How do you people know who or what you are against or for today. Do they send out a scorecard? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

A: I'm not a Republican.

B: You, like many here, when you have no argument, change the subject over, and over and over again. Perhaps you would like to bring in the Masons, the State of Texas, the Department of the Navy, the Cubans, James Bond, Col. North, Mussilini and the the secret meetings in the secret chambers behind the wall at the Capitol in addition to the SCROTUS, the CIA, the Mossad, MI-5, the Russians, the Libyans and the Egyptians.

let us not forget about these infractions

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archiv...ade/sect2.html

and for the 10th time


http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?...ag=mncol;lst;6

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?...ag=mncol;lst;5

where he told the FBI agent he would rebuild them as soon as the heat died down

This thread started about building 7 so what exactly is out of bounds. The point is the point I was making. In my opinion the people who used words like "cherry picked" didn't really have a handle on the truth but were repeating a PR tested phrase brought to you by the democratic party. As I said the democratic party has a very poor track record of being consistent and I would avoid them. Of course this is a generality and does not include 100% of all democrats. More like 83%.
I never said you were a republican so I am at a loss why you bring that up. I also don't know why James Bond or the Masons are germane to the discussion. Do you?

Pres. Clinton December 16, 1998:

“Earlier today, I ordered Americas armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraqs Nuclear,Chemical and Biological Weapons Programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.”