Osama and Saddam, sitting in a tree...

[GePap]

Originally posted by rah
And GePAP, there is proof that Clinton lied. There is still no definative proof that Bush did. HAS he been tried and found guilty? Or are you saying presumption of innocence doesn't apply anymore. And I'm not saying he didn't lie. I don't know for sure yet.

We have plenty of information to make a significant judgement:

The Bushies stated that Iraq held vast quantities of materials, were restaring a nuclear program, had active delivery systems, which the brits went as far as saying could be used against another state within 45 minutes. Unless the US and Uk have been grossly negligent and incompetent in thier weapons searches, all of these thigs stand as false.

So either the admin. grossly exagerated the threat in order to build political support, or the threat was real and the admin. has been utterly incompetent to the point of dangerously negligent, in securing all those things they claimed.

Which do you preffer? Liers, or negligent bumblers?

[rah]

I prefer proof over inuendo and accusations. You have done nothing but state either. You even stated it's your judgement. Believing your own intelligence agencies doesn't automatically make you a bumbler. There is still plenty of time for the full truth to come out. I'll reserve judgement until then because that's the way I believe it should be done. Obviously you think differently. You've already tried and convicted him. What type of person are you? Even with that, I hope you never get accused of anything in your life that is difficult to defend. I would hope you would get a fair and complete trial.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by rah
Actually I see it as the same thing, since there are many Clinton supporters that didn't care about the lying about his BJs but are outraged that Bush seemingly lied about the WMD. Nothing you tell them will change their minds and they stopped listening also.

So calling either group stupid for feeling that way is just plain silly.

You don't have me trapped with that one -- I disrespect Clinton and Bush for that same reason.

[rah]

Racoons are not easy to trap.

I don't respect Bill. For a lot of other things too.

I reserving judgment on George, but expect to be dissapointed.

[GePap]

Originally posted by rah
I prefer proof over inuendo and accusations. You have done nothing but state either. You even stated it's your judgement. Believing your own intelligence agencies doesn't automatically make you a bumbler. There is still plenty of time for the full truth to come out. I'll reserve judgement until then because that's the way I believe it should be done. Obviously you think differently. You've already tried and convicted him. What type of person are you? Even with that, I hope you never get accused of anything in your life that is difficult to defend. I would hope you would get a fair and complete trial.

Go back to the transcripts of Powells presentation to the UN- then track down how many of those claims, 8 months later, have panned out. 8 months is a long time to have control of a country, control of people with info, to find a few things out, if true or not. HOw long will you wait? 20 years? when is the magial little line at which you say: they had enoguh time to find x and X and X, which they claimed to know. What about those drones? I remember a big deal about the drones: OK, were any of them capable of doing what the amdin. said they could?

You say: wait till the end: the end of what? history? The Bush amdin.? Sorry, but when in 1967 the UIS was saying they had won vietnam, and in 1968 you get Tet, you know what? you could tell what was said in 1967 was not true.

The admin. has had 8 months to find something thy could point to. Now they have started pulling out these weapon hunters- so when oh when will people feel they can judge? This is the magic of the Bush lie, and of all big lies- they are so far out, you can;t possibly disprove them specially in the minds of those who don;t care to have them disproved.

[Ned]

tp

[Ned]

tp

[Ned]

I think Bush wanted to fix the Iraq situation one way or the other when he got into office. What he found when he came into office was that Iraq had stopped cooperating in 1998 with the UN inspectors, that we had bombed them for several days and had promised more uspecified consequences, and we had a resolution of Congress calling for regime change.

Powell proposed targeted sanctions to gain Saddam's compliance. Rumsfeld proposed military action.

I think Powell got the initial green light to propose targeted sanctions. But if Bush were planning to take military action, the first we heard of it was after 9/11. But because of 9/11, we had to deal with Afganistan first. While we were tied up there, we could not take action on Iraq.

But the Afghan war moved possible action on Iraq into the winter-spring months of 2003 because of weather considerations. That is why Iraq went on the front burner in mid 2002.

The steps were to give diplomacy a chance. If that did not work, military action would be necessary -- by winter or spring 2003.

But all the reasons for taking action existed on the day Bush took office.

[Ben Kenobi]

triple post!



Server troubles?

[JohnT]

Ned just wanted to make sure we got it.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by rah
Racoons are not easy to trap.

I don't respect Bill. For a lot of other things too.

I reserving judgment on George, but expect to be dissapointed.

I have my own list for why I have no respect for ex-president Billie -- but why threadjack??

[Ned]

Yeah, it does look like a server problem.

[rah]

Originally posted by GePap


Go back to the transcripts of Powells presentation to the UN- then track down how many of those claims, 8 months later, have panned out. 8 months is a long time to have control of a country, control of people with info, to find a few things out, if true or not. HOw long will you wait? 20 years? when is the magial little line at which you say: they had enoguh time to find x and X and X, which they claimed to know. What about those drones? I remember a big deal about the drones: OK, were any of them capable of doing what the amdin. said they could?

You say: wait till the end: the end of what? history? The Bush amdin.? Sorry, but when in 1967 the UIS was saying they had won vietnam, and in 1968 you get Tet, you know what? you could tell what was said in 1967 was not true.

The admin. has had 8 months to find something thy could point to. Now they have started pulling out these weapon hunters- so when oh when will people feel they can judge? This is the magic of the Bush lie, and of all big lies- they are so far out, you can;t possibly disprove them specially in the minds of those who don;t care to have them disproved.

Just because they haven't found anything yet is not proof that Bush knowingly lied. Maybe it was bad intel. Nothing that you've stated is a smoking gun. Some of us are keeping an open mind. I'm not saying he's not guilty but if true, I do want to know. But I'm glad you have a crystal ball and know all the absolute truths. It would be nice to go through life being so sure of things that you can't possibly know everything about. I've known racists with more open minds.
8 months IS a considerably amount of time, but let me hide a few packages in california and give you 1000 people and see if you can find it in 8 months.

BUT yes, at some point I will admit that there's a high probablility that there were no WMD, but that time hasn't come yet. BUT no matter how much time passes, I will never know for sure that there weren't.

And you're wrong, at some point in the future documents and such will be declassified and people will be able to review them and see just what they say. And then they can make a more qualified judgement.

[Imran Siddiqui]

unless, of course, you think it´s ok, that your GI´s have to die just because "Saddam is an evil person"

Well we thought it was ok to have our GI's die (even if many didn't) because Slobo was an evil person. Why is that such a bad thing?