My Head Exploded. [Archive] - RonFez.net Messageboard

HBox

08-13-2007, 12:06 PM

Kevin

08-13-2007, 12:09 PM

dereckfishboy

08-13-2007, 12:10 PM

I could almost believe someone filmed that last week and threw a "/94" on top.... uses the same terminology and everything....how many times have we heard "quagmire " in the last few years?!

MadMatt

08-13-2007, 12:14 PM

Holy Shit! That is completely unbelievable. He knew what would happen and we did it anyway.

Absolutely Unbelievable.

Furtherman

08-13-2007, 12:29 PM

This doesn't suprise me at all.

I will never forget the night we starting bombing Baghdad because I couldn't figure out why we were. All logic was lost to a lot of people. I'm talking to you Bush lovers! It still doesn't make sense.

cupcakelove

08-13-2007, 12:33 PM

He actually used the word quagmire! I can't believe that, what a fucking asshole, I hate him even more.

Bob Impact

08-13-2007, 12:49 PM

Wow. Dead on. You can't say he's stupid, just evil, really really fucking evil. Like Dracula type evil.

keithy_19

08-13-2007, 01:10 PM

Wow. Dead on. You can't say he's stupid, just evil, really really fucking evil. Like Dracula type evil.

In all fairness, Dracula is much more charming.

Dingbat_Charlie

08-13-2007, 01:38 PM

This doesn't suprise me at all.

I will never forget the night we starting bombing Baghdad because I couldn't figure out why we were. All logic was lost to a lot of people. I'm talking to you Bush lovers! It still doesn't make sense.

this was my experience exactly. I remember it vividly, watching the news and thinking 'we are going to regret this'.

and I'm not trying to congratulate myself or come off as a genius by saying that. I'm a fucking moron.

underdog

08-13-2007, 01:46 PM

Not to really stand up for Dick or anything, but its possible he was one of the guys telling Bush not to go to Iraq this time, either. But he's the VP, so its not like he's going to come out and badmouth the president after he makes up his own mind.

Also, this video could have been spin then. Maybe Dick really wanted to go to Iraq, but the government wasn't going in, so he had to lie and use these reasons like he really felt them, when he wanted to go all along.

Furtherman

08-13-2007, 01:52 PM

this was my experience exactly. I remember it vividly, watching the news and thinking 'we are going to regret this'.

and I'm not trying to congratulate myself or come off as a genius by saying that. I'm a fucking moron.

Even in hindsight, it doesn't seem like we had a clearer vision or were smarter... if anything it was just confusion. I remember sitting at a bar and the TV was on and you saw the night vision of Baghdad and so many guys yelling "Yea! Take that!" And I just didn't know what they were taking it for. I guess it all comes down to whether you believed the president or not back then. After he finagled his way into office, I couldn't believe him ever again.

Dingbat_Charlie

08-13-2007, 01:59 PM

Even in hindsight, it doesn't seem like we had a clearer vision or were smarter... if anything it was just confusion.

fools rush in.

scottinnj

08-13-2007, 02:38 PM

WOW!

I'm speechless. They did the right thing in 91, but using the same logic, they invade this time. No wonder the intelligence was bad. Probably had everyone in the CIA hooting and hollering and working backwards, off during the week and 12 hour sessions Saturday and Sunday. We are comepletely fucked until Bush/Cheney leave office.

Bulldogcakes

08-13-2007, 03:05 PM

I'd love to jump on the "Evil, horrible bad man" bandwagon, since nothing would be more fun than gathering up the townsfolk and pitchforks and hanging him from the highest tree. But I cant.

Sorry folks, but believe it or not he could have honestly believed that and changed his mind, and so could have Bush. Its was before 9/11. I know Iraq had little to nothing to do with 9/11, but the reality was Saddam had a rap sheet a mile long, he violated the Gulf war ceasefire a gazillion times. Iraq was also done because it was do able (in theory). Afghanistan was a slam dunk politically, but the theory by the neo-cons at the time was that Irag was much more strategic. It places a wedge between our two biggest (state sponsored) terrorist concerns Iran and Syria. If it worked, we would have had a friendly nation which could have influenced the entire region, the hope being a Soviet-style collapse of authoritarian regimes and a spread of democracy through the region. They wanted Iraq to be the next Poland. But it didn't work, for a million reasons. Most of them having to do with incompetence and lack of accountability of the Bush administration.

We had no desire in 1994 to occupy Iraq, but after 9/11 everything changed.

BTW- We all can play this game. Would you like me to post Bill Clinton saying "He wouldn't raise taxes" when he was running for office and then announcing he was raising them "after he worked harder than anything he's ever worked on, not to" just 3 weeks into his administration?

Bulldogcakes

08-13-2007, 03:07 PM

BTW- Cheney was smoking pot when he said that, so right there it doesn't make him a bad person.

Look at the lazy eyes, he was clearly stoned.

HBox

08-13-2007, 03:11 PM

I'd love to jump on the "Evil, horrible bad man" bandwagon, since nothing would be more fun than gathering up the townsfolk and pitchforks and hanging him from the highest tree. But I cant.

Sorry folks, but believe it or not he could have honestly believed that and changed his mind, and so could have Bush. Its was before 9/11. I know Iraq had little to nothing to do with 9/11, but the reality was Saddam had a rap sheet a mile long, he violated the Gulf war ceasefire a gazillion times. Iraq was also done because it was do able (in theory). Afghanistan was a slam dunk politically, but the theory by the neo-cons at the time was that Irag was much more strategic. It places a wedge between our two biggest (state sponsored) terrorist concerns Iran and Syria. If it worked, we would have had a friendly nation which could have influenced the entire region, the hope being a Soviet-style collapse of authoritarian regimes and a spread of democracy through the region. They wanted Iraq to be the next Poland. But it didn't work, for a million reasons. Most of them having to do with incompetence and lack of accountability of the Bush administration.

We had no desire in 1994 to occupy Iraq, but after 9/11 everything changed.

BTW- We all can play this game. Would you like me to post Bill Clinton saying "He wouldn't raise taxes" when he was running for office and then announcing he was raising them "after he worked harder than anything he's ever worked on, not to" just 3 weeks into his administration?

In other words, he's not evil, he just got older, stupider and more gullible?

Snacks

08-13-2007, 03:27 PM

this is just proves that everything "smart" people said was true. This also proves that the Iraq invasion was purely for them to make money off the war. They knew all this shit and still went forward. Like many people have said for years, Sadam may have been a bad man but he is what that country and region needed. Maybe Sadam ruled the way he did because there was no other way. This is amazing and should get much much more press. I cant believe no one has found this earlier.

Now lets get the fuck out of there. The so called "war" is done we cant do anymore but fuck up things further and more Americans will die. Time to leave NOW. There also needs to be impeachment hearing and an investigation.

BTW Bulldogs before or after 9/11 has nothing to do with it. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. If anything we should have finished in Afghanistan rather then go to Iraq. Fucking Republicans have destroyed this country and the Dems did nothing to stop them. Shame on them and shame on all of us!

Bulldogcakes

08-13-2007, 03:43 PM

BTW Bulldogs before or after 9/11 has nothing to do with it. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

You know, its really hard to have a conversation (much less a debate) with someone when one side isn't listening to a word you said. Kinda makes it pointless.

mdr55

08-13-2007, 04:05 PM

BTW- We all can play this game. Would you like me to post Bill Clinton saying "He wouldn't raise taxes" when he was running for office and then announcing he was raising them "after he worked harder than anything he's ever worked on, not to" just 3 weeks into his administration?

Yeah. Alot of people died because of that. Raising taxes and all.

If only he wore his red suit....none of it would have happened.

angrymissy

08-13-2007, 04:23 PM

I am sitting here stuck in an airport in the midwest, totally grossed out by that video.

And sitting directly across from me is some fat asshole spewing these lines:

"THEY'RE JUST SPEWING LIBERAL BULLSHIT"
"IF SOME ARAB TRIES TO TAKE DOWN THE PLANE I'LL TAKE HIM OUT MYSELF"
"EVERYONE NEEDS A CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT, THAT WOULD MAKE US ALL SAFER"
"WE SHOULD JUST TURN IRAQ INTO A DESERT OF GLASS, NUKE EM THATS WHAT WE SHOULD DO"
"A POLICE OFFICER SHOULD BE ABLE TO SHOOT ANYONE AND NOT BE CHARGED, WE HAVE TO TRUST THEM"

He is wearing a worn USA "NEVER FORGET 9/11" t-shirt.

He is at least 300 lbs.

I hope he is not sitting next to me on the plane.

badmonkey

08-13-2007, 04:24 PM

mdr55

08-13-2007, 04:32 PM

To be honest...I kinda of liked Saddam when he was our friend against those awful Iranians. What happened???

A.J.

08-13-2007, 09:41 PM

Like many people have said for years, Sadam may have been a bad man but he is what that country and region needed. Maybe Sadam ruled the way he did because there was no other way. This is amazing and should get much much more press. I cant believe no one has found this earlier.

Yeah, but will other "despotic" Arab regimes we are allied with get the same consideration?

Yerdaddy

08-13-2007, 09:50 PM

keithy_19

08-13-2007, 10:40 PM

To be honest...I kinda of liked Saddam when he was our friend against those awful Iranians. What happened???

I think Saddam was the bad guy who Americans kind of felt bad for when he died. He was a terrible man, an evil person who used disgusting means to terrorize his people. He repeatedly decided to go against what the rest of the world told him to do, and for that he was a terrible person and deserved what he got.

But God, he was like a cartoon character. He was the guy that would talk big, but would always get his ass handed to him at the end of the show.

But yeah, he was an evil fuck and shouldn't have been in power. But we shouldn't be in Iraq still.

Snacks

08-13-2007, 11:32 PM

I think Saddam was the bad guy who Americans kind of felt bad for when he died. He was a terrible man, an evil person who used disgusting means to terrorize his people. He repeatedly decided to go against what the rest of the world told him to do, and for that he was a terrible person and deserved what he got.

But God, he was like a cartoon character. He was the guy that would talk big, but would always get his ass handed to him at the end of the show.

But yeah, he was an evil fuck and shouldn't have been in power. But we shouldn't be in Iraq still.

So I guess Bush should be next? Bush has gone against everything the UN and most of the World has said. We are hated more then ever by allies. With your logic Bush should suffer the same demise?

We have no right to tell anyone how to rule their country, just like no one has the right to tell us. Obviously Sadam did what was needed in own country, at least it was a sovereign nation and no threat to us. Now they are a complete mess with 3 different secs of religion killing each other while going after us and creating terrorists that were never there before. He may have been a bad man, no one will argue that. I think 4 years after our invasion and 4000 soldiers killed and 20,000 wounded and hundreds of thousands of Iraq's dead we all might have been better off leaving well enough alone.

mdr55

08-14-2007, 02:54 AM

No threat?? Saddam was going to get us with those weapons of mass mustards.

A.J.

08-14-2007, 03:21 AM

No threat?? Saddam was going to get us with those weapons of mass mustards.

He was one Mean Mr. Mustard.

Thrice

08-17-2007, 07:54 AM

Not to really stand up for Dick or anything, but its possible he was one of the guys telling Bush not to go to Iraq this time, either. But he's the VP, so its not like he's going to come out and badmouth the president after he makes up his own mind.

Also, this video could have been spin then. Maybe Dick really wanted to go to Iraq, but the government wasn't going in, so he had to lie and use these reasons like he really felt them, when he wanted to go all along.

Watch this CBC News piece on Cheney and tell me he didn't know EXACTLY what was going to happen.

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/video_player.html?cheney

angrymissy

08-17-2007, 08:11 AM

How many of those quotes take into consideration the position of most Democrats: that Saddam was a bad guy and needed to be disarmed but by reinstating the inspections process and the authorization for use of force was necessary to get Saddam to cooperate with that process? Take Kerry's quotes for example.

The Democrats weren't siding with Saddam against America as too many of you fucking Republicans accused us of. We said he had to be dealt with but that war was a bad option to be used only as a last resort. Now you're trying to say we were just as guilty so that you can put more scumbag Republicans in power willing to make the same fuck-ups back in power to hurt America just as much as the Bush administration has. You'll never fucking learn.

Quotes taken directly from Rushlimbaugh.com

Also, please read

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

All
of the quotes listed above are substantially correct reproductions of statements made by various Democratic leaders regarding Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's acquisition or possession of weapons of mass destruction. However, some of the quotes are truncated, and context is provided for none of them — several of these quotes were offered in the course of statements that clearly indicated the speaker was decidedly against unilateral military intervention in Iraq by the U.S. Moreover, several of the quotes offered antedate the four nights of airstrikes unleashed against Iraq by U.S. and British forces during Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, after which Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen and Gen. Henry H. Shelton (chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) announced the action had been successful in "degrad[ing] Saddam Hussein's ability to deliver chemical, biological and nuclear weapons."

Crispy123

08-18-2007, 06:16 AM

Stankfoot

08-18-2007, 03:46 PM

Missy - thanks for posting that link. My favorite "truncated" quote is John Kerry's:

The next line in his speech is:

"I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein.

Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.

In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days — to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out."

Bulldogcakes

08-18-2007, 06:25 PM

Missy - thanks for posting that link. My favorite "truncated" quote is John Kerry's:

The next line in his speech is:

"I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein.

Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.

In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days — to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out."

So I guess you're arguing that Kerry was too stupid to know what the rest of the country (and the entire world) knew, that GW Bush was going to take that authorization and go to war. That he is an incompetent legislator who is easily duped. Fine, you're right. Point conceded.

Stankfoot

08-19-2007, 05:57 PM

October 16, 2002
Statement by the President on the passing of the resolution "To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq." -

"Iraq will either comply with all U.N. resolutions, rid itself of weapons of mass destruction, and in its support for terrorists, or it will be compelled to do so. I hope that Iraq will choose compliance and peace, and I believe passage of this resolution makes that choice more likely."

Following the mandate of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, Saddam Hussein allowed UN inspectors to return to Iraq in November 2002. UNMOVIC led inspections of possible chemical and biological facilities in Iraq until shortly before the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003, but did not find any weapons of mass destruction.

I guess what you're saying is Kerry should have known the president was lying through his teeth when Bush said he "hoped" this would be resolved peacefully.

ScottFromGA

08-19-2007, 06:18 PM

so....did it hurt?

badmonkey

08-19-2007, 06:57 PM

Of course I watched the video. I found it particularly interesting that in 1992, Al Gore was talking about Saddam's sponsorship of terrorists, etc. I guess all you heard was "It's Reagan and Bush Sr's fault".

Hillary Clinton's quotes seem to have been overlooked as well:

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including Al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Senator Hillary Clinton, October 10th of 2002

She probably just fell for the Republican lies.

Several of those quotes are well before 9/11 or even the year 2000. Some of them are from members of the Clinton administration. They probably fell for the Republican lies as well. They just did it "pre-emptively".

The bill that they voted on that gave Bush the authority to launch this war was entitled "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf) It's an interesting read.

Crispy123

08-19-2007, 07:38 PM

Of course I watched the video. I found it particularly interesting that in 1992, Al Gore was talking about Saddam's sponsorship of terrorists, etc. I guess all you heard was "It's Reagan and Bush Sr's fault".

No I heard all of it. Gore was praising the US military after the '91 liberation of Kuwait and blaming Reagan/Bush for putting Saddam in power in the first place. He sited the fact that an Iraqi assassinated an Israeli and Baghdad assisted some terrorists bomb an Italian airport, yet Bush Sr still supported him with arms and money. Im just having a hard time seeing what this has to do with Al Qaida, 9/11 and our invasion of Iraq.

Are you saying Bush Sr F'ed up by not going all the way into Baghdad? Because thats pretty much what Despicable Dick was refuting in that first video of the thread. I think its pretty safe to say that, (any)Bush + Iraq= Dogshit

Yerdaddy

08-20-2007, 01:06 AM

Of course I watched the video. I found it particularly interesting that in 1992, Al Gore was talking about Saddam's sponsorship of terrorists, etc. I guess all you heard was "It's Reagan and Bush Sr's fault".

Hillary Clinton's quotes seem to have been overlooked as well:

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including Al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Senator Hillary Clinton, October 10th of 2002

She probably just fell for the Republican lies.

Several of those quotes are well before 9/11 or even the year 2000. Some of them are from members of the Clinton administration. They probably fell for the Republican lies as well. They just did it "pre-emptively".

The bill that they voted on that gave Bush the authority to launch this war was entitled "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf) It's an interesting read.

1992? Well let's see... That was when some people still remembered that during Saddam's Anfal campaign of genocide against the Kurds the incoming Bush administration commissioned Reagan's State Department to study the political situation in Iraq and America so they could decide whether to block Democratic efforts to apply token sanctions against Saddam in response to the gassing of the Kurds and to continue supporting Saddam economically and militarily. They elected to continue to protect and aid Saddam.

What else has happened since 1992? Well, for one the UN weapons inspectors disarmed Saddam and the US military containment of Saddam allowed us to deter his aid of al-Qaeda and we know he limited his sponsorship of terrorists to Palestinian nationalist organizations in order to 1) pander to Muslims in order to deflect the hatred he provoked by oppressing religious establishments in Iraq and 2) to counterballance Islamist terrorist organizations in Palestine who were hostile to him.

So it was right to criticize Reagan and Bush Sr for coddling that scumbag and giving him the impression that we would tolerate any immoral behavior on his part up until the day he invaded Kuwait.

It was also right to say he sponsored terrorism, and that was relevant to our foreign policy because our support for Saddam despite that support for terrorism was so recent and was given by Gore's political opponent at the time. But in order to compare 1992 statements to the 2003 war you'd better consider the facts before and since 1992 or you're just a hack with an agenda. Post 9-11 al-Qaeda was a threat and Saddam was not. Linking the two aided Bush in his exploitation of 9-11 to pursue his Iraq agenda which has proved to be one of the biggest national disgraces in American history. You can criticize Hillary for doing that. (She probably did fall for Republican lies. Does that make her worse than the Republican liars?) But to criticize Al gore for that using his 1992 statements is just a pathetic defense of the people who actually brought on us the War in Iraq.

So I guess you're arguing that Kerry was too stupid to know what the rest of the country (and the entire world) knew, that GW Bush was going to take that authorization and go to war. That he is an incompetent legislator who is easily duped. Fine, you're right. Point conceded.

You're arguing that Kerry is an "incompetent legislator who is easily duped" because he didn't make the courageous choice of exposing the truth we all knew - that Bush was lying when he said war would be a last option. You're arguing he should have done this at a time when he knew that had he done that he would have gotten the "Max Cleland" treatment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Cleland) from the Republicans who were essentially forcing Democrats to authorize the war or commit political suicide. You're arguing that they should have taken a stand that would have made themselves an even weaker opposition to the cocksuckers who were leading us into this national disgrace in the first place. And in effect you're arguing that the makers of this war, and the people who were willing to smear a guy like Max Cleland in the first place (for being right!) should have had even more power to do what they've done thus far. And you're doing so in 2007 when we know just how costly this war has been. You're also doing it when, looking back, Kerry's proposals - to use inspectors and continued sanctions, and to force the administration to come up with a plan for post-war Iraq, (the proposal that got him labeled a flip-flopper) - could have saved American lives and possibly kept us from losing this war.

I love you BDC but that argument sucks.

A.J.

08-20-2007, 01:54 AM

You're arguing that Kerry is an "incompetent legislator who is easily duped" because he didn't make the courageous choice of exposing the truth we all knew - that Bush was lying when he said war would be a last option. You're arguing he should have done this at a time when he knew that had he done that he would have gotten the "Max Cleland" treatment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Cleland) from the Republicans who were essentially forcing Democrats to authorize the war or commit political suicide.

So the better option was to keep quiet and play it safe so as not to lose your Senate seat? Kerry was among the safer candidates who could have spoken out more.

Yerdaddy

08-20-2007, 04:17 AM

So the better option was to keep quiet and play it safe so as not to lose your Senate seat? Kerry was among the safer candidates who could have spoken out more.

No. The option Kerry took was to press for the more reasonable path on Iraq - restart inspections and target sanctions. Sure the Republicans were going to use the authorization to go to war - but it was also necessary to get inspectors back in, which happened. Kerry pressed the rational case on what to do about Iraq so when he was running to replace Bush he could say "here's what I would have done." And if you look back at the specific things Kerry was saying and supporting any rational person would say things would be much better if Kerry had been President. I guess he overestimated the intelligence of voters. It was the smart move and it got him pretty close to knocking Bush out of the White House - something about 70% of the public apparently would prefer had happened now. He was just ran a shitty campaign and didn't pull it off.

On the other hand, what would he have to gain by speaking out about something everybody already knew anyway?

A.J.

08-20-2007, 04:36 AM

I guess he overestimated the intelligence of voters.[/B]

What intelligence?

badmonkey

08-20-2007, 11:30 AM

What else has happened since 1992? Well, for one the UN weapons inspectors disarmed Saddam and the US military containment of Saddam allowed us to deter his aid of al-Qaeda and we know he limited his sponsorship of terrorists to Palestinian nationalist organizations in order to 1) pander to Muslims in order to deflect the hatred he provoked by oppressing religious establishments in Iraq and 2) to counterballance Islamist terrorist organizations in Palestine who were hostile to him.

So it was right to criticize Reagan and Bush Sr for coddling that scumbag and giving him the impression that we would tolerate any immoral behavior on his part up until the day he invaded Kuwait.

It was also right to say he sponsored terrorism, and that was relevant to our foreign policy because our support for Saddam despite that support for terrorism was so recent and was given by Gore's political opponent at the time. But in order to compare 1992 statements to the 2003 war you'd better consider the facts before and since 1992 or you're just a hack with an agenda. Post 9-11 al-Qaeda was a threat and Saddam was not. Linking the two aided Bush in his exploitation of 9-11 to pursue his Iraq agenda which has proved to be one of the biggest national disgraces in American history. You can criticize Hillary for doing that. (She probably did fall for Republican lies. Does that make her worse than the Republican liars?) But to criticize Al gore for that using his 1992 statements is just a pathetic defense of the people who actually brought on us the War in Iraq.

I thought Saddam didn't have any ties to Al Qaida?

I wasn't criticizing Gore at all. I thought the video was interesting in the same way the Cheney video is interesting. They both said things around '92 that are contradictory to what they have said in the last 5 yrs. Shouldn't assume that just because I post it, it's a criticism. I do enjoy that you're willing to pile on Cheney for it, while excusing Gore.

Clinton bombed Iraq just 4 short years earlier based on the same intelligence Bush used to go to war. Hillary's pre-war statements were based on 8yrs in office during the Billary Clinton administration. She has defended her position several times since boots hit the ground. If they only wanted to authorize inspectors, then they should have called the bill the "Authorization to Put Inspectors Back Into Iraq Resolution of 2002" rather than "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 " and I might find it more beleivable. Bottom line is they wrote it, they authorized it, and Bush took that authorization all the way to Baghdad. They may have voted for it so they wouldn't look like pussies, but they did not vote for it because they were lied to and if they are so easily fooled maybe they shouldn't be in congress.

Badmonkey

Stankfoot

08-20-2007, 06:16 PM

Clinton bombed Iraq just 4 short years earlier based on the same intelligence Bush used to go to war.

No he didn't - Don't you people remember that the inspectors were back in Iraq after this resolution was passed? For four months they searched for WMDs and found nothing. That little tidbit was not known 4 years earlier.

Stankfoot

08-20-2007, 06:37 PM

You're arguing that Kerry is an "incompetent legislator who is easily duped" because he didn't make the courageous choice of exposing the truth we all knew - that Bush was lying when he said war would be a last option. You're arguing he should have done this at a time when he knew that had he done that he would have gotten the "Max Cleland" treatment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Cleland) from the Republicans who were essentially forcing Democrats to authorize the war or commit political suicide.

And here's Ann Coulter's latest column re: Max Cleland:

"Max Cleland was a war hero who lost his limbs as a result of Viet Cong grenades, giving him the stature to gleefully taunt George Bush and Dick Cheney. "Where the hell were you in the Vietnam War?" Cleland responded to Cheney. "If you had gone to Vietnam like the rest of us, maybe you would have learned something about war."

Then we learned Cleland was a victim only of his own clumsiness and had dropped the grenade on himself in Vietnam after stopping for a beer. "

OK now the true story -

On April 8, with a month left in his tour, Cleland was ordered to set up a radio relay station on a nearby hill. A helicopter flew him and two soldiers to the treeless top of Hill 471, east of Khe Sanh. Cleland knew some of the soldiers camped there from Operation Pegasus. He told the pilot he was going to stay a while. Maybe have a few beers with friends.

When the helicopter landed, Cleland jumped out, followed by the two soldiers. They ducked beneath the rotors and turned to watch the liftoff. Cleland reached down to pick up the grenade he believed had popped off his flak jacket. The blast slammed him backward, shredding both his legs and one arm. He was 25 years old...

When the medics arrived, he left to help another injured soldier — one of the two who had gotten off a helicopter with Cleland. That soldier was crying. 'It was mine,' he said, 'it was my grenade.'

According to Lloyd, the private had failed to take the extra precaution that experienced soldiers did when they grabbed M-26 grenades from the ammo box: bend the pins, or tape them in place, so they couldn't accidentally dislodge. This soldier had a flak jacket full of grenades with treacherously straight pins, Lloyd says. "He was a walking death trap."

So even if you lose both legs and one arm fighting for your country you will be mocked if you don't agree with these people ...

IamFogHat

08-20-2007, 06:42 PM

My head also exploded, but then reconstructed itself, but only for the purposes of being able to explode once more, because once just didn't seem like enough.

Yerdaddy

08-21-2007, 04:39 AM

I thought Saddam didn't have any ties to Al Qaida?

I wasn't criticizing Gore at all. I thought the video was interesting in the same way the Cheney video is interesting. They both said things around '92 that are contradictory to what they have said in the last 5 yrs. Shouldn't assume that just because I post it, it's a criticism. I do enjoy that you're willing to pile on Cheney for it, while excusing Gore.

Damn right I pile on Cheney! He's one of the cocksuckers who brought us this war and disgraced my country bringing about the death of thousands of American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis for nothing. That's part of the context by which I think he deserves criticism - in order to criticize him for his actions and not his party affiliation. Another part of that criticism is the point the video was broadcast in the first place: because none of the neocons ever made a rational case for why they thought going to Baghdad was a bad idea in 1991 but suddenly a swell idea in 2003. But then, as long as ordinary Republicans didn't want to know the answer to that question he didn't have to answer, did he?

Clinton bombed Iraq just 4 short years earlier based on the same intelligence Bush used to go to war. Hillary's pre-war statements were based on 8yrs in office during the Billary Clinton administration. She has defended her position several times since boots hit the ground. If they only wanted to authorize inspectors, then they should have called the bill the "Authorization to Put Inspectors Back Into Iraq Resolution of 2002" rather than "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 " and I might find it more beleivable. Bottom line is they wrote it, they authorized it, and Bush took that authorization all the way to Baghdad. They may have voted for it so they wouldn't look like pussies, but they did not vote for it because they were lied to and if they are so easily fooled maybe they shouldn't be in congress.

Badmonkey

You've got the basic facts fucked up again. "They" - meaning the Democrats who largely supported inspections and isolation - didn't write the bill because Republicans controlled Congress. They voted for it because people like you were lied to and you were easily fooled.

Thrice

08-22-2007, 11:25 AM

So uhh now what?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/08/22/iraq.democracy/index.html

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Nightmarish political realities in Baghdad are prompting American officials to curb their vision for democracy in Iraq. Instead, the officials now say they are willing to settle for a government that functions and can bring security.

First we were told that we went into Iraq for the WMDs. When it turned out there were no WMDs we were then told that we went into Iraq in part to overthrow a dictator and to spread democracy. Now that the jig is up again what will the 3rd spin be?