WMD and bad intel - Page 3 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

charlie7 · #31 11-21-2005, 11:15 AM

Spin on man. Sure he did. When nothing else fails....you know the drill.

boneheaddoctor · #32 11-21-2005, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charlie7

Spin on man. Sure he did. When nothing else fails....you know the drill.

Nice to sit at your government job all day and rant on the internet at taxpayer expense?

YOU made the accusations....you need to prove they were valid...and you can't and won't.

charlie7 · #33 11-21-2005, 11:22 AM

Just the facts. No need for accusations.

boneheaddoctor · #34 11-21-2005, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charlie7

Just the facts. No need for accusations.

what accusations..you aren't violating government internet usage rules right now?

kerry · #35 11-21-2005, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boneheaddoctor

prove it..he never released his service records....what was he trying to hide....you prove his claims were valid....he ran for president..he was obligated to release those records.

Your BS post does not even approach reality....

In the first round, Charlie7 delivers a knockout blow in response to BHD's Patriot/Traitor distinction.
Lying dazed on the ground, the Bone claims it did not hurt.

boneheaddoctor · #36 11-21-2005, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry edwards

In the first round, Charlie7 delivers a knockout blow in response to BHD's Patriot/Traitor distinction.
Lying dazed on the ground, the Bone claims it did not hurt.

BS...he post a line of inaccurate BS...from his government computer on taxpayer paid time....in violation of government internet usage rules...

he missed completely...

Calling John Kerry some sort of Hero was the first giveaway....the fact he chose to ignore every republican who served and was decorated was another...his comment doesn't even merit dicussion.

charlie7 · #37 11-21-2005, 11:33 AM

You're wrong. Are breaks allowed? oops! I guess you stepped into it again!!

boneheaddoctor · #38 11-21-2005, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charlie7

You're wrong. Are breaks allowed? oops! I guess you stepped into it again!!

you are the one dropping little cow pies....

kerry · #39 11-21-2005, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boneheaddoctor

BS...he post a line of inaccurate BS...from his government computer on taxpayer paid time....in violation of government internet usage rules...

he missed completely...

.

The Bone is so dazed, he's now denying the punch even landed. His cornerman is pleading to the referee to please stop the bout before he gets injured, yet the Bone keeps flailing at this opponent.

boneheaddoctor · #40 11-21-2005, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry edwards

The Bone is so dazed, he's now denying the punch even landed. His cornerman is pleading to the referee to please stop the bout before he gets injured, yet the Bone keeps flailing at this opponent.

Kerry...you can't so out of it to actually believe that crap....

Charlei7 makes a comment thats so inaccurate that only a democrat could believe.........hell all that amounted to was a pile of slopy dog turds.

Southernstar · #41 11-22-2005, 12:20 AM

Dick Cheney is a habitual misleader,

On Iraq

"[Saddam] provided a safe-haven for terrorists over the years ... he had a relationship with al Qaeda."

FACT: A new CIA assessment – which Cheney himself requested months ago – states, "there is no conclusive evidence that the regime harbored terrorist Abu Musab al Zarqawi." One U.S. official stated, "The evidence is that Saddam never gave Zarqawi anything." [Knight Ridder, 10/5/04]

FACT: The Sept. 11 Commission found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda. [Washington Post, 6/17/04]

FACT: CIA interrogators found "Osama bin Laden had rejected entreaties from some of his lieutenants to work jointly with Saddam." [New York Times, 1/14/04]

FACT: The chairman of the monitoring group appointed by the United Nations Security Council to track al Qaeda found "no evidence linking al Qaeda to Saddam Hussein." [New York Times, 6/27/03]

FACT: A British Intelligence report found "no current links between the Iraqi regime and the al Qaeda network." [BBC, 2/5/03]

FACT: "Nearly a year after U.S. and British troops invaded Iraq, no evidence has turned up to verify allegations of Saddam's links with al Qaeda
"We're also working very hard to stand up Iraqi security forces, training and equipping the Iraqis so that they'll be able to take on the fight and be responsible for providing for their own security just as quickly as possible."

FACT: Last Monday, the Pentagon said that "only about 53,000 of the 100,000 Iraqis on duty have now undergone training." According to Pentagon documents obtained by Reuters, of the 90,000 in the police force, "only 8,169 have received full training." [AP, 6/10/04]

FACT: Last week, the U.S. military "arrested a senior commander of the nascent Iraqi National Guard." The commander was arrested on suspicion of "having associations with known insurgents." The move raised concerns "about the loyalty and reliability of the new security forces just months before general elections are scheduled across the embattled country." [New York Times, 9/29/04]

"Iraq for years was listed by the U.S. State Department as a state sponsor of terror."

FACT: That didn't stop Cheney from doing business with Saddam's regime. "The United States had concluded that Iraq, Libya, and Iran supported terrorism and had imposed strict sanctions on them. Yet during Cheney's tenure at Halliburton the company did business in all three countries." [New Yorker, 2/9/04]

FACT: "Halliburton Co., the oil company that was headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, signed contracts with Iraq worth $73 million through two subsidiaries while he was at its helm." [UPI, 6/23/01]

FACT: Halliburton is being investigated by a grand jury for doing business – while Cheney was CEO – with Iran, also listed as a "state sponsor of terror" by the State Department. "The grand jury has subpoenaed various documents covering Halliburton's Iranian operations, a sign some evidence has surfaced indicating the company knowingly violated" U.S. anti-terror sanctions. [Washington Times, 7/22/04]

peragro · #42 11-22-2005, 02:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Southernstar

Dick Cheney is a habitual misleader,

On Iraq

"[Saddam] provided a ...Iran, also listed as a "state sponsor of terror" by the State Department. "The grand jury has subpoenaed various documents covering Halliburton's Iranian operations, a sign some evidence has surfaced indicating the company knowingly violated" U.S. anti-terror sanctions. [Washington Times, 7/22/04]

All of your facts seem to come from newspaper and media sources. Don't you have original documentation to support your claims? maybe senate intelligence committe hearings or 9/11 commision possibly?

peragro · #43 11-22-2005, 02:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charlie7

Here is more service records.

Saxby Chambliss: did not serve. "Bad knee." (The man who attacked Max Cleland's patriotism.)
* Paul Wolfowitz: did not serve.
* Vin Weber: did not serve.
* Richard Perle: did not serve.
* Douglas Feith: did not serve.
* Eliot Abrams: did not serve.
* Richard Shelby: did not serve.
* Jon! Kyl: did not serve.
* Tim Hutchison: did not serve.
* Christopher Cox: did not serve.
* Newt Gingrich: did not serve.
* Don Rumsfeld: served in Navy (1954-57) as flight instructor.
* George W. Bush: failed to complete his six-year National Guard; failed to show up
* B-1 Bob Dornan: enlisted after fighting was over in Korea.
* Phil Gramm: did not serve.
* John McCain: Vietnam POW, Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross.
* Dana Rohrabacher: did not serve.
* John M. McHugh: did not serve.
* JC Watts: did not serve.
* Jack Kemp: did not serve. "Knee problem, " although continued in NFL for 8 years as quarterback.
* Dan Quayle: Journalism unit of the Indiana National Guard.
* Rudy Giuliani: did not serve.
* George Pataki: did not serve.
* Spencer Abraham: did not serve.
* John Engler: did not serve.
* Lindsey Graham: National Guard lawyer.
* Arnold Schwarzenegger: AWOL from Austrian army base.

Pundits & Preachers

* Sean Hannity: did not serve.
* Rush Limbaugh: did not serve
* Bill O'Reilly: did not serve.
* Michael Savage: did not serve.
* George Will: did not serve.
* Chris Matthews: did not serve.
* Paul Gigot: did not serve.
* Bill Bennett: did not serve.
* Pat Buchanan: did not serve.
* John Wayne: did not serve.
* Bill Kristol: did not serve.
* Kenneth Starr: did not serve.
* Antonin Scalia: did not serve.
* Clarence Thomas: did not serve.
* Ralph Reed: did not serve.
* Michael Medved: did not serve.

And your point is?

BTW, a couple of things I noticed about your list in passing. Bush was honorably discharged, AWOL does not get that. Are you saying that Rumsfeld went to instructor status immediatly? I always thought they had to be an aviator first and damn good at it to be an instructor. Where's Sam Johnson, he's got quite the record in the military. And what's up with half the people you list as prominent not even holding office anymore?

So, anyway, what was your point again? Seems to me that all your list proves is that you don't have to serve in the military in order to achieve. Do you have military service? Oh yeah, your 13. Boy Scouts?

peragro · #44 11-22-2005, 03:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry edwards

Since many of this administrations advocates for war with Iraq had laid out their plans to attack Iraq in the Project for the New American Century, long before they ever came to power, it is clear to me that whatever 'intelligence' they used to justify the invasion was basically propaganda. If they were honest, they would have presented the American people with their vision of US imperialism and let the electorate decide whether an American Empire was in their interests or not, rather than attempting to scare the populace with images of Hussein bombing the US.
Their deceitfulness lies not so much in their use/misuse of intelligence as in their unwillingness to be forthcoming about their vision of the global future.

When it is the policy of a country to do something any administration will lay out a plan to achieve it well before they come to power. If the objective is military the DoD will plan for it. This is why I'm sure they have detailed plans for just about every military contigency that could befall this country. Iraq was just that sort of thing. Do you think that we have detailed plans for the invasion of Iran or North Korea? In any case, the national policy according to the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 was to overthrow Saddam; of course they had plans for it, so did Clinton. The act was unanimously supported in both houses of Congress - even by the Reps and Senetors who claim Iraq was no threat to us today - neat trick that, since that means Bush would have been manipulating data as the Governor of Texas. Clinton's quote at the bottom of the page is from an address he gave in support of the ILA.

As for "their vision of the global future", it seemed quite clear to me that post 9/11 they were shooting for democracy worldwide and confrontation of any terrorism (not just Al-Qaida). They were as clear in their discussion of how to achieve it as Roosevelt was in 1941.

Honus · #45 11-22-2005, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peragro

...In any case, the national policy according to the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 was to overthrow Saddam; of course they had plans for it, so did Clinton. The act was unanimously supported in both houses of Congress - even by the Reps and Senetors who claim Iraq was no threat to us today - neat trick that, since that means Bush would have been manipulating data as the Governor of Texas. Clinton's quote at the bottom of the page is from an address he gave in support of the ILA...

That's a nice summary, but it leaves out several key points.

First, five years passed between the passage of that legislation and the time of our invasion. Did we learn nothing about his WMD during those five years?

Second, I don't think the Act contemplated an essentially unilateral invasion against the wishes of just about everybody in the region. Bush has acknowledged this point with his false claims that the invasion was a last resort.

Third, that many in Congress believed that Saddam was a threat does not justify the Bush administration's lies and exaggerations about that threat. I have no sympathy for Kerry and other Democrats who complain that they were mislead into voting for the war. They didn't have full access to all the intelligence that W had, but they had plenty. Plus, they knew that W and his people are a bunch of liars. Couldn't they see that they were being sold a bill of goods? Bush mislead us into war, but he did it by misleading the American people, not Congress. Once Kerry and his ilk saw that the country had bought into Bush's sales job, they figured that the smart thing for them to do was play along.

Fourth, invading without planning for the post-war period appears to be Rumsfeld's idea. I don't think we can blame Bill and Hillary for that.