– We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently. –
We are still doing that. How do you come up with “enable the overthrow of SH by his own people?”
It’s true the way Clinton said it.
The way you said it was revisionist history.
The socialist/nanny state thing is quite disturbing, yes, but at least the current administration has not asked me (or ordered me) to give my mind to the collective. That eases my concerns greatly.
The minute the Bush administration wishes for me to shut up because I am a “total idiot” or wishes me to “go back where I belong” then I will have concern for creeping totalitarianism.
Ah, thank you. I did wonder if the moonbat/Bush is a liberal/Nazis were socialist trinity could be completed. Thank you.
Then you are simply displaying more ignorance and intellectual immaturity.
In this case, yes it is. The absence of WMD in Iraq is proof that there were no WMD in Iraq.
Yes it did.
Here is the text of the Resolution.
This is an excerpt from right at the top:
Have you ever actually READ the Resolution? Aren’t you embrassed now that you just got your pwned?
You really shouldn’t try to use debate terms when you don’t know what they mean. You just make yourself look more stupid. You intimated that Bush did not lie about WMD, despite the mountain of evidence (including but not exclusive to the fact that there were no WMD in Iraq depite Bush’s repeated assurances that h knew for a fact they were there) that he did exactly that. Whether he should be impeached for that is debatable, but asking you to show us where the WMD are is not a strawman because whether or not Bush lied about them was the suggested reason for impeachment. the Iraq Resolution is a non sequitur to that discussion.
The low approval ratings for the Dems is a result of their misreading the political climate and being too gutless to stop the war they were elected to stop.
So prison camps without trials and wiretapping, those are no big deal, but people calling you an idiot for being an idiot, well, that’s fascism.
“Fascist” doesn’t mean “big meanie,” you know. It’s a term describing a system of government that… ah, nevermind.
Alas, we could have learned much from you.
Noty only have they asked for it, but you appear to have handed it over rather eagerly (what little there ever was of it).
Miss Ratched, I’d like my cigarettes, please.
It is impossible they were secreted out or buried?
[quote]
Yes it did.
– Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States
intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that
Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale
biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear
weapons development program that was much closer to producing a
nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated; –
Had? They “had” WMDs? That is mention of having “HAVING” WMDs?
I’ll take points for sloppiness but nowhere in the resolution did it mention WMDs existing in Iraq at that time. How can Bush have lied? that paragraph is 100% true.
There is no evidence Bush lied about WMDs. No one has come up with any yet.
Talking about past WMD use is not a lie. It is the truth.
They are misreading the climate that gives them a 14%? That is some pretty bad misreading. What do you think they think when they see President GW Bush enjoying over double the approval they have.
Should they be more like Bush to catch up to him? Or should they continue to oppose Bush and keep the 14%.
What a conundrum.
Don’t blame me, I voted for Kodos.
First things first. We need to deal with the crisis in the middle-east that picked up in 1973. I’ll take a hit for voting in president GW Bush twice on that. I thought he would be the next Reagan, but he turned out to be the next LBJ.
There was not one better choice at the time and I am forever stuck with the fact that president GW Bush has enacted some disgusting leftist policy.
On the other hand, he has made individual rights a hot topic, which is an overall plus. I like when the Constitution gets some lovin’ by the population. I firmly believe I only could have done worse with another choice.
So, are you gonna reply to George Kaplan’s post (#94), in which he basically outs you as a troll, or are you just killing time until you’re banned, dipshit?
I want trials
I want trials NOW.
All of those people deserve trials.
[/quote]
It depends on the wiretapping. Are the calls going out of the country? Is there a warrant? Did a judge sign the warrant. Is the evidence admissible in a court of law.
No, people telling me to shutup and go back where I came from is fascist.
Who is being a big meanie? You people are very frustrated. I understand your pain and you need some vent time. That is fine. that is why I am here in the BBQ Pit. I don’t think you are all capable of being mean… although I would feel sorry for a person who had no intelligence if they ever wandered in here. It is very cruel to pick on people and call them names just because they are not as smart and fortunate as you. That would be just twisted. Tormenting someone for being less fortunate in the smarts department… yeah, that is downright evil.
Of course it is a widespread human defense mechanism to call a smart person dumb… especially if the caller of names is projecting their own personal insecurities on to their intended victim.
Perhaps I misconstrued.
It was my understanding that in 1998, the goal of the opposition forces in Iraq was the overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime. It was also my understanding that the opposition forces in Iraq in 1998 mainly comprised Iraqis. Overthrow of the regime by Iraqis would imply overthrow of Saddam by his own people, would it not?
The Clinton Administration promise to strengthen its engagement with those opposition forces looks like it leads rather smoothly to a policy of enabling the overthrow of SH by his own people.
Could you point to where I mixed up the players here?
And as to “We are still doing that”, as you post above, are you actually claiming the current U.S. military and diplomatic policy is to work with the Iraqi opposition? 'Cos these days, I think the Iraqi opposition consists primarily of insurgents, and various other folks who are opposing the Iraqi government. The Iraqi government that the Shrubya crowd put there. I don’t think Georgie-boy ever had a chance of successfully placing a stable pro-Western regime in Iraq by force, but I’m pretty sure Mr. Cheney wouldn’t let him “work with” the guys who are trying to bring down the joke of a regime that was installed.
Yes, it’s impossible. Not only would it have been ridiculously implausible to smuggle them out, we now know for a fact that Iraq had no wMD programs and was incapable of producing any WMD. That makes the straw-clutching “they snuck them out” defense a non-starter.
[Sigh]
Yes it did. Read this paragraph again:
In case you don’t know (and it wouldn’t surprise me at all if you didn’t, biological, chemical and nuclear weapons ARE weapons of mass destruction.
The paragraph I just quoted for a second time was 100% false.
You mean besides the fact that there weren’t any WMD in Iraq? If you don’t like that evidence, we can always talk about yellowcake.
Talking only about past possession of WMD would also have been insufficient as a pretext for an invasion. Unfortuantely for you, you are mistaken in your assertion that the Resolution did not claim that Iraq had a current WMD program.
[quote]
They are misreading the climate that gives them a 14%? That is some pretty bad misreading.[/qute]
Yes it was. They were idiots. If they had done what they were elected to do, they would probably be hovering around the 30% that is normal for any Congress.
That it shows how incredibly weak GWB is and hopefully, that it shows how badly the public wants Congress to stand up to him.
They are at 14% because they AREN’T opposing Bush, you fucking dunce.
Saddam a threat to his people- All leaders are. However Iraq was not a religious society. Women did not have to wear ha-bibs . Over 50 % of the college students were women. Half the professional workers were women. We turn out to be a much bigger threat to Iraq than Saddam ever was.
Threat to area- No way. That is why other mid east countries called him a paper tiger and would not join the attack We knew damn well he was unable to defend himself.
Threat to the world- No way. He is said to have tossed a few bucks to families of matyrs. I do not know if that is true. His army was hollow.
All that time to think of a reply while you were responding to other posts, and this is the best you can come up with.
K. Thx. Bi.
Bwahahaahahaahahaaha, oh I think I wet myself!
Dude, reality check, your threads aren’t as popular as the weakest TMI-poop threads, come back when ya really got something.
CMC fnord!
Ooh, I thought of a new question for DevNull. You’ve said that Saddam bounced back to being a threat after the first Gulf War several times. Might I enquire as to how this threat was repeatedly reduced?
Are fascists the new leftists?
Overthrow was the plan, yes. It was very important to overthrow Saddam. We can all agree… except for the people who called Clinton’s speech in the OP a failure and the writings of a madman.
You did not mix up the players.
– our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.–
It all boils down to that phrase. How far do you think the Clinton administration wanted to take it. He talked it all up as very important. Read that speech again, you will see how important overthrow was. Engagement and effectively are the key words.
What does engagement entail. We are engaged with the Iraqi anti-Saddam forces right now. We are working effectively with them, more effective than the big nothing the 1998 plan had going.
The Iraqi opposition was anti-Saddam, not anti-Iraq. They are still anti-Saddam and there is a new opposition in town. The new opposition includes foreign Muslim fighters and assorted locals who don’t like the US.
There is a stable pro-Western govenment in Iraq right now. It is the foreigners and radical Muslims who are the problem right now.
Generalisation, mon ami. No people suggested overthrowing Saddam was a bad thing. Quote up some people who said it wasn’t important, please.