Cindy's own words

[Mark]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cindi's own words? You want Cindi's own words?

Having an open mind and considering the possibility that your views might be askew is probably boring too.

Putting additional words in my mouth proves what, exactly?

 

[clk]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cindi's own words? You want Cindi's own words?

Four years ago they were willing to pull 9-11. For many years they've been trying to get nukes. There's nothing more that they can do with their hatred. That's it. That's pretty much the limit. You're argument, "omfg! Now they really hate us!!" is like if my neighbor shoots at me, I cower in my house thinking, "oh I'd better not call the police, then he'll really be mad." I don't think that way. My thinking is, if my neighbor hates me that much, screw him I'm calling the police and having his ass taken to jail!

It's funny how the Bush supporters are trying to make Iraq the center of the war on terrorism. I thought we went into Iraq because Saddam had WMDs? Oh wait, that was all bullsh*t. Once that was figured out, Bush changed the story and claimed we were in Iraq to free the oppressed Iraqi people. Then came Abu Ghraib, so Bush had to change his story yet again. Now we are supposedly in Iraq to combat terrorism. But if this is the case, then why didn't Bush tell us in the beginning that the war would take atleast 2 long years? Why did they say that Iraqis would greet us with flowers? If Iraq is the center of the war on terrorism, shouldn't they have prepared us for the fact that the Iraqis would greet us with suicide car bombs instead? Why, only 6 weeks after the war began, did he fly onto an aircraft carrier and declare that the mission was accomplished? Why didn't he tell us when he was on the aircraft carrier that terrorists would start infiltrating into Iraq and kill 1700 American soldiers over the next 2 years? Do you know why? Because it's all bullsh*t. There were no WMDs. We didn't really give a damn about the Iraqi people. Bush is trying to cover up the fact that he f*cked up by taking a negative (terrorists are flooding into Iraq ), and turning it into a positive (terrorists are flooding into Iraq ). But a square peg just won't fit into a round hole. I suspect that once people realize that Iraq isn't helping in the war on terrorism, Bush will change his story yet again, and will come up with another reason to explain why we are in Iraq.

 

[WildCat]

More wisdom from Sheehan, this time from Hardball:

MATTHEWS: All right. If your son had been killed in Afghanistan, would you have a different feeling?

SHEEHAN: I don't think so, Chris, because I believe that Afghanistan is almost the same thing. We're fighting terrorism. Or terrorists, we're saying. But they're not contained in a country. This is an ideology and not an enemy. And we know that Iraq, Iraq had no terrorism. They were no threat to the United States of America.

MATTHEWS: But Afghanistan was harboring, the Taliban was harboring al-Qaida which is the group that attacked us on 9/11.

SHEEHAN: Well then we should have gone after al-Qaida and maybe not after the country of Afghanistan.

MATTHEWS: But that's where they were being harbored. That's where they were headquartered. Shouldn't we go after their headquarters? Doesn't that make sense?

SHEEHAN: Well, but there were a lot of innocent people killed in that invasion, too. ... But I'm seeing that we're sending our ground troops in to invade countries where the entire country wasn't the problem. Especially Iraq. Iraq was no problem. And why do we send in invading armies to march into Afghanistan when we're looking for a select group of people in that country?

So I believe that our troops should be brought home out of both places where we're obviously not having any success in Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden is still on the loose and that's who they told us was responsible for 9/11.

''The moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute.", says Maureen Dowd. Whatever, Maureen...

 

[joe1347]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cindi's own words? You want Cindi's own words?

. . . on terrorism, Bush will change his story yet again, and will come up with another reason to explain why we are in Iraq.

Does anyone yet know the "real" reason we invaded Iraq? Isn't this a fairly simple question? As you pointed out, the administration keeps changing the reason to suit their needs. Possibly if Bush just leveled with us (the american people) on his real reason(s) for going to war, we would agree/forgive/etc.

 

[WildCat]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cindi's own words? You want Cindi's own words?

Does anyone yet know the "real" reason we invaded Iraq? Isn't this a fairly simple question? As you pointed out, the administration keeps changing the reason to suit their needs. Possibly if Bush just leveled with us (the american people) on his real reason(s) for going to war, we would agree/forgive/etc.

Well Joe, at the risk of losing my top-secret security clearance, I'll post this from the super-secret top-level Bushies-only web site. No wonder you couldn't find it on your own!

107th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. J. RES. 114
October 10, 2002

JOINT RESOLUTION
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

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;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations; Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people; Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq; Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable'; Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled.

Finally! The truth is told.

 

[rikzilla]

Re: Cindi's own words? You want Cindi's own words?

Yeah, OK. Terrorism is growing in Iraq, but it's not the central front in the war on terrorism. I guess one would believe that if one were predisposed to describe the people committing the terrorism as "freedom fighters."

quote:

---

Originally posted by more wit and wisdom from Cindi Sheehan
(convicted terrorist) Lynne (Stewart) is my human Atticus Finch. He did what he knew was right, but wasn’t popular. And that’s what Lynne is doing. (cite)

---

Did anyone get back to me about how I'm supposed to feel about someone who lionizes actual convicted terrorists who personally advocate my death?

Wow, forget what I said in the other thread! Cindy Sheehan should get to meet with Bush. I suggest a townhall style debate. She should also be allowed all the time she wants to rant at Bush uninterrupted with air time on all networks.

America would then get to see what a complete barking nut she is.

Of course then her insanity could be blamed on Bush as well...right?

-z

 

[joe1347]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cindi's own words? You want Cindi's own words?

Well Joe, at the risk of losing my top-secret security clearance, I'll post this from the super-secret top-level Bushies-only web site. No wonder you couldn't find it on your own!


Finally! The truth is told.

But don't we now know that most of the listed assertions (WMD specifically) are not true? Possibly the entire USA intelligence community is utterly incompetent and Bush just acted on bad intelligence. Somehow I don't think so and the real reason is something else.

 

[rikzilla]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cindi's own words? You want Cindi's own words?

But don't we now know that most of the listed assertions (WMD specifically) are not true? Possibly the entire USA intelligence community is utterly incompetent and Bush just acted on bad intelligence. Somehow I don't think so and the real reason is something else.

Not true in the context of "it's been over 2 years and we haven't found any so it's not true" ?

Or not true as in "the President is a lying bastard and he knew all along it wasn't true" ?

Or can you expand on what the something else might be?

As for me Occam works pretty well with:
"He thought it was true...he wanted it to be true,...and he was as surprised or more...than anyone else to finally see that it wasn't true."

Hardly makes him a liar.

-z

 

[clk]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cindi's own words? You want Cindi's own words?

But don't we now know that most of the listed assertions (WMD specifically) are not true? Possibly the entire USA intelligence community is utterly incompetent and Bush just acted on bad intelligence. Somehow I don't think so and the real reason is something else.

It was clear in February 2003 that Bush's WMD claims were highly dubious:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/18/iraq/main537096.shtml

While diplomatic maneuvering continues over Turkish bases and a new United Nations resolution, inside Iraq, U.N. arms inspectors are privately complaining about the quality of U.S. intelligence and accusing the United States of sending them on wild-goose chases.

U.N. sources have told CBS News that American tips have lead to one dead end after another.

Example: satellite photographs purporting to show new research buildings at Iraqi nuclear sites. When the U.N. went into the new buildings they found "nothing."

Example: Saddam's presidential palaces, where the inspectors went with specific coordinates supplied by the U.S. on where to look for incriminating evidence. Again, they found "nothing."

Example: Interviews with scientists about the aluminum tubes the U.S. says Iraq has imported for enriching uranium, but which the Iraqis say are for making rockets. Given the size and specification of the tubes, the U.N. calls the "Iraqi alibi air tight."

So frustrated have the inspectors become that one source has referred to the U.S. intelligence they've been getting as "garbage after garbage after garbage." In fact, Phillips says the source used another cruder word.

Yet, even after these reports, Bush continued his march to war, and continued to claim that there was "no doubt" Saddam had WMD, even though he damn well knew that was not the case. It's quite clear that he lied.

 

[Manny]

Re: Re: Cindi's own words? You want Cindi's own words?

Wow, forget what I said in the other thread! Cindy Sheehan should get to meet with Bush. I suggest a townhall style debate. She should also be allowed all the time she wants to rant at Bush uninterrupted with air time on all networks.

But wait! There's more! If you call our operators in the next 10 minutes, we'll include advocating leaving the taliban in charge of Afghanistan at no extra charge!

Chris Matthews: MATTHEWS: All right. If your son had been killed in Afghanistan, would you have a different feeling?

SHEEHAN: I don't think so, Chris, because I believe that Afghanistan is almost the same thing. We're fighting terrorism. Or terrorists, we're saying. But they're not contained in a country. This is an ideology and not an enemy. And we know that Iraq, Iraq had no terrorism. They were no threat to the United States of America.

MATTHEWS: But Afghanistan was harboring, the Taliban was harboring al-Qaida which is the group that attacked us on 9/11.

SHEEHAN: Well then we should have gone after al-Qaida and maybe not after the country of Afghanistan.

MATTHEWS: But that's where they were being harbored. That's where they were headquartered. Shouldn't we go after their headquarters? Doesn't that make sense?

SHEEHAN: Well, but there were a lot of innocent people killed in that invasion, too. ... But I'm seeing that we're sending our ground troops in to invade countries where the entire country wasn't the problem. Especially Iraq. Iraq was no problem. And why do we send in invading armies to march into Afghanistan when we're looking for a select group of people in that country?

So I believe that our troops should be brought home out of both places where we're obviously not having any success in Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden is still on the loose and that's who they told us was responsible for 9/11.

Yes, this is the new hero of the anti-war movement. Since no one will tell me how I'm supposed to feel about someone who lionizes actual convicted terrorists who want to kill me, perhaps I'll try another question.

How is it that the "anti-war" movement has as its leaders almost exclusively people who are anti-American? How much credence am I supposed to give to an alleged "anti-war" movement which rallies so easily and so passionately around terrorist supporters?

 

[joe1347]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cindi's own words? You want Cindi's own words?

Hardly makes him a liar.

-z

Come on - it's pretty clear now that the pre-invasion WMD evidence was flimsy at best. At least what's been published by the media. Possibly the truely compelling evidence is classified - and revealling it will further destabilize the region. For example, what if all of the former Iraqic WMD program-related info/people/hardware is in Iran or Syria? Would it serve the Bush administration interests to conceal this? If true - wouldn't some admin hack be showing polaroids at the UN again.

As for what were the real reasons for the invasion? Beats me and I don't think that we'll ever know unless something comes out at a hearing - assuming the dems get the house or senate in 2006.

 

[tofu]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cindi's own words? You want Cindi's own words?

Putting additional words in my mouth proves what, exactly?

The only that's been proven is that you lack the ability to make a sound argument.

I thought we went into Iraq because Saddam had WMDs?

That was one of the reasons.

Oh wait, that was all bullsh*t.

Tell that to the Kurds who were killed by WMDs! And hey wait a minute, how dare you say that Bill Clinton's words are bullsh*t! You damn neocon!

Originally posted by clk
Once that was figured out, Bush changed the story and claimed we were in Iraq to free the oppressed Iraqi people.

Just out of curiosity, when was the first time that "liberation" was given as a reason for the war? If it was before the war, then that pretty much invalidates your argument. Would you like to look it up, or should I?

Originally posted by clk
Then came Abu Ghraib, so Bush had to change his story yet again.

Why would Abu Ghraib change the story about liberation?? We're real sorry about that, and the people responsible will go to jail, but what does it have to do with "the reason for the war?"

Originally posted by clk
Now we are supposedly in Iraq to combat terrorism.

Just out of curiosity, when was the first time that "terrorism" was given as a reason for the war? If it was before the war, then that pretty much invalidates your argument. Would you like to look it up, or should I?

Originally posted by clk
But if this is the case, then why didn't Bush tell us in the beginning that the war would take atleast 2 long years?

What does "taking 2 years" have to do with "combating terrorism?" Again, you seem to be picking some random fact and pretending that it somehow negates something that Bush said.

Originally posted by clk
Why did they say that Iraqis would greet us with flowers?

Because they knew that the majority of Iraqis would be happy to see us. Guess what. They are. Here's one as an example:
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2005/08/message-to-cindy-sheehan.html

Originally posted by clk
If Iraq is the center of the war on terrorism, shouldn't they have prepared us for the fact that the Iraqis would greet us with suicide car bombs instead?

The Iraqis aren't greeting us with suicide car bombs.

Originally posted by clk
Why, only 6 weeks after the war began, did he fly onto an aircraft carrier and declare that the mission was accomplished?

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that it is because the men and women of that aircraft carrier... wait for it... accomplished their mission. You don't think they deserved a happy homecoming? Wow, you're a dick.

Originally posted by clk
There were no WMDs.

Tell that to the Kurds who were killed by WMDs! And hey wait a minute, how dare you say that Bill Clinton's words are bullsh*t! You damn neocon!

Originally posted by clk
We didn't really give a damn about the Iraqi people.

Then why not just nuke the place? Or at least carpet bomb it. Why the ground troops? Why go into the cities?

Originally posted by clk
I suspect that once people realize that Iraq isn't helping in the war on terrorism,

I think that a lot of people are smarter than you.

Originally posted by clk
Bush will change his story yet again

Just out of curiosity, when was the first time that "liberation" or "terrorism" was given as a reason for the war? If it was before the war, then that pretty much invalidates your argument. Would you like to look it up, or should I?

 

[rikzilla]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cindi's own words? You want Cindi's own words?

Come on - it's pretty clear now that the pre-invasion WMD evidence was flimsy at best. At least what's been published by the media. Possibly the truely compelling evidence is classified - and revealling it will further destabilize the region. For example, what if all of the former Iraqic WMD program-related info/people/hardware is in Iran or Syria? Would it serve the Bush administration interests to conceal this? If true - wouldn't some admin hack be showing polaroids at the UN again.

As for what were the real reasons for the invasion? Beats me and I don't think that we'll ever know unless something comes out at a hearing - assuming the dems get the house or senate in 2006.

You're very right of course!! If I were a coach I'd pick you to be the starting quarterback....the only problem is, we play our games on Sunday....you do all your brilliant quarterbacking on Monday.

There's a bit of a disconnect there....on second though I don't think the team can use you....sorry.

-z

 

[rikzilla]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cindi's own words? You want Cindi's own words?

The only that's been proven is that you lack the ability to make a sound argument.



That was one of the reasons.



Tell that to the Kurds who were killed by WMDs! And hey wait a minute, how dare you say that Bill Clinton's words are bullsh*t! You damn neocon!



Just out of curiosity, when was the first time that "liberation" was given as a reason for the war? If it was before the war, then that pretty much invalidates your argument. Would you like to look it up, or should I?



Why would Abu Ghraib change the story about liberation?? We're real sorry about that, and the people responsible will go to jail, but what does it have to do with "the reason for the war?"



Just out of curiosity, when was the first time that "terrorism" was given as a reason for the war? If it was before the war, then that pretty much invalidates your argument. Would you like to look it up, or should I?



What does "taking 2 years" have to do with "combating terrorism?" Again, you seem to be picking some random fact and pretending that it somehow negates something that Bush said.



Because they knew that the majority of Iraqis would be happy to see us. Guess what. They are. Here's one as an example:
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2005/08/message-to-cindy-sheehan.html



The Iraqis aren't greeting us with suicide car bombs.



I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that it is because the men and women of that aircraft carrier... wait for it... accomplished their mission. You don't think they deserved a happy homecoming? Wow, you're a dick.



Tell that to the Kurds who were killed by WMDs! And hey wait a minute, how dare you say that Bill Clinton's words are bullsh*t! You damn neocon!



Then why not just nuke the place? Or at least carpet bomb it. Why the ground troops? Why go into the cities?



I think that a lot of people are smarter than you.



Just out of curiosity, when was the first time that "liberation" or "terrorism" was given as a reason for the war? If it was before the war, then that pretty much invalidates your argument. Would you like to look it up, or should I?

Others here have fallen down on the job tofu so let me just be among the first to welcome you to the forum!!

Welcome you magnificent bastard!


Welcome!

-z

 

[clk]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cindi's own words? You want Cindi's own words?

That was one of the reasons.

Uh, no, that was the MAIN reason. If Saddam had no WMD, then there is no reason to invade Iraq. If he has no WMD, then he is not a threat. What was he going to attack us with, spit balls? Bush's arguments for the war on Iraq were primarily based on WMD in the beginning, because he knew he couldn't get support for the war otherwise.

Tell that to the Kurds who were killed by WMDs!

What does gassing Kurds in 1988 have to do with Saddam possessing WMD in 2003?

And hey wait a minute, how dare you say that Bill Clinton's words are bullsh*t!

What does Clinton have to do with anything? Oh wait, not a damn thing.

Just out of curiosity, when was the first time that "liberation" was given as a reason for the war?

Doesn't matter. Bush stopped all talk of WMD after it was found out that Iraq didn't have any. Then he started talking like we went into Iraq just to free the Iraqi people. If you asked the average person on the street why we went into Iraq, they would probably say 'to free the Iraqis' or 'combat terrorism'. Why? Because Bush has done an excellent job covering up the fact that Saddam had no WMD and wasn't a threat in the first place.

Why would Abu Ghraib change the story about liberation??

Because Bush can't claim we went into Iraq to free people from Saddam's torture chambers if we have our own little torture chambers.

What does "taking 2 years" have to do with "combating terrorism?" Again, you seem to be picking some random fact and pretending that it somehow negates something that Bush said.

If we went into Iraq to combat terrorism, why didn't Bush tell us that terrorists would start flooding into Iraq to fight us? Why did Wolfowitz say that less than 100,000 troops would be needed? Why did Bush claim in 2003 that major combat operations were over? Because they thought that Iraqis would greet us with flowers, that the war would be over in a few months, that they would be able to install Chalabi to lead Iraq, and then everyone would live happily ever after.

The Iraqis aren't greeting us with suicide car bombs.

Are you kidding? Dozens of people die every day from bomb attacks in Iraq. It has become the most violent place on Earth.

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that it is because the men and women of that aircraft carrier... wait for it... accomplished their mission.

Then why did he claim that major combat operations were over in Iraq?

You don't think they deserved a happy homecoming? Wow, you're a dick.

Beautiful strawman! I couldn't have come up with such a nice one if I had tried.

Then why not just nuke the place? Or at least carpet bomb it. Why the ground troops? Why go into the cities?

If Bush were interested in freedom, he would have gone after Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq. His brother, Bandar Bush, oppresses people 100 times more than Saddam did. If I were a woman, I would have rather lived in Saddam's Iraq instead of under people like Bandar Bush. Atleast Saddam didn't force women to cover themselves completely from head to toe and let them receive educations, etc.
So, instead of going after the real tyrannical regimes, like Saudi Arabia, Bush plays grab ass with them instead. Sickening:

 

[Daylight]

Did Bush ever find the missing 8.2 Billion Bush lost? Does he even care?

How do you lose 8.2 Billion? WTF!

Maybe I’m different, but if I lost 8.2 Billion I’d be in big trouble. Do we get to dock Bush’s pay until he pays it off?

 

[BPSCG]

Re: Re: Cindi's own words? You want Cindi's own words?

Note, in particular, the flier about halfway down the page which asked whether or not attendees should support the Iraqi "resistance".

Speaking of "resistance" fighters, I have a few questions for the people who use that term:

• Who - or what - are the "resistance" fighters "resisting"?
• If they are "resisting" US troops, then do you believe they would stop fighting if the US would just leave Iraq?
• If they are "resisting" US troops, do you believe they would set down their arms and take part in Iraq's democratic processes once the US leaves?
• If they are not "resisting" US troops, then who or what are they "resisting"?
• If they are not "resisting" US troops, then will they continue to murder Iraqi civilians if US troops leave?
• Are they not, in fact, "resisting" democratic government?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Re: Re: Re: Cindi's own words? You want Cindi's own words?

Speaking of "resistance" fighters, I have a few questions for the people who use that term:

• Who - or what - are the "resistance" fighters "resisting"?
• If they are "resisting" US troops, then do you believe they would stop fighting if the US would just leave Iraq?
• If they are "resisting" US troops, do you believe they would set down their arms and take part in Iraq's democratic processes once the US leaves?
• If they are not "resisting" US troops, then who or what are they "resisting"?
• If they are not "resisting" US troops, then will they continue to murder Iraqi civilians if US troops leave?
• Are they not, in fact, "resisting" democratic government?

I don't know for sure, but I can take a few guesses.

They are resisting the US occupation of Iraq.

They would stop fighting the US, if the US left Iraq.

They might, if they thought that the democratic process was more than a sham. How negotiable are those US military bases in Iraq again?

See above.

I don't think the ones people refer to as resistance fighters are the ones murdering Iraqi civilians. The resistance are the ones attacking US troops with bombs and mortars, not the ones bombing civilians.

It depends how flexible your definition of democracy is.

For the record, I think that going forward the best possible outcome would be for everyone to play nice with the US-imposed system. I don't think it's constructive or truthful to shoehorn all militants in Iraq into the terrorist category though.

 

[Manny]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Cindi's own words? You want Cindi's own words?

They would stop fighting the US, if the US left Iraq.

In other news, they would stop beheading homosexuals if the homosexuals left Iraq and would stop stoning women if they'd obey their husbands. They're good that way.

They might, if they thought that the democratic process was more than a sham. How negotiable are those US military bases in Iraq again?

You know, I see this a lot and I'm curious about it. Let's ignore the whole "sham" election thing, because you think all elections which don't go your way are shams (and one wonders what "your way" might have looked like in the Iraqi election). Let's focus on the military bases.

We have bases there, of a sort. What is the evidence that we desire to keep bases there beyond the occupation and what is the evidence that the Iraqi government has agreed to that or that we've set things up such that they will agree?

 

[Ziggurat]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cindi's own words? You want Cindi's own words?

Uh, no, that was the MAIN reason. If Saddam had no WMD, then there is no reason to invade Iraq. If he has no WMD, then he is not a threat.[/B]

Yeah, he was no threat. Unlike Al Quaeda and the Taliban, with their high-tech "box cutter" WMD's which killed thousands and did hundreds of billions of dollars in economic damage. No, Saddam would NEVER be capable of mounting such an attack with his limited arsenal.

What was he going to attack us with, spit balls?

Hmm... how indeed could Saddam strike at us without a sophisticated WMD arsenal? What a puzzler. I sure can't think of any way. I guess that means it wouldn't be possible? Unless, perhaps, he got inspired to do something a little less conventional...

What does gassing Kurds in 1988 have to do with Saddam possessing WMD in 2003?

What does Saddam not having WMD's in 2003 tell us about what he'd have in 2010?

Intent matters.

If Bush were interested in freedom, he would have gone after Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq. His brother, Bandar Bush, oppresses people 100 times more than Saddam did.

Really? Let's take a look at this claim. Saddam killed tens of thousands of his own people, putting many of them in mass graves. So if Saudi Arabia is 100 times worse, then there's got to be millions of Saudis that Bandar killed. That's quite an extraordinary claim. Do you honestly believe it? I doubt it. So either you're ignorant enough of reality that you'll make wild and unsupported claims, or you're just a liar.