Finally, someone gets it

[BFCNS]

Zora please consider this,

The 1991 agreement with Saddam included open door inspections by UN inspectors to make sure he was not making WMD's. The inspectors were kicked oout and not allowed to perform the inspections first in 1995 and then again in 1998. The agreement made in 1991 was breached and our then President Clinton had the responsibility to rectify the situation. Instead he was more concerned with how to best abuse his intern humidor.

Somewhere in the area of 1999 top 2000, Saddam test fired a missle that flew 120 miles. In the 1991 agreement the Iraqis were allowed to produce and keep missles that had a range of 80 miles for their self protection. This is another breach if the 1991 agreement.

Somewhere around 2002 to 2003 the media uncovered a situation where 250 tons of high explosives that were produced by the Iraqis under Saddam were missing. First, would you consider 250 tons of HE WMD's? I would. The democrats made a stink that these munitions were not properly secured and accounted for. So from one side of their mouths they are saying no WMD's and from the other they are asking what happened to the WMD's. Which is it?

Have youn re3ad any of the reports from our soldiers who have boots on the ground in Iraq? The majority seem to say that we did the right thing by going there and we are still improving the lives for the majority of Iraqis.

Iraq is a country of 27 million people and the insurgents number about 6000. Seems kind of odd when you look at these numbers and then watch the news.

Sorry about the dates, but you get the idea and I could provide more accurate times if required. these are just a few of the facts that get swept under the carpet when you listen to the democrats. Two last thoughts:

1. When the President landed on the aircraft carrier and declared the war to be over, his popularity was high and the democrats accused him of politicizing the war. In the 2006 elections the President's popularity is at an all time low and the democrats take control of the House and Senate and the main issue... not the health economy... not the low unemployment rates... but the war in Iraq. look back at almost all of the campaign speeches by the dems and yuo will discover the true meaning of politiicizing the war.

2. Today I read an article in Newsweek that had letters from fallen soldiers to their families. I am a 6 foot 270 lbs builtlike an old linebacker kind of a guy and I cried like a baby. These were our guys and they will not be coming home again. If there was ever a time when I would say, "Hey, what are we doing getting these good guys killed, for what? We need to bring them hone NOW". I would say that if I hadn't read the letters. Almost to a man they described how proud they were to serve our country, to participate in helping people who were in a situation be given better lives and to have been part of their respective services. They understand why and they "get it". So why don't we all "get it" and instead of undermining them and their mission by bickering and politicizing and give our president and our military the support they need to get the job done.

Thanks for letting me express my view and I look forward to any comments.

 

[ReCockulous]

Why were LBJ or Nixon not impeached on the issue of Vietnam?


By the way, don't make any assumptions about my political stance based on this one question. It happens every damn time I say anything on an internet forum.

 

[madame_zora]

I have never considered him legitimitaly in office, just pretending. I am disappointed that the people have gone along with this pretence.

Sadly, no one is free of wrongdoing here. While a few key people like Bob Taft should eventually be revealed as the planners behind the fraud, if was with many deomcrat votes and lobbying dollars that the machines were put in place to begin with.

I heard a lot more about the Ohio Supreme Court case when I lived in Columbus, but I knew from day one because an exasperated poll worker was complaining to her fellow worker on election day that the whole day was behind schedule because they had several of the machines that were registering votes for bush fresh out of the box, before anyone had voted. She said they had to call a technician to "reset" them, but the only people who could work on the machines were Diebold techs. She seemed clearly disgusted by this fact, and I had no reason to think she was lying, since she was originally not talking to me, but was more than happy to answer my questions about it once asked. She said some of the machines had as many as 30,000 voted already registered.

Anyway, here's a pretty current update on the findings, it ain't pretty for anyone. What IS clear is that Taft is already a felon on the Noe scandal, and this one's not looking good for him or Blackwell.

Scoop: The Road To Boondoggle Paved With Good Intentions

 

[BFCNS]

Oh and one last thing, Chuck Hagel is an asshole and is clearly spewing what he thinks people want to hear. These kind of people usually don't get reelected... unless they are democrats. Oops did I just say that outloud? hehe

 

[madame_zora]

Thanks for letting me express my view and I look forward to any comments.

Wecome to the site.

We have very opposing views, but I'm sure yours represent some of our members here.

 

[madame_zora]

Oh and one last thing, Chuck Hagel is an asshole and is clearly spewing what he thinks people want to hear. These kind of people usually don't get reelected... unless they are democrats. Oops did I just say that outloud? hehe

You'll hear no protest from me that Hagel is a grandstanding asshole. Nonetheless, he is saying something that an awful lot of folks on the street are thinking. As a matter of fact, it's come up in the UN. Can't pin this whole thing on Hagel, he's just the most recent voice.

 

[BFCNS]

Here is a website that will give better descriptions and times for what I was trying to point out:

Iraq Timeline

We took Saddam to task for breaking the agreements from the first gulf war, regardless of WMD's. I hope we can agree that the world is a better place without him (Saddam) in it. We did the right thing, unfortunately it was ten years too late. Do a little "what if" analysis and try to understand that if President Clinton had acted appropriately and timely, we would probably not be involved in this war today.

To all of you who made comments about the legitimacy of President Bush, get over it and move on. Good lord, how many times can you kick that dead horse? This is a typical democrat ploy to distract attention from the issues, bring up something old and worn out to rechew and not get anything done that counts.

Here's one more idea to mull, if you have never been to the Lincoln Presidential Museum and Library in Springfield IL, go there. Go into the museum and into the White House exhibit and see the caractures on the walls. People made fun of President Lincoln in much the same way the pundits do to President Bush today. Now here is the part that will take some thinking to get your mind around - there are many, many comparisions and similarities between Presidents Lincoln and Bush. To start they were.are both war presidents. Both were at a time very unpopular with the public. They both had clear visions on what they thought needed to be done and understood what it takes to finish the job. It will be interesting to see what history will say about the current war president considering what history says about the historical war president. Just for thought.

One more question, what makes any of the people who are deriding the President think that others, like Hagel, Pelosi, Murtha and other talking heads know more about what is happening in the war zones? Why would you believe that Sen. Clinton has so much a better understanding of the war that she can say that she will pull all the troops out by 2008-2009? What did we miss? Or did we miss nothing and decided to believe the loudest mouths because it seemed to be tihe popular thing to do?

 

[madame_zora]

I retract that welcome.

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

He's not the king.... but he IS The Decider.

 

[Full_Phil]

You'll hear no protest from me that Hagel is a grandstanding asshole---

It's interesting that the Democratic senator from Nebraska (I forget his name) lines up with bush, so they cancel each other.

I'm no friend of the man taking orders from his "advisors" in the WH, but I feel that BFCNS brings a studied and intelligent approach from his position.

 

[B_JQblonde]

Why were LBJ or Nixon not impeached on the issue of Vietnam?


By the way, don't make any assumptions about my political stance based on this one question. It happens every damn time I say anything on an internet forum.

Admittedly there is alot of 'art' in the 'high crimes and misdemeanor' standard for impeachment, but bad decisions certainly don't cut it.

Then there's practicality. The ultimate decision to remove a Prez from Office comes via the Senate requiring a 2/3 majority vote.

This is supposedly to avoid partisan shenanigans such as happened with CLintoin and is happening with Bush . < well it's never going to happen with Bush, that's just a moonbat fantasy for some out-of-touch lw morons..HI ZORA!!!>.

Nixon was going to be impeached AND removed form office becuase he lost the support of his own party . I amen he lost support over his alleged CRIME, not just general political support.

We have Presidential elections every 4 years and Congressional elections every 2- peopla have plenty of time to get their voices heard. Impeachments SHOULD be reserved for the most egregious of CRIMEs, not unpopularity.

 

[rob_just_rob]

I hope we can agree that the world is a better place without him (Saddam) in it.

There are lots of people that the world would be a better place without. Does that mean I can wander around shooting them?

Moreover, I don't see the USA moving in to take out Mugabe. Are bad people are only unacceptable in places where there is oil...?

Saying "Saddam was a bad man" is a criminally weak excuse for the invasion and everything that followed. How many people - US and other invading soldiers, Iraqi civilians, Iraqi police and soldiers, and insurgents - have died so that Bush could "get Saddam"? How much damage has been done to the Iraqi infrastructure? How many families have been torn apart? How much ill will has been fostered in the region, and worldwide? How much money has been burned up on this venture?

We did the right thing, unfortunately it was ten years too late. Do a little "what if" analysis and try to understand that if President Clinton had acted appropriately and timely, we would probably not be involved in this war today.

Even assuming that Clinton should have done something different, hindsight is 20:20. And you don't know how that war would have turned out.

Incidentally, if Bush had acted appropriately, you wouldn't be in this war today, either.

To all of you who made comments about the legitimacy of President Bush, get over it and move on. Good lord, how many times can you kick that dead horse? This is a typical democrat ploy to distract attention from the issues, bring up something old and worn out to rechew and not get anything done that counts.

I'd take that admonition more seriously if the Bush apologists didn't keep trying to blame Clinton for the mess they're in, instead of accepting that the failed war is Bush and Co's fault and facing up to that fact. And, of course, many of these same Bush apologists still refuse to stop kicking the dead horse of a politically insignificant blowjob.

 

[BFCNS]

Rob,

"There are lots of people that the world would be a better place without. Does that mean I can wander around shooting them?"

Yes, when the circumstance warrants. Both saddam and Hitler warranted it.

"Moreover, I don't see the USA moving in to take out Mugabe. "

So, if we were starting wars with countries all over the world, then that would be OK with you? In fact you demand that we become involved with strife in all countries with a problem. Isn't that what you are asking for in your quote?

"Incidentally, if Bush had acted appropriately, you wouldn't be in this war today, either."

OK, here's your chance, what should President Bush have done differently. Please do not use the tired old "give more time for the sanctions to work" reply. Anyone with half a brain knows that the sanctions were not working because the countries who objected to military action were also the countries who were trading with Iraq even though it was illegal (that would be Russia, France and Germany).

The interesting part is the fact that you might be able to find out how your strategy might work in what is happening in Iran. So, here is a golden opportunity for you, tells us all what we need to do about Iran. What's your plan? Keep in mind that even Iran's closest allies are tired of their defiance and have voted to toughen economic sanctions. Also be aware that these same counries will be the ones to render the tougher sanctions impotent with blackmarket dealings.

Perhaps you think Iran should be able to develope nuclear weapons. If we have them why shouldn't they. Right? What do you think about Ahmadinejad saying that the Holocost never happened? How about the fact that he has already tested long range missles, capable of carrying nuclear warheads. Perhaps his comments about Isreal ceasing to exist might have caught your attention. I am not Jewish but that should not matter. Do you not agree that this man presents a clear and present danger? Do you believe he wants world peace? What are you going to do about him?

So, I am very interested in your ideas of what the President should have done to avoid taking military action. Before you reply, read the timeline I posted earlier to refresh your memory on what this war is really all about. I would expect you to come back with some substance in your answer and not just the same old tired rhetoric.

And, I'm really, really interested in your opinions on Iran. Hope to hear form you soon!

 

[BFCNS]

Rob,

Oops, forgot -

"Even assuming that Clinton should have done something different, hindsight is 20:20. And you don't know how that war would have turned out."

It was not 20:20 hindsight in 1995 and 1996 when the inspectors were first thrown out of Iraq. Instead of 'not having sex with that woman' President Clinton should have been holding Saddam responsible for his actions and adherence to the 1991 agreement. Or do you think otherwise? Perrhaps, just perhaps a little foresight on the part of the administration might have had an affect on where we are today, do you agree?

 

[BFCNS]

Too much reality for you?

 

[BFCNS]

"politically insignificant blowjob."

Sorry, missed this part.

Let's try this one more time. The blowjob caused the President to lie about having sex with an intern. This in itself is not earth shaking but the fact is, he lied about it under oath. Any idea of what the charge for lying under oath is? It is a felony. Any idea of what you cannot be if you are a felon? That's right, you cannot be the President of the United States. That's just the legal ramifications to your politically insigificant blowjob. Our President is getting head in the oval office, and you think this makes the US look good to the world. Don't try to pass off what President Clinton did with Ms. Lewinski and OTHERS as insignificant. It did as much to harm our image in the world eyes as any thing President Bush has done. Deal with it!

 

[dong20]

Too much reality for you?

Well, reality in Iraq is rather subjective. Sure, Saddam was in breach of UN resolutions and was grandstanding, what else would you expect him to do, roll over?

Nobody is disputing the chain of events or timetable but did that justify invasion in 2003 given that it's clear he didn't have any weapons that posed a significant threat to anyone outside his borders nor was he likely to obtain them. I don't think it did, and I'm far from alone in that thought.

Imagine if the US chose to invade every country that flouted UN resolutions (on those grounds alone) it would be forever in everyone's back yard. Starting with NK and then Iran perhaps? I don't doubt many US and other servicemen sincerely believe they are helping and to some degree on a local level perhaps they are, but an action based on such shaky intelligence and downright dishonesty is wrong.

Yes hindsight is 20:20 but it was quite plain at the time (at least to me) that Saddam posed no real imminent danger to anyone (and certainly not the continental US) but sections of his own population. That he did so is undeniable but that is a primarily a moral and humanitarian argument not a military one. But I'll come back to that.

In short, there was little or no justifiable military reason to invade Iraq other than to protect US strategic and regional interests. Let's not delude ourselves otherwise. It was obvious at the time and it's even more obvious now. The action was 'justified' by at best incompetent intelligence gathering and more likely by bare face lies.

When the deaths of hundreds of thousands of unwilling participants is concerned the end does not justify the means, especially give the likely end. Can you say today, hand on heart that Iraq is a more stable and safe country (from the perspective of it's citizens) than it was in 2003?

Now, to follow up on the humanitarian angle; Rob's point about, (for example) Zimbabwe is pertinent not least because it underscores the reality that action by the US will be, as it always has been predicated primarily on serving US interests and no-one elses.

In the case of Iraq, the interests 'protected' are plain for all to see, and it had little or nothing to do with UN resolutions or humanitarian 'aid'. But you chose to side step that issue so I wonder is that perhaps a little too much reality for you.

 

[BFCNS]

"In short, there was little or no justifiable military reason to invade Iraq other than to protect US strategic and regional interests."

HUH! Read the sentence you wrote again and help me understand what better reason there is to take action other than to protect your interests. This makes no sense.

As to the existence of WMD's, I believe that they did exist and to a large extent still do exist. I also believe that President Bush admitting that the WMD's did not exist stems more from just admitting to something to get people to move forward. In addition, there is probably a good tactical reason to make your enemies believe that you are no longer interested in finding them and therefore no longer looking for them.

In the area of Saddam not being a significant threat, well let me let the former president and current speaker explain:

"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."

President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998
Text Of Clinton Statement On Iraq - February 17, 1998

"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.
The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people."

President Clinton
Oval Office Address to the American People
December 16, 1998
Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike - December 16, 1998

"Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There's no question about that."

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
During an interview on "Meet The Press"
November 17, 2002
The Democrats and Weapons of Mass Destruction -- Institute for Public Accuracy (IPA)

"I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons."

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002
INDEX
cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=H7777&dbname=2002_record

There is much, much more and I think you get the idea.

Now back to my reply to your post:

"Now, to follow up on the humanitarian angle; Rob's point about, (for example) Zimbabwe is pertinent not least because it underscores the reality that action by the US will be, as it always has been predicated primarily on serving US interests and no-one elses."

Would you like to explain what the US gained during WWII? Which of our interests were we protecting in Korea? What assets in Vietnam?

"predicated primarily on serving US interests and no-one elses", give me a break. Sure we protect our assets and those of our allies, makes sense to me. Whay we are not more involved in Zimbabwe is something I do not know and thankfully I pay people who know a lot more than you oer me to make those decisions. But to say that we are not involved because the US has no interests in that country is irresponsible and factually deficient.

"In the case of Iraq, the interests 'protected' are plain for all to see, and it had little or nothing to do with UN resolutions or humanitarian 'aid'. But you chose to side step that issue so I wonder is that perhaps a little too much reality for you."

Are you suggesting that the UN is obsolete and needs to be modernized (and hopefully moved out of the US)? I would agree with that. However, your assertion that the reasons for being in Iraq is to protect interests that are "plain to see" is also factually deficient. Please state your evidence that the war in Iraq is all about the oil. You can make these unfounded claims and spew misguided thoughts, but what are your facts. BTW, this is where the spewer (you) usually does not respond to the spewee (me) and is never heard form again because you cannot support this fiction. At least give it a try.

A little too much reality for me? I think not! You have not presented reality in any factual sense.

 

[SilverSoldier]

This thread will no doubt garner a lot of hot comment.

My belief simply is that we were duped by Bush into going to war. He needed a reason to save face over 9/11, and going to Iraq and creating a seek and destroy mission of Saddam seemed good enough for America. But, that was the only thing I can think of that was truly good that has come about of this gawd-awful war.

His premise was that of a zealot, "God is on my side, watch and see."
[barfs in shoes....]
Oddly, Saddam and Osama believed the same. {barf on them....}

So as it stands, if we do withdraw from Iraq too quickly, the country WILL be consumed by factions both poltical and terrorist, and if we put ourselves in the shoes of the average Iraqi citizen, fear and terror crawl through our bodies wondering how we might survive at all.

There must be a careful, timely withdrawal from Iraq. But that debate is left mostly to both conservative and liberal zealots, who will pound the verbal hell out of each other and gain nothing.

We all hate this war. We all hate the trouble and strife between races, political systems, and even our neighbors. We wish they would all die so we could live in peace. The sad truth is, they ARE dying. All around us.

Wouldn't it be better if we could learn a little tolerance and patience and learn to live in peace?

Yes, Bush be damned. But he is no worse than any past or future president we may have. And for that matter, he is no worse than most any one of us here or anywhere else. Perhaps we should raise our own level of humanity before we continue damning the entire human race. Start with yourself. What one thing can I do to better myself and another human being today?

Pay it forward. After all the bullshit, this where humanity will save itself.

My two cents.

 

[rob_just_rob]

Too much reality for you?

No.

I do happen to have other things to do than check for your responses every hour. Try a little patience.