Tenet confirms Bush didn't lie about WMD
- Thread starter B_JQblonde
- Start date
There was no change in policy. Clinton passed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998 ,in which regime change in Iraq , was officillay deemed US policy .
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, so he didn't rigorously verify the evidence??
I guess CLinton, Gore, ALbright, Berger, Cohen, Kerry, Dean, Pelosi , and Blair didn't either huh??
Speaking of evidence , there is absolutely ZERO evidence that a 500000th review of the evidence would have led anybody to a differnet conclusion.
D_Gunther Snotpole
Account Disabled
I don't doubt that the Bush administration sincerely thought there were WMDs in Iraq. After all, Clinton himself -- no friend of the administration -- came to GWB's defense on this, acknowledging that he, Clinton, had made the same assumption.
Now, whether Iraq posed any real threat to the United States notwithstanding its putative possession of WMDs is another question. And I can't see that they did.
Now, whether Iraq posed any real threat to the United States notwithstanding its putative possession of WMDs is another question. And I can't see that they did.
That wasn't their job (except for Blair as the respective chief executive of the UK).
Oh, and about that "vigorously verifying the evidence", as though it were a small detail, I invite you to tell that to the families of the 3000+ US soldiers who died for Bush' cause. They don't mind that their sons and daughters amounted to nothing more than cannon fodder and target practice, simply because GWB didn't bother to assess the true threat of Iraq.
Blood stains GWB's hands.
That's just simple logic.
You have to ask. Is it possible that they would give those WMD to an enemy of the United States??
Only a fool would answer no to that .
Your dramaqueenish handwringing just proves why the left is not capable of making the incredibly tough decisions that are necessary for the CIC of the United States.
What do George Washington, Abe Lincoln and FDR have in common?
Right, alot of blood stains on their hands.
Be more specific, please.
Iraq was a Soviet client throughout the Cold War, which prima facie would make this very difficult.
The photos of the Bagram boneyard (where old jets are dumped after being damaged or having parts stripped off) show hardware from the Mikoyan-Gurevich design bureau, mainly MiG-21s, 23s, and 27s. The complete aircraft which, bizarrely, Saddam H had buried were, as the photos clearly show, Mig-25s. And of course the AK series assault rifles and RPG-7s are all of Soviet make or design, as were all Iraqi tanks - postwar T-series (nice designs, too, judging from the ones I've examined, but the tankers have to be unusually short guys to fit inside). All this is one reason that Iraq's neighbor, the Shah, always bought American weapons.
There was, obviously, a minor power realignment and adjustment after the Shah skipped out, as is only natural. The realignment became more urgent after Iraq tried to snip off some Iranian territory, thinking it would be easy while Iran was in political upheaval. I suspect this is the period when Iraq was an "ally" of the US, but just how is never explained. Both were enemies, but one wasn't as big an enemy as the other, partly because only one had US embassy personnel handcuffed to radiators. So how did an "enemy" morph into an "ally" in popular delusion?
I suspect this claim is just one of those imaginary talking points of the BDS camp but am interested in the possibility that there's something to it. I have yet to see an honest exposition of it, though.
First off, plenty of ringleaders HAVE been caught.
Second, if you have a better way of catching Bin Laden , please do your patriotic duty and inform the US government.
Failing that, inform the Democrats. They have no idea how to do it either.
In fact , their " we need to be nicer to everybody we arrested as enemy combatants' policy is holding us back, wouldncha say??
Yep, that sounds like the Times, all right. Of course SH didn't pose an imminent threat to the United States. The official presidential policy was to not wait until he did - not at all an unreasonable stance. In fact I recall a well-publicized speech which said exactly that. There was a bit more in the speech about him being a threat to US interests. A reasonable interpretation of "threat to US interests" might be future bomb attacks on embassies in the region, future attempts to blow up US Navy ships docked in Arab ports, kidnapping or murdering tourists, shooting missiles at American aircraft (which he was indeed doing at that time), paying Palestinian bombers to blow up American citizens in Israel (which he was also doing at that time), attempting to snip off oil fields in Kuwait or Saudi Arabia, possible attacks on long-term US allies in the region, such as Turkey, etc. These are all perfectly legit US interests, whether the Times has ever acknowledged them or not.
No, this "moonbat, left-wing liberal" would have spent his time on hunting down Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan. The real culprit behind 9/11 is still at large, nearly 6 years after the fact.
WOW! How do you know Bin Laden is in Afghanistan?
And how do yo know he was the real culprit behind 9/11?
And if he was, you think catching him is going to stop AL Qaeda? They'll just pack it up and go home?
{PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE Don't appoint this guy NSA <snickeR> }
And how do yo know he was the real culprit behind 9/11?
And if he was, you think catching him is going to stop AL Qaeda? They'll just pack it up and go home?
{PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE Don't appoint this guy NSA <snickeR> }
Sure he did . If he had WMD ,as everybody thought, brother,THAT's imminent threat.
How long would it take to get some anthrax from a lab in Iraq to a letter at NBC ??
A week??
"Your dramaqueenish handwringing just proves why the left is not capable of making the incredibly tough decisions that are necessary for the CIC of the United States.
What do George Washington, Abe Lincoln and FDR have in common?
Right, alot of blood stains on their hands."
First off, it is a lot. Not alot.
Y'all from where? Texas. Love it alot.
Why is that republicans always cling to the belief that anyone against them is against the best interests of the United States?
It is an effective strategy to put fear in their base. The republican base are conformists. Nothing wrong with that. The problem is that they breed loyalty for the sake of being loyal.
Bush brought us another Vietnam or the USSR's Afghanistan and the republican base still cannot admit his failure as a military leader.
My family is retired Air Force and Marines.
As soon as we rolled into the cities and began pulling guard duty on the streets the war was lost. His tactics are flawed and he refuses to change them. That is the republican power structure in a nutshell. Why, because they are making obscene amounts of money in this war.
Pull the troops out into the desert, evacuate every woman and child you can find and level the city (Baghdad) like we did in WWII.
Haliburton and their fellow food contractors charge the government $28 for every styrofoam plate taken from the chow line at camp Anaconda.
That is how they determine how many meals were served. The soldiers have a technique of keeping their food warm by taking a spare plate and putting it on top of their food, much like a take out clamshell.
The government pays Haliburton $56 dollars for every meal a marine trys to keep warm while he brings it back to his tent hundreds of yards away.
8,000 calories for a marine humping all day; is about four meals.
$224 dollars a day to feed one combat trooper via Dick Cheney's boys.
$1,568 dollars a week per soldier.
$81,536 dollars per year, per soldier.
Even if the amount is half that, one plate each, it is OBSCENE, considering most of the food they are given is variations on local arabic cuisine.
The marines say to the family, we are there protecting cheese. Convoys of cheese to feed us all and the Iraqis that contract with the U.S.
You want to keep going off topic guys? Hell I'll enjoy it!
Lets talk about guns next. I'm a liberal that shoots 1 MOA at 500 meters.
:biggrin1:
What do George Washington, Abe Lincoln and FDR have in common?
Right, alot of blood stains on their hands."
First off, it is a lot. Not alot.
Y'all from where? Texas. Love it alot.
Why is that republicans always cling to the belief that anyone against them is against the best interests of the United States?
It is an effective strategy to put fear in their base. The republican base are conformists. Nothing wrong with that. The problem is that they breed loyalty for the sake of being loyal.
Bush brought us another Vietnam or the USSR's Afghanistan and the republican base still cannot admit his failure as a military leader.
My family is retired Air Force and Marines.
As soon as we rolled into the cities and began pulling guard duty on the streets the war was lost. His tactics are flawed and he refuses to change them. That is the republican power structure in a nutshell. Why, because they are making obscene amounts of money in this war.
Pull the troops out into the desert, evacuate every woman and child you can find and level the city (Baghdad) like we did in WWII.
Haliburton and their fellow food contractors charge the government $28 for every styrofoam plate taken from the chow line at camp Anaconda.
That is how they determine how many meals were served. The soldiers have a technique of keeping their food warm by taking a spare plate and putting it on top of their food, much like a take out clamshell.
The government pays Haliburton $56 dollars for every meal a marine trys to keep warm while he brings it back to his tent hundreds of yards away.
8,000 calories for a marine humping all day; is about four meals.
$224 dollars a day to feed one combat trooper via Dick Cheney's boys.
$1,568 dollars a week per soldier.
$81,536 dollars per year, per soldier.
Even if the amount is half that, one plate each, it is OBSCENE, considering most of the food they are given is variations on local arabic cuisine.
The marines say to the family, we are there protecting cheese. Convoys of cheese to feed us all and the Iraqis that contract with the U.S.
You want to keep going off topic guys? Hell I'll enjoy it!
Lets talk about guns next. I'm a liberal that shoots 1 MOA at 500 meters.
:biggrin1:
Pete Townshend is a terrorist?? *Re-reads lyrics to Baba O'Reilly* Damn!! It's so freakin obvious now!
B_Think_Kink
Sexy Member
A little lesson is basic logic, snookems.
Tactics/them is plural. If the words are plural, they HAVE by definition, changed them.
:wink:
