Aid and comfort to the enemy?

Those photos documented nothing, thier interpritation was based on the known fabricators interigations mentioned in the earlier sited article, whose infromation was disproven by inspectors before the war started. As for the votes sited, for one the congress didnt have the same info as the president, and the president didnt follow the resolution anyway. For the second the terms are just ridiculous, for instance the bill provided no protection for our forces as they leave. To put it bluntly its an unpassable pr stunt. If they are so confident of the results they
should allow Murthas bill for a vote. Being in powells speech is not the same as "documented". If I take a picture from google maps and say its something, is it then documented?

Hence my whole point. Prove that the photographs and documents used in 2001/2002 were forged, Googled, and/or Photoshopped. Until there is side-by-side proof, then this has been nothing but a waste of time based on hearsay and speculation. Call me silly for needing more, but don’t call me blind. If that proof comes to light then I will say that a great disservice has been done to this nation, and he should be held accountable under the full weight of the law. I only posted the votes to prove to you that despite all the yelling and childish accusations the party’s involved did not have enough proof to end an “Illegal Warâ€￾. Of course it was a PR event, and it was done for the very same reasons.

As for the votes sited, for one the congress didnt have the same info as the president, and the president didnt follow the resolution anyway.

I just wanted to clear this up too. For the first part of the statement reread one of my posts above. Decisions of that nature come with the position. As for the second part of the statement, I believe that it is the 1998 resolution you are referring to which did not authorize the use of force. Use of force was authorized in the 2002 vote. Granted there may be cause to hold the President accountable under other stipulations of the 2002 resolution. One being, he has to report the ongoing progress to Congress every 60 days.

Another issue that could be used to handcuff this administration is that the 2002 resolution was passed to uphold selected UN resolutions. If you want the troops out by the letter of the law, have the UN go in to do weapon inspections, and make their report (if no weapons are found). Once that is completed, the 2002 resolution should be void. Until then this administration has a free reign.
 

sentrido

Veteran
Jan 8, 2004
1,004
0
Why are photos that show nothing but milk trucks documented proof of something for you? The "photos" show no proof. They werent doctored, they were just trucks. The article I sited showed documented proof:
...The White House, for example, ignored evidence gathered by United Nations weapons inspectors shortly before the war that disproved Curveball's account....

And what documents are you talking about? Did powell have some documents? I really dont remember any.

Do "United Nations weapons inspectors" document? I hope so....

I guess each of us can interperet the resolution however we want. Bush though it was a green light for war, some, maybe foolishly, thought it would aid in putting diplomatic pressure on Iraq.
 
My whole contention is that the President doesn’t know a milk truck from a cruise missile. Someone had to tell the President that those were mobile chemical labs. Until someone can come forward with proof that the President knew that those were “just trucksâ€; and said the heck with it all we’re going to war anyway, my argument still stands. I can not believe that someone in that position would act with so little disregard to the lives under his command.

Maybe I’m afraid that someone in his position would have so little disregard to those under his command.

Did we forget that Iraq refused the UN weapon inspection team(s) to complete their duty under the 1991 treaty? It was not until 2003 that Blix/UN started to second guess their observations. A little late don’t you think? Up until that time they maintained that the Inspectors could not account for Iraq’s full arsenal. Yep, you might want to lump Blix in with those that contested they were chemical labs. He certainly didn’t help any anti-invasion cause then.
 

markkus757

Veteran
Jul 26, 2004
598
1
IIRC, this whole debate is a waste of time. I'll agree that Bush used the wrong approach to go to Congress. He didn't have to go to the UN. He didn't have to get anybody to believe him that he thought Saddam had WMDs(even though everyone in the world had the same assumption). Saddam violated the Gulf War treaty when he refused to cooperate while Clinton was in office. Once he kicked the UN inspectors out, we had the right to forcibly put them back in the country and enforce the treaty signed after Gulf 1. I believe Bush was trying to make the best case possible and WMDs seemed to be a strong assumption that he could bank on. What makes you think that most of the administration just took this for granted instead of really vetting the information? I wouldn't say they lied to the public, I would say they failed the public by making sure that everyone's assumptions were correct.
 

sentrido

Veteran
Jan 8, 2004
1,004
0
Sure, lets just be clear here, "everyone" obviously wasn't really everyone.
I mean there were quite a few countries who didnt go along.
 

sentrido

Veteran
Jan 8, 2004
1,004
0
Did we forget that Iraq refused the UN weapon inspection team(s) to complete their duty under the 1991 treaty? It was not until 2003 that Blix/UN started to second guess their observations. A little late don’t you think? Up until that time they maintained that the Inspectors could not account for Iraq’s full arsenal. Yep, you might want to lump Blix in with those that contested they were chemical labs. He certainly didn’t help any anti-invasion cause then.

You mean the Hans Blix, being guided by the CIA and finding nothing before the war? Who openly opposed the war? You mean the inspectors who were, ironically, forced to leave Iraq by us?

The treaty? Do you mean that Americans died in Iraq for some foolish pride? I'm not pro Saddam, I Just dont think removing marginalized and contained (at least according to the current admin before the war ) has-been dictators are worth American lives.


My whole contention is that the President doesn’t know a milk truck from a cruise missile. Someone had to tell the President that those were mobile chemical labs. Until someone can come forward with proof that the President knew that those were “just trucksâ€; and said the heck with it all we’re going to war anyway, my argument still stands. I can not believe that someone in that position would act with so little disregard to the lives under his command.

Maybe I’m afraid that someone in his position would have so little disregard to those under his command.

http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/...005/1122nj1.htm

As long as these things like this are kept from us, I guess your "argument" can always stand. How convienent for Bush.
 
OP
wnbubbleboy

wnbubbleboy

Veteran
Aug 21, 2002
944
22
By God Indiana
You mean the Hans Blix, being guided by the CIA and finding nothing before the war? Who openly opposed the war? You mean the inspectors who were, ironically, forced to leave Iraq by us?

The treaty? Do you mean that Americans died in Iraq for some foolish pride? I'm not pro Saddam, I Just dont think removing marginalized and contained (at least according to the current admin before the war ) has-been dictators are worth American lives.
http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/...005/1122nj1.htm

As long as these things like this are kept from us, I guess your "argument" can always stand. How convienent for Bush.

Here's a interveiw with Colin Powell on Meet the Press May 16th 2004 apparently there was an attempt to interupt the interview by a press aid. With that being said Mr Powell states at the time they thought the information to be true:

Russert: Finally, Mr. Secretary, in February of 2003, you placed your enormous personal credibility before the United Nations and laid out a case against Saddam Hussein citing...

Powell: Not off.

Emily: No. They can't use it. They're editing it. They (unintelligible).

Powell: He's still asking me questions. Tim.

Emily: He was not...

Powell: Tim, I'm sorry, I lost you.

Russert: I'm right here, Mr. Secretary. I would hope they would put you back on camera. I don't know who did that.

Powell: We really...

Russert: I think that was one of your staff, Mr. Secretary. I don't think that's appropriate.

Powell: Emily, get out of the way.

Emily: OK.

Powell: Bring the camera back, please. I think we're back on, Tim. Go ahead with your last question.

Russert: Thank you very much, sir. In February of 2003, you put your enormous personal reputation on the line before the United Nations and said that you had solid sources for the case against Saddam Hussein. It now appears that an agent called Curveball had misled the CIA by suggesting that Saddam had trucks and trains that were delivering biological and chemical weapons. How concerned are you that some of the information you shared with the world is now inaccurate and discredited?

Powell: I'm very concerned. When I made that presentation in February 2003, it was based on the best information that the Central Intelligence Agency made available to me. We studied it carefully; we looked at the sourcing in the case of the mobile trucks and trains. There was multiple sourcing for that. Unfortunately, that multiple sourcing over time has turned out to be not accurate. And so I'm deeply disappointed. But I'm also comfortable that at the time that I made the presentation, it reflected the collective judgment, the sound judgment of the intelligence community. But it turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading. And for that, I am disappointed and I regret it.

Russert: Mr. Secretary, we thank you very much for joining us again and sharing your views with us today.

Powell: Thanks, Tim.

Russert: And that was an unedited interview with the secretary of state taped earlier this morning from Jordan. We appreciate Secretary Powell's willingness to overrule his press aide's attempt to abruptly cut off our discussion as I began to ask my final question.


 

sentrido

Veteran
Jan 8, 2004
1,004
0
Whats your point? That Powell is a loyal soldier to the end? That Powell wasnt given the whole truth? The point is there is a deliberate effort to Prevent the American people from knowing who knew what, and when did they know it.The American people are still waiting to find out what got removed from that speech, one can only imagine what this administration expected him to say, and why he had to question it.
 
OP
wnbubbleboy

wnbubbleboy

Veteran
Aug 21, 2002
944
22
By God Indiana
Whats your point? That Powell is a loyal soldier to the end? That Powell wasnt given the whole truth? The point is there is a deliberate effort to Prevent the American people from knowing who knew what, and when did they know it.The American people are still waiting to find out what got removed from that speech, one can only imagine what this administration expected him to say, and why he had to question it.

Well regarding Iraq. Mr Powell has been qouted as saying "You break it, you bought it."

Which IMHO means if we go into Iraq we pretty much have to stay until they can support their own country with out us.

Somebody should have listened to him Before we decided to go into that country, regardless of political affiliation.

We are there now, we have to see it through or we will be seen as cowards by the rest of the world. Bin Lauden(sp) decided after Africa that we could not sutain causualties (military) and felt free to attack us at will.
 

sentrido

Veteran
Jan 8, 2004
1,004
0
Being seen as a "coward" cant justify a war of attrition, can it?
Do we have to occupy Iraq in order to kill terrorists?
 
OP
wnbubbleboy

wnbubbleboy

Veteran
Aug 21, 2002
944
22
By God Indiana
Being seen as a "coward" cant justify a war of attrition, can it?
Do we have to occupy Iraq in order to kill terrorists?

Ever hear of the Cold War?

They hate our way of life and want to end it. The difference between them and the Communists are they are willing to die doing it.

With us in Iraq, it scares the Sh*t out of the terrorists. They engage in Harrasment tactics only, with Car bombs, and random RPG attacks, no direct offensives. We control the front we go where we want to go.

Like Mr Powell said "We broke it." We own this mess now and it's up to us to clean it up. Congress voted to go in right or wrong if we leave now the region will destablize and we'll have to go back in at some point again.

For the Democrats to voice opposition emboldens the enemy it gives them "hope". This is absolutely unforgivable. You cannot state you support the troops while giving their enemy a morale boost.

Now regarding terrorists we have to enter Syria or Iran to kill their support network.
 

sentrido

Veteran
Jan 8, 2004
1,004
0
Ever hear of the Cold War? This is similar they what to kill us and are not afraid to die doing it.

With us in Iraq it scares the Sh*t out of the terrorists. They engage in Harrasment tactics only with Car bombs, and random RPG attacks no direct offensives. We control the front we go where we want to go.

Scared? Scared into killing more Americans with "Harrasment tactics"? Yea, we go where we want to go, and hopfully nobody gets blown up on the ride. What the hell are you talking about?

Like Mr Powell said "We broke it." We own this mess now and it's up to us to clean it up. Congress voted to go in right or wrong if we leave now the region will destablize and we'll have to go back in at some point again.
Why? How do you know it will destablize the region? We are in the middle of a civil war there now, the only thing that would change if we left is no more Americans in the cross fire.

For the Democrats to voice opposition emboldens the enemy it gives them "hope". This is absolutely unforgivable. You cannot state you support the troops while giving their enemy a morale boost.

Now regarding terrorists we have to enter Syria or Iran to kill them.

Bullshit. Giving the enemy "hope" and a "morale" boost my ass. Lets not do the smart thing and save America lives cause it might give the enemy "hope". Hope for what? This is stupid logic. You dont have any real justification for keeping our troops there so you come up with the same old bullshit, questioning patriotism crap. Any critisizm of strategy or policy becomes "aiding and embolding the enemy" . Whoever ends up in control of Iraq its gonna be Iraqis, and guess what, they aint gonna give a damn about toppling America, they are gonna be worried about running thier country.
 
OP
wnbubbleboy

wnbubbleboy

Veteran
Aug 21, 2002
944
22
By God Indiana
Scared? Scared into killing more Americans with "Harrasment tactics"? Yea, we go where we want to go, and hopfully nobody gets blown up on the ride. What the hell are you talking about?

There is no front in Iraq so what ever missions the troops are deloyed for there will always be resistance. It's meant to get the reaction that your are giving.

Why? How do you know it will destablize the region? We are in the middle of a civil war there now, the only thing that would change if we left is no more Americans in the cross fire.

We destablized it when we took Saddam out of power for what ever reason right or wrong. We owe it to those people to have them secure in there own government before we leave. I do agree with you that we need to get out.

Bullshit. Giving the enemy "hope" and a "morale" boost my ass. Lets not do the smart thing and save America lives cause it might give the enemy "hope". Hope for what? This is stupid logic.

I was in the military along time ago. All I know is I would want the F*cker that I was potentially going to kill to be hating life as much as possible. The rougher we could make it on them the better. Giving that SOB any thought that there would be a tommorrow was detrimental to my safety. I am not in harms way now but I still hold that veiw and that's my logic.

You dont have any real justification for keeping our troops there so you come up with the same old bullshit, questioning patriotism crap. Any critisizm of strategy or policy becomes "aiding and embolding the enemy" . Whoever ends up in control of Iraq its gonna be Iraqis, and guess what, they aint gonna give a damn about toppling America, they are gonna be worried about running thier country.

Nobody's questioning patriotism and I have already stated my view.



We could go on and on about our differing points of view.


I think though that there is something that we can agree on.

That is having a plan to get out (My veiw is when Iraqi leadership is ready to run their government and protect their borders)(I see your POV is right now) that is clear and defined. No dates need to be disclosed to the public but as long as they are inplace.
 
OP
wnbubbleboy

wnbubbleboy

Veteran
Aug 21, 2002
944
22
By God Indiana
Overwelming Defeat?!? You must be joking. What was the margin? The 2004 presidential election was determined by ONE state. That's not overwelming sir.

Sorry. I was interjecting opinion instead of facts. I stand corrected. How about I state it as "Defeated".

PRESIDENTIAL RESULTS (270 Electoral Votes Needed to Win)

Electoral Votes Popular Votes % Popular Votes

Bush ® 286 60,693,281 51

Kerry (D) 252 57,355,978 48