Troll Kingdom

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Chris Wallace interviews Bill Clinton

Sarek wrote:

He had from 1991 to March of 2003 to move or dismantle any and all WMD's he may have had. Now, are you going to sit and tell me that Bush and his advisors were to stupid to think of that themselves?

Anyone who claims WMD was the sole reason for removing Saddam Hussein wasn't paying attention. America's history with Saddam Hussein did not begin with Bush's inauguration. Islamic terrorism did not begin with Bush's inauguration. World history did not begin with Bush's inauguration. Get out of the time warp, Saddam Hussein was a threat before Bush, Saddam Hussein needed to be removed before Bush, and Bush finally did the job that two previous presidents failed to do.

As for whether WMD can be moved, destroyed, or broken down and buried in walls, I assume you have enough brain cells to figure out whether that is possible or not. Or do you? You tell me.

-Ogami
 
I be willing to bet that my knowledge and experience with biological/chemical and nuclear weapons far surpasses yours.

Ogami said:
Anyone who claims WMD was the sole reason for removing Saddam Hussein wasn't paying attention.

-Ogami

Yes. And Bush knew that as well. That’s why he manufactured and or exaggerated all the “intelligence” that he claimed they had linking Iraq to Al Qeada and 9/11. After 12 years of weapons inspections, failed and accomplished, it would have been impossible for Bush to launch an attack against Iraq on the claim of WMD’s alone.

Lie #1--They Attacked Us: Iraq Supported Al Qaeda.

Fact: Bush finally admitted half a year after the invasion that there was no evidence Saddam Hussein's Iraq had any links to the 9/11 attacks, undermining eighteen months of implying the exact opposite. Yet in a brief and rather reserved statement after Saddam's capture and his macho 2004 State of the Union address--Bush again dished out the fundamental lie that the war and occupation of Iraq can reasonably be linked to the "war on terror."

Lies #2--Imminent Threats: Iraq's Bio-Chem and Nuclear Weapons Programs.

Fact: A year after using his 2003 State of the Union address to paint Iraq's allegedly vast arsenal of WMD as a grave threat to the United States and the world, days later, chief US weapons inspector David Kay quit and began telling the world what the Bush Administration had been denying since taking office: that Saddam Hussein's regime was but a weak shadow of the semi-fearsome military force it had been at the time of the first Gulf War thirteen years ago; that it had no significant chemical, biological or nuclear weapons programs or stockpiles still in place

Lie #3--It Will Be Easy: Iraq as a "Cakewalk."

Fact: Three years and 74,000 dead or injured pretty much explains what a big lie that was.

Lie #4--There's overwhelming evidence there was a connection between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government. I am very confident that there was an established relationship there." - Vice President Cheney, 1/22/04

Fact: According to documents, "Saddam Hussein warned his Iraqi supporters to be wary of joining forces with foreign Arab fighters entering Iraq to battle U.S. troops. The document provides another piece of evidence challenging the Bush administration contention of close cooperation between Saddam's regime and al Qaeda terrorists." [NY Times, 1/15/04]

Lie #5--The regime of Saddam Hussein cultivated ties to terror while it built weapons of mass destruction. President Bush's UN speech, 9/23/03

Lie #6--"CIA interrogators have already elicited from the top Al Qaeda officials in custody that, before the American-led invasion, Osama bin Laden had rejected entreaties from some of his lieutenants to work jointly with Saddam." [NY Times, 1/15/04]

Lie #7--Iraq (is) the central front in the war on terror. President Bush's UN speech, 9/23/03

Fact: "Sec. of State Colin Powell conceded Thursday that despite his assertions to the United Nations last year, he had no 'smoking gun' proof of a link between the government of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and terrorists of Al Qaeda. “I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection,” Powell said." [NY Times, 1/9/04]

Lie #8--There's no question that Saddam Hussein had Al Qaeda ties. President Bush, 9/17/03

Fact: Three former Bush Administration officials who worked on intelligence and national security issues said the prewar evidence tying Al Qaeda was tenuous, exaggerated and often at odds with the conclusions of key intelligence agencies. [National Journal, 8/9/03]

Lie #9--There was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Vice President Cheney, 9/14/03

Fact: Declassified documents undercut Bush administration claims before the war that Hussein had links to Al Qaeda. [LA Times, 7/19/03].

Fact: The chairman of the monitoring group appointed by the United Nations Security Council to track Al Qaeda told reporters that his team had found no evidence linking Al Qaeda to Saddam Hussein. [NY Times, 6/27/03]

Fact: "U.S. allies have found no links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. 'We have found no evidence of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda,' said Europe's top investigator. 'If there were such links, we would have found them. But we have found no serious connections whatsoever.'" [LA Times, 11/4/02]

Lie #10--We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein ... had either direction or control of 9/11. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 9/16/03

Fact: President Bush sent a letter to Congress on 3/19/03 saying that the Iraq war was permitted specifically under legislation that authorized force against nations, organizations, or persons, who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Fact: Vice President Cheney said on 9/14/03 I think it's not surprising that people make that connection between Saddam and 9/11- with no evidence to back up his claim.

Fact: Two days after Cheney made that statement, Reuters reported on 9/18/03 that President Bush distanced himself from the comments.

Lie #11--We found the weapons of mass destruction. President Bush, 5/29/03

Lie #12--"We know where the WMDs are. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/30/03

Fact: No WMD have been found. According to Reuters on 9/15/03, the Administration's hand picked weapons inspector has come up with no WMD on his visit to Iraq. A draft report on the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq provides no solid evidence that Iraq had such arms when the United States invaded the country in March. (Note: the chemical weapons Bush was referring to at the time never materialized.)

Lie #13--The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. President Bush, 3/19/03

Fact: Despite the claim that Iraq's supposed WMD posed an imminent threat to the U.S., Secretary of State Colin Powell said on 2/24/01 that Saddam Hussein has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction.

Lie #14--The president knew that [Iraq] was a threat. - National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 9/24/03

Fact: Vice President Cheney said on 9/16/01 that Saddam Hussein was not a threat. He said, “Saddam Hussein is bottled up.”

Lie #15--The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. President Bush, 1/28/03

Fact: On 7/8/03, the W. Post reported the Administration admitted the Iraq-Nuclear allegation was false. Revelations by officials at the CIA, the State Department, the UN, in Congress and elsewhere made clear that the White House knew the claim was false before making the allegation [7/20/03]. In fact, CIA Director George Tenet successfully intervened with White House officials to have the reference removed from a Bush speech in Oct. of 2002. [W. Post, 7/13/03]

Lie #16--We believe Saddam has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. Vice President Cheney, 3/16/03

Fact: The UN reported on 9/8/03 that Iraq was not capable of pursuing an active nuclear weapons program after 1991. The report said, "No indication of post-1991 weaponization activities was uncovered in Iraq.

Fact: Voice of America reported on 9/16/03 that, a senior official in Iraq's new science ministry says the country never revived its nuclear program after inspectors dismantled it in the 1990's. The scientist, now a member of the U.S.-backed administration in Iraq, says Iraqi scientists had no way to re-start the program because the inspectors took away all the necessary resources
 
Monday-morning quarterbacking from Sarek. Not having precise intel coming out of a closed police state is not the same as a lie. And while you would give Saddam Hussein the benefit of a doubt, on his continuing acquisition of WMD, Bush did not share that view. And the world is better for it.

Because if Bush was lying, then why is not one of you demanding we reinstall Saddam Hussein? If Bush was wrong, then Saddam must be right.

-Ogami
 
Ogami said:
Monday-morning quarterbacking from Sarek. Not having precise intel coming out of a closed police state is not the same as a lie. And while you would give Saddam Hussein the benefit of a doubt, on his continuing acquisition of WMD, Bush did not share that view. And the world is better for it.

Because if Bush was lying, then why is not one of you demanding we reinstall Saddam Hussein? If Bush was wrong, then Saddam must be right.

-Ogami

You are an idiot.

Only a moron would demand that we reinstall Saddam. He's out. Done, over.

Taking Saddam out was a decision that did not have to be done when it was. Bush already had us involved in one war in the Mideast. It was a piss poor military decision and a poor executive decision to drop the hunt for Bin Laden and divert resources to Saddam. A man who felt secure in his own little corner of the world and wasn't going to go anywhere.

Bush lied to get us into Iraq. Period. He's gotten us involved it two different wars and we are loosing both because he's spread our people and our resources too thin.

If Bush would have waited, secured Afghanistan, abolished the Taliban and captured Bin Laden. He could have used Iraq as a humanitarian effort citing Saddam’s massacres of his own people; continued oppression and his campaigns of aggression on neighboring US allied states to supply the justification. Chances are, congress would have given him the go ahead and the American public would have been a lot more forgiving if he blundered the job like he has. They may have even overlooked his skill at picking the pockets of the middle class and the elderly and finding new and innovative ways to improve the standard of living by lining the pockets of his fat cat cronies.

Instead, he lied and cheated his way into Iraq at the cost of the war on terror. The most wanted terrorist in the world is still running loose, the Taliban are making a strong comeback and we’re shipping our kids home on gurneys and in caskets by the thousands with no end is sight.

If nothing else, Bush and his administration should be tried and convicted for excessive stupidity and being complete idiots.
 
Sarek wrote:

Only a moron would demand that we reinstall Saddam. He's out. Done, over.

But he's a victim of Bush! You've all been screaming that for years, you'll even cite UN inspectors who say Saddam was telling the truth, not Bush! Bush is trying to steal his oil, too!

It was a piss poor military decision and a poor executive decision to drop the hunt for Bin Laden and divert resources to Saddam.

You're the idiot if you think it's been a coincidence that there have been no more 9/11s. It's because we prevented them, not because Al-Queda suddenly gave up!

Yes, I know "Bush distracted us" is a bumper sticker. You live for your Democrat bumper stickers. Marching like a zombie, with arms outstretched, Sarek murmurs "Bush distracted us", marching mindlessly with the crowd. Try thinking for yourself. Notice that Al-Queda is on the defensive, across the world. And that makes them angry. As it apparently makes the Democrats angry. Bush is faced with two enemies, people who have avowed his destruction no matter the cost.

Democrats say Bush distracted us in the war on terror. Yet what sort of distraction is the hue and cry they raised over Abu Ghraib? Gitmo? Al-Queda wiretapping? Monitoring Al-Quedas bank transactions?

Those are the distractions that the left/liberals/Democrats have given, and they will cost American lives. Bush hasn't distracted us from the war on terror. Bush is fighting the war on terror single-handedly, while the critics do everything they can to provide aid and comfort to the enemy.

I didn't put them on the side of terrorists, they chose to do that on their own.

-Ogami
 
Ogami said:
Notice that Al-Queda is on the defensive, across the world. And that makes them angry. As it apparently makes the Democrats angry. Bush is faced with two enemies, people who have avowed his destruction no matter the cost.

75,000 soldiers and civilians that have been killed or wounded in Iraq might beg to differ. What makes the Democrats angry is the denial coming from the Bush administration and the Republicans. Things are not better, they are getting worse. But because they haven’t hit on American soil yet, the administration is trying to convince the American people that he’s kept them safe. Well, let me fill you in on little bit of information. My wife has been sitting in Iraq for a year now. It looks like she’ll be there for another year at the rate things are going. She’s not safe. Therefore, I’m not safe, and the rest of my family isn’t safe. And I’m not calling for Bush’s destruction. Just his removal from office. That would be fine by me.

Ogami said:
Democrats say Bush distracted us in the war on terror. Yet what sort of distraction is the hue and cry they raised over Abu Ghraib? Gitmo? Al-Qaeda wiretapping? Monitoring Al-Quads bank transactions?

Legitimate calls for investigations into human rights violations and violations of the Articles of the Geneva Convention? You know, those pesky little things that were drafted to guarantee the fair and humane treatment of prisoners of war and enemy combatants? Those things that were drafted in an effort to elevate us and other civilized nations above the barbaric practices of the middle ages? Those things that are meant to guarantee that we live by a code of higher moral and ethical standards in conduct? I can see how they might inconvenience George, Dick and Donald though. Integrity doesn’t seem to be a major concern in this administration.

As far as wiretapping and bank transactions, it’s been beat to death. I had more of a problem with the sneaky, backstabbing way George implemented it than I did with the actual practice. But I won’t beat him over it any more. He’s gotten his pee pee whacked over that more than once. And come November, he might get kicked in the ass over it again.

Ogami said:
Those are the distractions that the left/liberals/Democrats have given, and they will cost American lives. Bush hasn't distracted us from the war on terror. Bush is fighting the war on terror single-handedly, while the critics do everything they can to provide aid and comfort to the enemy.

I didn't put them on the side of terrorists, they chose to do that on their own.

Yeah, it’s that whole Constitution/Freedom of Expression thing. No one should ever be able to voice their opinions or disagreement with Government. Saddam slaughtered a few thousand of his people for speaking out against his administration. I’m sure the Republicans would love to do the same thing when people speak out against Bush.

Just think, you guys win the elections in November and you can start dismantling that part of the Constitution next. Toss it into the trash with the other Rights Bush and his cronies have taken the ice pick to.
 
That's right, more paranoia over Bush. He'll herd the liberals into concentration camps, the ovens will be running non-stop, no doubt... Doom is at hand!!!!!

Paranoia and hysterical claims about Bush's intention to form a police state will not get anyone into power. Such people don't deserve to lead.

-Ogami
 
Shakespeare put it best:
What a piece of work is Bush! How noble in reason, how infinite in faculties, in form and moving how express and admirable, in action how like an angel, in apprehension how like a god!
 
I SEE WHAT YOU HAVE DONE! YOU HAVE TURNED THE TABLES BY TRYING TO PLAY INTO A WORSHIP BUSH ROUTINE!

EXCELSIOR!~!
 
When the Republicans can't refute fact, they revert to denial, misdirection and fantasy.

No wonder this country is going down the shitter.
 
Right now it is only appropriate if all of you rise to your feet, and bow in servitude, to the greatness that is Bush.
 
I SEE WHAT YOU HAVE DONE! YOU HAVE TURNED THE TABLES BY TRYING TO PLAY INTO A WORSHIP BUSH ROUTINE!

EXCELSIOR!~!


Hey, it's not our fault you've fallen flat on your face into shit. Maybe if you weren't such a hard-ass, things would have been different.
 
Ogami said:
Right now it is only appropriate if all of you rise to your feet, and bow in servitude, to the greatness that is Bush.

bushow1.gif
 
Top