As for Kerry I leave this link to a video that is the most confusing thing I have ever seen. Never before have I seen one person contradict himself so much. ENJOY.
http://www.kerryoniraq.com/

Polls first, action later--always determined first by polls. It's no wonder the guy flip-flops as often as he does.

quote:

---

Originally posted by pennyearned:
Kerry is a typical democrat. 1.Wet index finger. 2. Hold slightly above head. 3. Determine wind direction and which side of finger is dry. 4. Make most popular dicision.

Polls first, action later--always determined first by polls. It's no wonder the guy flip-flops as often as he does.

What I'd like to know is how does the guy stand up so straight when he has no spine.

---

Broomstick.
Note his uncomfortable stride.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DiQuiRiesco:
Broomstick.
Note his uncomfortable stride.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pennyearned:
Hay, lets help him out a little more. Now we know where we can store the AK's they're using in Iraq, right Glass.

---

Bush(Jeb, Cheny, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz) planned to attack Iraq before 911.... http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

poke around in there if you aren't already familiar with these documents.....
the only real question left to be answered is WHO suplied the fasle intel.....

the WORLD agreed???? what world are you living in????? that's why we are there without UN approvl....

the sanctions were working....as PROVEN by our own findings.....

[/B][/QUOTE]

What, with the help of France and Germany? The problem is the people weren't being helped at all. Saddam was the one with the money-lined pockets. Need another castle built? Just sell more oil to the French. Need another monument erected? More oil to the Germans.

Now I believe that Bush had a vendetta against Saddam for the proposed assassination attempt on Bush sr. Not a reason to go to war. But when the administration tried to enforce the resolutions to Saddam and he flipped us off, and had been for 14 years, what do we do? Pick up our cruise missiles and go home?
Fact is, if no weapons were even being produced then why not allow U.N. inspectors in and why kick them out when they were on the verge of finding something?

Those weapons will never be found--probably in Syria now. There is still no accounting for the weapons (mustard gas, resin,...)the inspectors DID find early on.

I agree we are in pickle here. Everyone says we had no strategy. No war goes as planned and strategies are altered based upon results. The fact and problem is this is a war the likes of which has never before been fought.

quote:

---

Originally posted by glassman:
i guess that's my invitation to speak...LOL

Bush(Jeb, Cheny, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz) planned to attack Iraq before 911.... http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

poke around in there if you aren't already familiar with these documents.....
the only real question left to be answered is WHO suplied the fasle intel.....

the WORLD agreed???? what world are you living in????? that's why we are there without UN approvl....

the sanctions were working....as PROVEN by our own findings.....

---

ummm, the un approved this, they just did not have the backbone to follow it up...why? two veto's that why from two contries with a history that is just not flattering... the un made the resolution... if you are not going to back it up, what is the point of making it? there are 30-40 countries invloved not just us. they are members of the un (if not all at least the majority)...before the war almost every person interviewed said this has to be done, it is right... as it startd... this is the right thing to do... you ask------>the WORLD agreed???? (ANSWERED)

what world are you living in????? ----> what workd am I living in? the question is what world are you living it? the bleeding heart liberal media throws us smoke screens and you buy into it... the facts are there, this is just, it needed and the world agreed (until the had to act) Even Kerry said this... I have said it before and I will say it again, Kerry said any person who does not think that sadaam needed to be ousted does not belong in the white house (wrong war wrong place wrong time? please... think for yourself) (ANSWERED)

that's why we are there without UN approvl....---> Un approval? they approved it... but would not follow through, why? like I mentioned above, there are countries who are members of the un, but are self serving and refuse to do what needs to be done on a global scale. This is the kind of thought. It is like letting a fire burn your house down before admitting there is a problem. This has been going on for years... the un said it would take action, if he defied them again...and again... and again... and again... and again... and oh yeah guess what he did one more final time... thats right he diefied them again... then when it came down to it some countires were only for more retoric... again the un is there for a reason... it must be kept viable. (ANSWERED)

[This message has been edited by futuresobjective (edited October 08, 2004).]

there were 4 countries that refused to approve it not two...

they even offered to help US after we invaded and Bush flipped them off.....

the sanctions worked....our OWN White House sponsored investigation CLEARLY sates that Saddam was out of the WMD biz entirely since at least 95........

the WMD intel appears to be from Allawi and Challabi...our choices for the new Iraq governmnet....

the "liberal Media " is another myth....

corporate America owns the "liberal media"
all of the media is liberal compared to FOX.....
Fox is Rupert Murdoch, from Australia..one of our coalition memebers..hmmmmm

and Fox was the station that PREMATURELY announced Bush the winner of the last election...BEFORE the polls closed...
Fox also has William Kristol on it's staff...he's the current manager of the New American Century and the editor of The Weekly Standard....

there's even MORE BAD news where those pages came from.....

the sad part here is that the very people that are supporting Bush right now are DECENT people for the most part, who just haven't done enough research to see what's really going on....

after that i have more...stuff from CONSERVATIVE think tanks that aren't very pro-Bush either....

quote:

---

Originally posted by glassman:
NO the UN did NOT APPROVE OUR INVASION OF IRAQ... we did it without them for a REASON

there were 4 countries that refused to approve it not two...

they even offered to help US after we invaded and Bush flipped them off.....

the sanctions worked....our OWN White House sponsored investigation CLEARLY sates that Saddam was out of the WMD biz entirely since at least 95........

the WMD intel appears to be from Allawi and Challabi...our choices for the new Iraq governmnet....

the "liberal Media " is another myth....

corporate America owns the "liberal media"
all of the media is liberal compared to FOX.....
Fox is Rupert Murdoch, from Australia..one of our coalition memebers..hmmmmm

and Fox was the station that PREMATURELY announced Bush the winner of the last election...BEFORE the polls closed...
Fox also has William Kristol on it's staff...he's the current manager of the New American Century and the editor of The Weekly Standard....

there's even MORE BAD news where those pages came from.....

the sad part here is that the very people that are supporting Bush right now are DECENT people for the most part, who just haven't done enough research to see what's really going on....

[This message has been edited by glassman (edited October 08, 2004).]

---

two of them had veto power, so it was two of them that prevented it. not four.

they offered to help bush because they wanted to make money off of a war they declined to enter (after they agreed they would). I would flip them off to. The only reason (IMVHO) they wanted in was for money.
the sanctions worked....our OWN White House sponsored investigation CLEARLY sates that Saddam was out of the WMD biz entirely since at least 95........

the WMD intel appears to be from Allawi and Challabi...our choices for the new Iraq governmnet....<-- there is clear evidence as there was then that although he might not be producing them, he kept the capability to do so. And it would have been very easy for him to start. That is old news, and has just been stated again. any media, liberal or conservative, as I have said puts out info that is skewed to one side... all I am saying is that it is hard to find the balance between all of it.

i suggest that you review the most recent CIA reports, specifically ordered by the White House..
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them, a CIA report concludes.

SECURITY COUNCIL HOLDS FIRST DEBATE ON IRAQ SINCE START OF MILITARY ACTION;

SPEAKERS CALL FOR HALT TO AGGRESSION, IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWAL

Secretary-General Says Council Must Rediscover Its Unity of Purpose

The Security Council, holding its first debate on Iraq since hostilities began on 19 March, was called on to end the illegal aggression and demand the immediate withdrawal of invading forces, by an overwhelming majority of this afternoon’s 45 speakers.

Expressing regret that diplomacy had failed to resolve the question of Iraq’s disarmament, speakers emphasized that the current war, carried out without Council authorization, was a violation of international law and the United Nations Charter. Many stressed they could not understand how the Council could remain silent in the face of the aggression by two of its permanent members against another United Nations Member State.

lots of DIS-informationout there.....

but the spin in the US has been one of the most successful propaganda campaigns ever run......
this is what i am fighting...

so you see, it becomes quite clear that Bush was in a hurry to get Saddam out of Baghdad..i believe he gave him 48 hrs.....

William Kristol
The Washington Post
October 12, 2002

Has anyone had a better six weeks than George W. Bush? Just before Labor Day, the American people were uncertain about the need to act soon to remove Saddam Hussein. The Bush administration itself seemed to be in disarray. Senators and House members were objecting to a broad grant of authority to the president to use force. And our allies were even more unhappy than usual.

Then the president called in the congressional leadership, went to the United Nations and made his case. The country now supports him. His administration is at least publicly united behind him. He has won large bipartisan majorities in Congress. And he is likely to prevail in the U.N. Security Council.

What accounts for the president's success? Primarily it's the clarity, toughness and straightforwardness with which he has marshaled his arguments. There have been impressively serious and high-minded speeches, for example to the United Nations on Sept. 12 and in Cincinnati on Monday. There has been the release of information and the presentation of arguments, including the national security strategy in late September. And there have been the informal comments that have had real political punch, especially the not-so-veiled threat on Sept. 13 to Democrats standing for reelection that they could be accused of subordinating American security to the United Nations.

So the president has succeeded in explaining why Hussein must go, why time is not on our side, why deterrence can't be counted on, and why war is necessary. But now the president has to move from building support for a war to fighting a war. (The coming U.N. Security Council machinations are better understood as a prelude to war than as a real effort at persuasion.) The president now becomes a war leader, not merely -- though the "merely" is unfair -- a war mobilizer. He will have to demonstrate the skills described in his summer reading: Eliot Cohen's "Supreme Command" -- the ability to shape grand strategy and execute precise tactics in the fog of war.

This will require a change in the president's manner of speaking. He has benefited, in making the case for war, from an impressive clarity of presentation and lucidity of argument. But now his task is not to educate or persuade us. It is to defeat Saddam Hussein. And that will require the president, at times, to mislead rather than to clarify, to deceive rather than to explain.

The president's audience is no longer the American public, or even our allies. It is Hussein. Deceiving him as to the timing of the war and the manner of attack is crucial to success. We obviously cannot achieve real strategic surprise; Hussein knows an attack is likely. But tactical surprise remains possible and, especially given Hussein's arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, very much desirable, if we are to minimize casualties and risks.

So when the president seems to equivocate about whether war is inevitable, when he holds out hope for inspections, when he talks about giving peace one last chance, when he seems to invite coups and rebellions while implying this might prevent an American occupation, supporters of the president's policy shouldn't worry that he is losing focus or retreating from the moral and strategic clarity of the past six weeks.

The president's duty is no longer to make the case for war or to prepare the nation for a necessary war. It is to win it as quickly, as decisively and with as few casualties as possible. The case for war, over the past few weeks, required clarity and truth. Victory in war, over the next few weeks or months, will require using the fog of war -- creating that fog -- to keep Hussein off balance, wishful and confused.

William Kristol is editor of the Weekly Standard.

the Prez went around town and presented HIS intel...
that's what tipped the scales....
there are a few sentences that i would like to HIGHLIGHT....they are very pertinent...

And there have been the informal comments that have had real political punch, especially the not-so-veiled threat on Sept. 13 to Democrats standing for reelection that they could be accused of subordinating American security to the United Nations
the strong-arm.....hmmm this sounds familiar somehow....sorta like the global test?
too bad it was all lies huh?????

So when the president seems to equivocate about whether war is inevitable, when he holds out hope for inspections, when he talks about giving peace one last chance, when he seems to invite coups and rebellions while implying this might prevent an American occupation, supporters of the president's policy shouldn't worry that he is losing focus or retreating from the moral and strategic clarity of the past six weeks.

seems to equivocate????????

[This message has been edited by glassman (edited October 08, 2004).]

here's one for the guys that think the democrats are wimps.....LOL, NOT! we are all Americans
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-090602.htm

quote:

---

Originally posted by glassman:
[b]the WMD intel appears to be from Allawi and Challabi...our choices for the new Iraq governmnet....<-- there is clear evidence as there was then that although he might not be producing them, he kept the capability to do so. And it would have been very easy for him to start. That is old news, and has just been stated again. any media, liberal or conservative, as I have said puts out info that is skewed to one side... all I am saying is that it is hard to find the balance between all of it.

I just got in, so I will either post to all your posts or some, depending how I feel after I have a smoke... but did he not retain the ability to start his program again? did he not keep every worker in plants where he was not producing those weapons in place? ... there might not have been any but he planned on it... at least in the opinions I have heard.
i suggest that you review the most recent CIA reports, specifically ordered by the White House..
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them, a CIA report concludes.

In fact, the long-awaited report, authored by Charles Duelfer, who advises the director of central intelligence on Iraqi weapons, says Iraq's WMD program was essentially destroyed in 1991 and Saddam ended Iraq's nuclear program after the 1991 Gulf War.
[/B]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by glassman:
here's what the UN thought of our invasion....they called it ILLEGAL even then....
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7705.doc.htm

[b]
SECURITY COUNCIL HOLDS FIRST DEBATE ON IRAQ SINCE START OF MILITARY ACTION;

SPEAKERS CALL FOR HALT TO AGGRESSION, IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWAL

Secretary-General Says Council Must Rediscover Its Unity of Purpose

The Security Council, holding its first debate on Iraq since hostilities began on 19 March, was called on to end the illegal aggression and demand the immediate withdrawal of invading forces, by an overwhelming majority of this afternoon’s 45 speakers.

Expressing regret that diplomacy had failed to resolve the question of Iraq’s disarmament, speakers emphasized that the current war, carried out without Council authorization, was a violation of international law and the United Nations Charter. Many stressed they could not understand how the Council could remain silent in the face of the aggression by two of its permanent members against another United Nations Member State.

lots of DIS-informationout there.....

but the spin in the US has been one of the most successful propaganda campaigns ever run......
this is what i am fighting...

[This message has been edited by glassman (edited October 08, 2004).][/B]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by futuresobjective:
you can fight all you want... the facts remain the same. they voted to do something about it, when the time came... they would have ended up doing nothing... propaganda? I dont think so... I think it was just the truth that needed to be herad... if we did not go to it, nobody would have... the un called it illegal? How can they call something they approved to be illegal? they agreed they would do something? what do you think they meant? 12 more years of this nonsense? I dont take it that way... there was nothing else they can do. this was the only option left. sadaam did want to get his program up and running again... what do you think might have happened when he did? this in no way was illegal... nor should it be called that. We did not go in and take this country from them, we gave it to the people it belonged to... but there are so many spins that can be put on this its amazing... it all comes down to what one wants to believe...

---

well, i see this belief thing all over futuresobjetive....

i agree with you, SOME people are going to see EXACTLY what they want to see....of course if they do that in the market, we call them losers......

you seem to WANT to believe that Bush had some authority to invade a third world country that can't defend itself.....
you can paint it whatever color you want --it's NAKED AGGRESSION......

the UN did not give US a green light...PERIOD and even Bush doesn't say that...you are just trying to justify supporting him in your own mind....i didn't say it was illegal, the UN does.....
YES the UN calls it illegal and if any other country had done this, WE would be calling it illegal for the same reasons...

if you step back from the emotions for just a second and look at it OBJECTIVELY, the best thing you can call it is pre-emptive surgery, kind of like getting your appendix out before you go spend a year in the Amazon jungle....i could use more tasteless medical analogies that would truly OFFEND Bush's constituency too...
read the UN PR's that i posted links to....WE broke the UN rules....it isn't opinion, even Bush won't argue that...

in my opinion, we are not very far from people expressing oppposing views, like i am doing here, losing that right as well....the rhetoric has already started..Bush said you can't talk bad about our war or the troops will suffer...
they are suffering already ---
yes they are doing a good job, but Bush and other high -ranking officials are clueless about what it means to be on the ground...and what their families are going thru...he cries with them (i'm gonna PUKE)--

Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul said yesterday that he told US officials that Turkey would no longer cooperate with the US over Iraq if ethnic Turks continued to be harmed in US military operations against suspected insurgents in northern Iraq.

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3493648

another coalition member bailing??????

this is the problem with going on our own...we are becoming the CHEESE.....

furthermore, this political issue is the REAL reason we didn't take Baghdad in the first Gulf War...
the Turks didn't/don't want the Kurds armed....

WMD info was from chalabi?????

Germany, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Israel all had same info, all from chalabi???? hmmmm...

4 nations not 2???? Does anyone recall that the UN voted to unanimously support the sanctions calling for "serious Consequences" if sadam did not comply.

Does anyone think serious consequences where to give him millions more illegally from france and germany???? Obviously serious consequences meant bombings and war, Sadam chose not to comply.

Back to the 4/2, bush was very close to having a unanimous vote at the U.N for the war, that is a fact, when it became clear that only France was holding back, France anounced they would VETO. This is a bid deal because most folks in various countries did not support going in. There for those countries leaders would be in trouible with the populace if they voted with america. Why vote with if they will be vetoed anyways.
( in the beginning, other countries thought france would just abstain, but, they were thinking with their pockets)
No where in the U.N Resolution did it state only Serious consequences if we find WMD. It stated that Serious consequences were for non compliance. Hans Blix even stated that sadam DID NOT comply.

Hans Blix also stated that he thought sanctions would work. Who asked Hans that Question? no one. He was being payed a ton to do his job, and wanted to continue it.
What where the countries to do, oh Hans likes inspections, lets keep doing it...

come on... next we'll call bush a liar for using same intelligence as clinton.... this is ignorant.

Intelligence was wrong, from a minimum of 5 countries. Get of the chilabi stick. The same intelligence was wrong when they told bush and clinton that osama couldn't get us....

If sadam complies, no war.... pretty simple, why doesnt he comply, france while stealing and paying him millions hints they will veto. He laughs and sticks his finger up at the u.n.

I will smile they day his head rolls, i'd even give money to punt it.

why???

don't you see how the intel thing works???

The intell was ALL generated from the same source Keith...that's the point....
this is why it's so suspect....
and it's the same thing said ALL over..so it DID come from the same source--no doubt shared....more circular logic....

just because it shows up all over the place doesn't mean that it is coroberated...it just means they all got the same RUMOR, and Challabi and Allawi are the sources named all over the place, but not by the CIA or MI6 directly YET.....

and since they have the MOST to gain from it, that's just more LINEAR logic....

Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by
the president or any other public official... – Theodore Roosevelt. ...

Janie
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A41919-2002Sep19¬Found=true

quote:

---

Originally posted by glassman:
keith drop me some links where the intel said Osama couldn't get US...cuz that's my next topic...the 911 commision has a lot of stuff that hasn't been brought up in this campaign yet......
Bush had intel on his desk.....it was PR'ed a while back, and it hasn't come up yet....
i think Kerry is saving that for the KNOCKOUT.....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by timberman:
Just because we haven't found wmd doesn't mean that they were never there. It only means that they are not there now or we haven't been able to find them. The possibility still remains that they could have been exported while waiting for the UN to guit stalling. The biggest mistake might have been to go to the UN. I know that will rattle the world society people but it true. Its true that these things can't be proven, but then again neither can it be proven that they don't and never did exist. That said, the question would have remained, "What to do with Saddam and Iraq?" Continue with no fly zones forever? Continue with sanctions forever, because Saddam wasn't about to change? Nor did he have to knowing now that Oil for Food was a big joke. If to continue these things how much would it cost the US cause we were paying for it? How much did it cost us over the last 12 years? How much were we willing to pay and for how long? Just something to think about.

[This message has been edited by timberman (edited October 09, 2004).]

---

i don't argue against those points Timberman.....
We know he has had them and used them...
The thing to keep in mind is the logostical problems with WMD....NONE of them are EZ to make or keep volatile......
say he had some disease like anthrax, most likely we would have seen an outbreak if he tried to Xport them cuz accidents ALWAYS happen...
i am amazed at how many people seem to think that bypassing the UN is a good thing....
i am not a big fan of the UN either, but we live on a planet, the world is getting smaller every day....

the times are changing fast, and if we are going to finish off the terrorists, we NEED to work as part of the world community, not spite it.....

apple picking -LOL

Kathryn Jean Lopez: What did the Clinton administration know about Osama bin Laden and when did they know it?

Richard Miniter: One of the big myths about the Clinton years is that no one knew about bin Laden until Sept. 11, 2001. In fact, the bin Laden threat was recognized at the highest levels of the Clinton administration as early as 1993. What's more, bin Laden's attacks kept escalating throughout the Clinton administration; all told bin Laden was responsible for the deaths of 59 Americans on Clinton's watch.

President Clinton learned about bin Laden within months of being sworn into office. National Security Advisor Anthony Lake told me that he first heard the name Osama bin Laden in 1993 in relation to the World Trade Center attack. Lake briefed the president about bin Laden that same year.

In addition, starting in 1993, Rep. Bill McCollum (R., Fla.) repeatedly wrote to President Clinton and warned him and other administration officials about bin Laden and other Islamic terrorists. McCollum was the founder and chairman of the House Taskforce on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare and had developed a wealth of contacts among the mujihedeen in Afghanistan. Those sources, who regularly visited McCollum, informed him about bin Laden's training camps and evil ambitions.

Indeed, it is possible that Clinton and his national-security team learned of bin Laden even before the 1993 World Trade Center attack. My interviews and investigation revealed that bin Laden made his first attack on Americans was December 1992, a little more than a month after Clinton won the 1992 election. His target was 100 U.S. Marines housed in two towering Yemen hotels. Within hours, the CIA's counterterrorism center learned that the Yemen suspected a man named Osama bin Laden. (One of the arrested bombing suspects later escaped and was detained in a police sweep after al Qaeda attacked the USS Cole in 2000.) Lake says he doesn't remember briefing the president-elect about the attempted attack, but that he well might have.