Why are Democrats trying to rewrite History on why we went to war? - Page 3

bry623 · 11-16-2005, 10:47 AM

Joseph Wilson , now there's a political hack.

**bruiser** · 11-16-2005, 11:06 AM

The Brits still stand by their assertion that Iraq was looking for a way to get yellowcake uranium from Niger.

And, there was nothing in the indictment about outing a CIA agent. As far as Joe Wilson, there's a guy who should be investigated over all the stuff he's said, that he can't back up. But, it's all been reported as the gospel truth. And, it's never been proven that Valerie Plame was a covert agent.

yustr · 11-16-2005, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bruiser

BTW, you realize there have been three investigations into whether the intelligence was manufactured/manipulated or the Bush administration put pressure on to get the spin they wanted. Each investigation found there were no grounds for the charges. You did know this, didn't you?

First of all, the administration has access to lots more intelligence than did the Senate. The Senate never interviewed Chilabi (sp?) or saw the daily briefings. So to say they say the same information is deliberately misleading. The Senate saw only what the administration showed them.

Second, the investigations DID NOT look into HOW the pre-war intelligence was used. They only focused on if analysts were pressured into changing or limiting their reports. Phase 2 of the Senate investigation was supposed to look into how the administration used those reports and if they deliberately filtered them to suit their goals. Phase 2 was due out last fall but was conveniently delayed until after the election.

There are two ways to manipulate data: 1) make sure the reports only say what you want them to say or 2) use only those portions of the reports that support your objective. The Senate concluded that #1 did not occur – but even this conclusion is being called into question. They have not reported on #2.

And enough with sharing the blame for this with Clinton. Bush was inaugurated in Jan 2001. We went to war in Mar of 2003. Anything that the Clinton administration may have had was long since out of date and would not have been used by any professional analyst except for a historical perspective.

newhouse1390 · 11-16-2005, 12:31 PM

And enough with sharing the blame for this with Clinton. Bush was inaugurated in Jan 2001. We went to war in Mar of 2003. Anything that the Clinton administration may have had was long since out of date and would not have been used by any professional analyst except for a historical perspective.

His intelligence was outdated in the year 2003, however the inteligence that Clinton used does prove a very important point. It proves that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. So where did they go???

Let me share with you what Bill Clinton said "The mistake that they made is that when they kicked out Saddam, they decided to dismantle the whole authority structure of Iraq. ... We never sent enough troops and didn't have enough troops to control or seal the borders," Clinton said.

Bill Clinton knew that weapons were in Iraq (thats why he attacked him). So whats the argument that your making. The fact is Iraq had weapons it is historical fact!!! The generals in the field said that we didn't need more forces they (more forces) were never asked for.

Liberals have a political agenda here and it is to impeach the President. Bill Clinton and all of these other Dems are undermining the war effort while we have troops in harms way. I am sick of this nonsense it is time the Americans here the truth. Iraq DID HAVE WEAPONS!! Get it in your head. We have troops in harms way!!! It is terrible what liberals are doing this is a baseless falsehood and republicans need to get aggressive and call the democrats out that they are indeed the liars!! This is garbage and poor politics on the dems part. How can these dems get a pass on this?? They said the same thing the president did.

"Second, the investigations DID NOT look into HOW the pre-war intelligence was used. They only focused on if analysts were pressured into changing or limiting their reports."

Yes they did and they found there was no political pressure There was no changing of intelligence. Again a false allegaton that if you say it enough it will come true!! You know what..prove it! You make these false statements (lies) about the way we went to war. The congress ought to be preparing to win this war not critisize it.

yustr · 11-17-2005, 06:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by newhouse1390

"Second, the investigations DID NOT look into HOW the pre-war intelligence was used. They only focused on if analysts were pressured into changing or limiting their reports."

Yes they did and they found there was no political pressure There was no changing of intelligence. Again a false allegaton that if you say it enough it will come true!! You know what..prove it! You make these false statements (lies) about the way we went to war. The congress ought to be preparing to win this war not critisize it.

Prove it. Ok.

The Robb-Silberman Commission did that for me as reported HERE:

Quote:

In its March report to President Bush, the commission noted: "[W]e were not authorized to investigate how policymakers used the intelligence assessments they received from the Intelligence Community."

I'll rebuke your other issues when I have a bit more time...

yustr · 11-17-2005, 08:10 AM

To address Clinton and put it to rest:

Let’s assume that both Clinton and Bush had the same information. (It’s not true of course but will suffice for this discussion.) How did Clinton respond? He used cruise missiles and precision bombs on specific targets like anti-aircraft batteries and communication centers. Total US casualties = 0. (If I ommited a pilot killed in an accident - I am truely sorry.)

How did Bush respond? Invasion and occupation! Destruction of countless homes and businesses. Destruction of bridges and roads and sewer and water systems. Destruction of whole towns and villages. Total US casualties = 2064 and counting.

Now you still want to include Clinton’s actions as part of your arguments?

I'll get to WMD when I can.

**40sondacurb** · 11-17-2005, 08:34 AM

bush senior said it best, "We did not invade Bagdad ecause we determined that we had no viable exit strategy."

How can you expect the american people to listen to a man that don't even listen to his daddy.

bry623 · 11-17-2005, 09:21 AM

Looking back, pre war, why did we go to war? We had info, shaky or otherwise that Sadaam wanted nukes. This was confirmed in part by other countries, ie: England.
We knew he had had some WMD. He used WMD. The UN told him to comply or else. Bush was the or else. He felt he was doing the right thing to protect his country as did the senate.
Now it turns out that the types and amounts of WMD's were not enough for people who supported him and they now want the man to pull out.

In poker terms, Bush is pot committed. Enough is invested that he needs to see it through. Now, he could go "all in" but he is not that stupid.

So what do I say to the president? See the attachment.

newhouse1390 · 11-17-2005, 12:35 PM

To address Clinton and put it to rest:

Let’s assume that both Clinton and Bush had the same information. (It’s not true of course but will suffice for this discussion.) How did Clinton respond? He used cruise missiles and precision bombs on specific targets like anti-aircraft batteries and communication centers. Total US casualties = 0. (If I ommited a pilot killed in an accident - I am truely sorry.)

How did Bush respond? Invasion and occupation! Destruction of countless homes and businesses. Destruction of bridges and roads and sewer and water systems. Destruction of whole towns and villages. Total US casualties = 2064 and counting.

Now you still want to include Clinton’s actions as part of your arguments?

I'll get to WMD when I can.

For starters I am sure that you have seen the intelligence that Bill Clinton saw as well as the President. And I am also certain that you have seen "Destruction of countless homes and businesses. Destruction of bridges and roads and sewer and water systems. Destruction of whole towns and villages. Total US casualties = 2064 and counting.".

Sir, with all do respect to you, I do not think that you can say what is happening in Iraq if you have not seen first hand what is going on. If you get this information form a liberal website or get it off the liberal media then how could you possibly believe that it is true. It is partician propoganda. This is the same media that put fourth false documents about a Commander-In Cheif's military service record.
What are you suggesting we do in Iraq? Do you want to "cut and run"? Do you want a seen similar to Vietnam where the US gave into the American left? I don't! (I hope you don't either) We need to be talking about winning not withdrawing. What kind of message does this give to the Troops that are over there now? The elections in IRAQ are the beginning of the end of "major" US military presence. We will have quite a few Toops in Iraq for a long time. We are still in Germany from WWII. You are calling our Troops occupiers?? Come on...

**40sondacurb** · 11-17-2005, 02:16 PM

so you're dissmissing his point entirely based on your belief that the media is too liberal?

I wish I could use that one to get out of doing my research paper.

**Fox** · 11-17-2005, 03:24 PM

Uhh, yeah...us occupying their territory kind of makes us occupiers by definition.

The U.S. did not "give into the American left". The only reason that that war ended was because we were defeated, and to have continued would have meant a massive human cost.

newhouse1390 · 11-17-2005, 03:44 PM

So if we leave Iraq today would it be because we gave into the anti-war left? Would it be that the only reason we left Iraq was because of the massive human cost?

We would be giving into the anti-war left. We have not lost near the amount of troops that we did in Vietnam. We lost over 2,000 soldiers in one day in Vietnam...over 100,000 total lives lost on the beaches of Normandy. I do not say this to diminish our troopers sacrifice but I think you must see the point I am making. Despite Democratic pessimism we will win the war.

We will not be defeated by these terrorists. Failure is not an option. I hope that no person who is reading this will support the immediate pullout of US Troops from Iraq. It would mean that we have been defeated. We would have not been defeated by terrorists we will have been defeated by the anti-war left.

**Fox** · 11-17-2005, 05:49 PM

Which is exactly my point. Comparing Vietnam to Iraq is just stupid, and your sweeping generalizations aren't helping your argument.

Not all democrats are for pulling out of Iraq. It's pretty clear that it would be worse for both us and the Iraqis than it had been before the war if we were to just up and leave right now.

newhouse1390 · 11-17-2005, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Not all democrats are for pulling out of Iraq. It's pretty clear that it would be worse for both us and the Iraqis than it had been before the war if we were to just up and leave right now.

I agree. But why is the democratic leadership not stepping up and condemning these people on the far left saying Bush "lied." and the ones calling for the immediate pullout?

I meant to say that if we leave Iraq, it will make a scene in which America gives into the far left. (very similar to Vietnam)

Here is what I said...

Quote:

"Do you want a seen similar to Vietnam where the US gave into the American left? I don't! (I hope you don't either)"

**Fox** · 11-17-2005, 06:24 PM

lie
n.

1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

Bush didn't speak the truth, but he didn't lie either. He was just coming to a conclusion based on flawed sources. It's not his fault, although it should have been his responsibility to make damn sure that the information was correct before going to war (he obviously didn't). Either way, he didn't lie.

And don't get me wrong, I'm nowhere near the right wing. Bry will tell you that much, but I have enough sense to know the difference between putting a label on someone to push an agenda and dealing with what actually happened.

newhouse1390 · 11-17-2005, 07:27 PM

Bush didn't speak the truth, but he didn't lie either. He was just coming to a conclusion based on flawed sources. It's not his fault, although it should have been his responsibility to make damn sure that the information was correct before going to war (he obviously didn't). Either way, he didn't lie.

I agree with you, however I do think that the president takes responsibility for his actions...

Quote:

When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support. I also recognize that some of our fellow citizens and elected officials didn't support the liberation of Iraq. And that is their right, and I respect it. As President and Commander-in-Chief, I accept the responsibilities, and the criticisms, and the consequences that come with such a solemn decision.
-President George W. Bush

Well put.

11-16-2005, 10:47 AM	#41 (permalink)
bry623 Manager, The Conversation Pit/Analyst, Security Team Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: NW Territory circa 1787 Posts: 10,356 OS: winxp pro sp2	Joseph Wilson , now there's a political hack. __________________ Scarlet and Gray in L.A. 9/13/08

11-17-2005, 08:10 AM	#46 (permalink)
yustr Asst. Manager, The Conversation Pit Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Connecticut shore/California Desert Posts: 4,433 OS: PCLinuxOS, XP Pro My System	To address Clinton and put it to rest: Let’s assume that both Clinton and Bush had the same information. (It’s not true of course but will suffice for this discussion.) How did Clinton respond? He used cruise missiles and precision bombs on specific targets like anti-aircraft batteries and communication centers. Total US casualties = 0. (If I ommited a pilot killed in an accident - I am truely sorry.) How did Bush respond? Invasion and occupation! Destruction of countless homes and businesses. Destruction of bridges and roads and sewer and water systems. Destruction of whole towns and villages. Total US casualties = 2064 and counting. Now you still want to include Clinton’s actions as part of your arguments? I'll get to WMD when I can. __________________ I'm helping in the fight against Cancer, YOU CAN TOO find out how; CLICK HERE I didn't mean to say it. But I meant what I said. J. McMurtry

11-17-2005, 08:34 AM	#47 (permalink)
40sondacurb #64 & #36 BACKBONE Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 5,676 OS: xp	bush senior said it best, "We did not invade Bagdad ecause we determined that we had no viable exit strategy." How can you expect the american people to listen to a man that don't even listen to his daddy. __________________ Donate to keep the forum running "I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully" -George W. Bush

11-17-2005, 02:16 PM	#50 (permalink)
40sondacurb #64 & #36 BACKBONE Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 5,676 OS: xp	so you're dissmissing his point entirely based on your belief that the media is too liberal? I wish I could use that one to get out of doing my research paper. __________________ Donate to keep the forum running "I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully" -George W. Bush

11-17-2005, 03:24 PM	#51 (permalink)
Fox Moderator, Microsoft Support Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: NJ Posts: 7,519 OS: XP Pro, CentOS My System	Uhh, yeah...us occupying their territory kind of makes us occupiers by definition. The U.S. did not "give into the American left". The only reason that that war ended was because we were defeated, and to have continued would have meant a massive human cost. __________________ Antec Neo Power 500W- $35, ABIT IP35-E- $65, Intel E2180@2.66Ghz- $83, Corsair XMS2 2x1GB DDR2-800- $25, PNY 8800GT $160-25, 320GB Seagate- $65, Total: $419 * lazy college student alert *- If I've inadvertently ignored a thread, please Let me know about it Have I helped you solve your problem? Donate to Techsupportforums Klart Skepp!

11-16-2005, 11:06 AM	#42 (permalink)
bruiser TSF Enthusiast Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 1,523 OS: xp	The Brits still stand by their assertion that Iraq was looking for a way to get yellowcake uranium from Niger. And, there was nothing in the indictment about outing a CIA agent. As far as Joe Wilson, there's a guy who should be investigated over all the stuff he's said, that he can't back up. But, it's all been reported as the gospel truth. And, it's never been proven that Valerie Plame was a covert agent.

11-16-2005, 12:31 PM	#44 (permalink)
newhouse1390 Member, Networking Team Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Ohio Posts: 1,038 OS: Windows Server 2003	And enough with sharing the blame for this with Clinton. Bush was inaugurated in Jan 2001. We went to war in Mar of 2003. Anything that the Clinton administration may have had was long since out of date and would not have been used by any professional analyst except for a historical perspective. His intelligence was outdated in the year 2003, however the inteligence that Clinton used does prove a very important point. It proves that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. So where did they go??? Let me share with you what Bill Clinton said "The mistake that they made is that when they kicked out Saddam, they decided to dismantle the whole authority structure of Iraq. ... We never sent enough troops and didn't have enough troops to control or seal the borders," Clinton said. Bill Clinton knew that weapons were in Iraq (thats why he attacked him). So whats the argument that your making. The fact is Iraq had weapons it is historical fact!!! The generals in the field said that we didn't need more forces they (more forces) were never asked for. Liberals have a political agenda here and it is to impeach the President. Bill Clinton and all of these other Dems are undermining the war effort while we have troops in harms way. I am sick of this nonsense it is time the Americans here the truth. Iraq DID HAVE WEAPONS!! Get it in your head. We have troops in harms way!!! It is terrible what liberals are doing this is a baseless falsehood and republicans need to get aggressive and call the democrats out that they are indeed the liars!! This is garbage and poor politics on the dems part. How can these dems get a pass on this?? They said the same thing the president did. "Second, the investigations DID NOT look into HOW the pre-war intelligence was used. They only focused on if analysts were pressured into changing or limiting their reports." Yes they did and they found there was no political pressure There was no changing of intelligence. Again a false allegaton that if you say it enough it will come true!! You know what..prove it! You make these false statements (lies) about the way we went to war. The congress ought to be preparing to win this war not critisize it.

11-17-2005, 12:35 PM	#49 (permalink)
newhouse1390 Member, Networking Team Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Ohio Posts: 1,038 OS: Windows Server 2003	To address Clinton and put it to rest: Let’s assume that both Clinton and Bush had the same information. (It’s not true of course but will suffice for this discussion.) How did Clinton respond? He used cruise missiles and precision bombs on specific targets like anti-aircraft batteries and communication centers. Total US casualties = 0. (If I ommited a pilot killed in an accident - I am truely sorry.) How did Bush respond? Invasion and occupation! Destruction of countless homes and businesses. Destruction of bridges and roads and sewer and water systems. Destruction of whole towns and villages. Total US casualties = 2064 and counting. Now you still want to include Clinton’s actions as part of your arguments? I'll get to WMD when I can. For starters I am sure that you have seen the intelligence that Bill Clinton saw as well as the President. And I am also certain that you have seen "Destruction of countless homes and businesses. Destruction of bridges and roads and sewer and water systems. Destruction of whole towns and villages. Total US casualties = 2064 and counting.". Sir, with all do respect to you, I do not think that you can say what is happening in Iraq if you have not seen first hand what is going on. If you get this information form a liberal website or get it off the liberal media then how could you possibly believe that it is true. It is partician propoganda. This is the same media that put fourth false documents about a Commander-In Cheif's military service record. What are you suggesting we do in Iraq? Do you want to "cut and run"? Do you want a seen similar to Vietnam where the US gave into the American left? I don't! (I hope you don't either) We need to be talking about winning not withdrawing. What kind of message does this give to the Troops that are over there now? The elections in IRAQ are the beginning of the end of "major" US military presence. We will have quite a few Toops in Iraq for a long time. We are still in Germany from WWII. You are calling our Troops occupiers?? Come on...

11-17-2005, 03:44 PM	#52 (permalink)
newhouse1390 Member, Networking Team Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Ohio Posts: 1,038 OS: Windows Server 2003	So if we leave Iraq today would it be because we gave into the anti-war left? Would it be that the only reason we left Iraq was because of the massive human cost? We would be giving into the anti-war left. We have not lost near the amount of troops that we did in Vietnam. We lost over 2,000 soldiers in one day in Vietnam...over 100,000 total lives lost on the beaches of Normandy. I do not say this to diminish our troopers sacrifice but I think you must see the point I am making. Despite Democratic pessimism we will win the war. We will not be defeated by these terrorists. Failure is not an option. I hope that no person who is reading this will support the immediate pullout of US Troops from Iraq. It would mean that we have been defeated. We would have not been defeated by terrorists we will have been defeated by the anti-war left.

11-17-2005, 05:49 PM	#53 (permalink)
Fox Moderator, Microsoft Support Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: NJ Posts: 7,519 OS: XP Pro, CentOS My System	Which is exactly my point. Comparing Vietnam to Iraq is just stupid, and your sweeping generalizations aren't helping your argument. Not all democrats are for pulling out of Iraq. It's pretty clear that it would be worse for both us and the Iraqis than it had been before the war if we were to just up and leave right now. __________________ Antec Neo Power 500W- $35, ABIT IP35-E- $65, Intel E2180@2.66Ghz- $83, Corsair XMS2 2x1GB DDR2-800- $25, PNY 8800GT $160-25, 320GB Seagate- $65, Total: $419 * lazy college student alert *- If I've inadvertently ignored a thread, please Let me know about it Have I helped you solve your problem? Donate to Techsupportforums Klart Skepp!

11-17-2005, 06:24 PM	#55 (permalink)
Fox Moderator, Microsoft Support Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: NJ Posts: 7,519 OS: XP Pro, CentOS My System	lie n. 1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood. 2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression. Bush didn't speak the truth, but he didn't lie either. He was just coming to a conclusion based on flawed sources. It's not his fault, although it should have been his responsibility to make damn sure that the information was correct before going to war (he obviously didn't). Either way, he didn't lie. And don't get me wrong, I'm nowhere near the right wing. Bry will tell you that much, but I have enough sense to know the difference between putting a label on someone to push an agenda and dealing with what actually happened. __________________ Antec Neo Power 500W- $35, ABIT IP35-E- $65, Intel E2180@2.66Ghz- $83, Corsair XMS2 2x1GB DDR2-800- $25, PNY 8800GT $160-25, 320GB Seagate- $65, Total: $419 * lazy college student alert *- If I've inadvertently ignored a thread, please Let me know about it Have I helped you solve your problem? Donate to Techsupportforums Klart Skepp!