Bush's Achievements

**redspy** · 10-21-2004, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by ALBOB

WMD: It's been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he had them. THOUSANDS of TONS of WMD's were documented during the first Gulf War. Part of the U.N. resolutions follow the first war was that their destruction be WITNESSED and DOCUMENTED by U.N. inspectors. That never happened! There has NEVER been any documentation as to where all those thousands of tons of WMD's are. The three biggest intelligence networks in the world, U.S., Great Britan and Russia all had evidence they were still in Iraq. So, the evidence points to the FACT that they exist. At this point we're pretty sure they're not in Iraq. My question is, where are they? Obviously this is personal opinion and I don't try to hide the fact that I'm biased, but the WMD issue was enough to justify the war.

No terrorist links: NOT TRUE!!! The 9/11 commission has found no evidence of links to Al Qaeda specifically, but noted that Saddamm was a HUGE supporter of terrorism in general. He provided supplies, intelligence and training to vast armys of terrorists.

No one doubts he had them in the past, we still have the sales receipts some where. The asertion was he had vast stock piles of WMD and was an immediate danger to America's security. The intelligence the administration was peddling before the war dodgy to say the least. The Bush administration had their sights on a war with Iraq from the momment they came into the office, the public justification was made later.

As for the fact of Saddam being "a HUGE supporter of terrorism in general" is nothing more than speculation. Yes he funded Palestinian suicide bombers but nobody in the Middle East had any issues with than given the fact that American weapons are used to kill hundreds of innocent Palestinians every year. Funding suicide bombers in Israel doesn't impact America's National secury, however disgusting it is.

**ALBOB** · 10-21-2004, 04:34 PM

Originally Posted by redspy

The intelligence the administration was peddling before the war dodgy to say the least.

I'm not sure where you get that from. Like I already said; U.S., British AND Russian intelligence all concluded exactly the same thing. It's not like Russia was looking for a fight with Iraq. Why would they back up our intelligence findings if it could prove harmful to them?

Originally Posted by redspy

As for the fact of Saddam being "a HUGE supporter of terrorism in general" is nothing more than speculation.

Salman Pac

**redspy** · 10-21-2004, 06:33 PM

Originally Posted by ALBOB

I'm not sure where you get that from. Like I already said; U.S., British AND Russian intelligence all concluded exactly the same thing. It's not like Russia was looking for a fight with Iraq. Why would they back up our intelligence findings if it could prove harmful to them?

Salman Pac

There was conflicting evidence but the Administration interpreted the intelligence to suit their own agenda and dismissed information they didn't like. They also put the CIA under massive pressure for their own political gain.

If all you have to link state sponsored terrorism to Iraq is 'Salman Pac' speculation you case is indeed a weak one. Saudi Arabia and Iran have much stronger ties to terrorism but of course we not concerned enough to take action.

This war is a fraud.

**ALBOB** · 10-22-2004, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by redspy

There was conflicting evidence but the Administration interpreted the intelligence to suit their own agenda and dismissed information they didn't like. They also put the CIA under massive pressure for their own political gain.

Are you getting inside information? Seriously, those are pretty strong accusations. Seems to me the Democratic members of congress would be pushing this issue to this day if it were true. Now, believe it or not, I'm not saying you're wrong. Just that when you make accusations that strong I'd like to see some sort of proof.

Originally Posted by redspy

If all you have to link state sponsored terrorism to Iraq is 'Salman Pac' speculation you case is indeed a weak one. Saudi Arabia and Iran have much stronger ties to terrorism but of course we not concerned enough to take action.

This war is a fraud.

Hold on. I wasn't COMPARING Iraq to Iran and/or Saudi Arabia. I was simply stating that Iraq was a huge supporter of terrorism. And Salman Pac is not speculation, it's a fact. In what might be a first, I agree with you, Iran and Saudi Arabia probably are BIGGER supporters of terrorism.

**redspy** · 10-22-2004, 03:19 PM

Originally Posted by ALBOB

Are you getting inside information? Seriously, those are pretty strong accusations. Seems to me the Democratic members of congress would be pushing this issue to this day if it were true. Now, believe it or not, I'm not saying you're wrong. Just that when you make accusations that strong I'd like to see some sort of proof.

Reports of political pressure on the CIA are widespread. One source is described as a "senior U.S. intelligence official with nearly two decades of experience in national security issues." and "held a number of high-ranking agency positions, including serving from 1996 to 1999 as head of a special unit tracking Bin Laden."

See the LA Times article here:- http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0701-02.htm

I don't claim to know all the facts but the weight of evidence points to abuse of intelligence, or at the very least carelessness. This isn't acceptable when so many lives are on the line. Another example is the Nigerian Yellowcake saga.

Originally Posted by ALBOB

Hold on. I wasn't COMPARING Iraq to Iran and/or Saudi Arabia. I was simply stating that Iraq was a huge supporter of terrorism. And Salman Pac is not speculation, it's a fact. In what might be a first, I agree with you, Iran and Saudi Arabia probably are BIGGER supporters of terrorism.

I've searched for solid information on Salman Pac and have come up with nothing. If you provide a link I'll be happy to review and withdraw my comments if necessary.

**ALBOB** · 10-22-2004, 03:41 PM

Originally Posted by redspy

I don't claim to know all the facts but the weight of evidence points to abuse of intelligence, or at the very least carelessness. This isn't acceptable when so many lives are on the line. Another example is the Nigerian Yellowcake saga.

Ya' know, it's gonna be difficult to remain mortal enemies if we keep agreeing. I agree, there was some SERIOUS carelessness on the part of the intelligence community. What still has me puzzled is the Russians. They were in bed with Saddamm and STILL said he had WMD's. WTF?

Originally Posted by redspy

I've searched for solid information on Salman Pac and have come up with nothing. If you provide a link I'll be happy to review and withdraw my comments if necessary.

I'm growing increasingly worried that I'm gonna come out of this one with egg on my face. All the info that was so easy to find a few weeks ago seems to have vanished. I'm not giving up though.

**redspy** · 10-22-2004, 03:45 PM

Originally Posted by ALBOB

Ya' know, it's gonna be difficult to remain mortal enemies if we keep agreeing. I agree, there was some SERIOUS carelessness on the part of the intelligence community. What still has me puzzled is the Russians. They were in bed with Saddamm and STILL said he had WMD's. WTF?

I'm growing increasingly worried that I'm gonna come out of this one with egg on my face. All the info that was so easy to find a few weeks ago seems to have vanished. I'm not giving up though.

I believe the Russians were dead set against the war because of the massive debts the Iraqi's had racked up. They were hoping to cash in on cheap oil but the US sneaked in first.

**ALBOB** · 10-22-2004, 03:48 PM

Originally Posted by redspy

I believe the Russians were dead set against the war because of the massive debts the Iraqi's had racked up. They were hoping to cash in on cheap oil but the US sneaked in first.

That's what I mean, the Russians had everything to LOSE. So, why did they back up our intelligence? It doesn't make sense.

**BoneCrusher** · 10-22-2004, 03:58 PM

The WMD tag covers a large ground. Equipment to make these WMD's is included in the UN sanctions. Several tons of stuff have not been accounted for ... but that is just not very much from a military perspective. No launch capabilities, and every sat recon out there showing nothing of his original WMD stock piles still standing after Desert Storm makes it a very clear case of dodgy fatcs. Add this to the mix. "Hi I'm sitting on BILLIONS of dollars of oil but couldn't fight back if you invade me ... so please just be nice neighbors and don't take my oil" as a foriegn policy .... not so good. "You Americans cannot disarm me because I will crush you" ... maybe not so weak as the first chioce. Nigeria could have invaded Saddam and stole all his oil ... but we are there now. It is our oil. We did steal it fair and square.

**ALBOB** · 10-22-2004, 04:03 PM

Originally Posted by BoneCrusher

It is our oil. We did steal it fair and square.

As you well know, I don't necessarily agree with this statement. But even if it were true, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

**BoneCrusher** · 10-22-2004, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by ALBOB

As you well know, I don't necessarily agree with this statement. But even if it were true, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Ohhh man Albob you were 'spose to get all indignant.

**ALBOB** · 10-22-2004, 04:10 PM

Originally Posted by BoneCrusher

Ohhh man Albob you were 'spose to get all indignant.

I started to but decided, wtf? Why not just tell the truth? It's why I'd never make it in politics. (On EITHER side.

)

**redspy** · 10-22-2004, 04:12 PM

Albob's the best Convervative on this site to debate with.

**milliman** · 10-22-2004, 04:24 PM

Originally Posted by redspy

Albob's the best Convervative on this site to debate with.

I'm going to cry at my desk.

**maniclion** · 10-22-2004, 04:35 PM

**ALBOB** · 10-22-2004, 04:46 PM

Originally Posted by redspy

Albob's the best Convervative on this site to debate with.

Why thank-you redspy. You're not half bad yourself. You'd be amazed at how liberal I am on certain issues though. That's why I can USUALLY keep a level head and debate, rather than just resort to name calling.

Don't cry milliman, they're just baiting me before they try to bring me over to the Dark Side.

**redspy** · 10-22-2004, 04:47 PM

Originally Posted by milliman

I'm going to cry at my desk.

Okay Milli, maybe you're joint first.

**redspy** · 10-22-2004, 04:50 PM

Originally Posted by ALBOB

Don't cry milliman, they're just baiting me before they try to bring me over to the Dark Side.

I admit, it's a cunning ploy to entice a military man to our side. If you haven't engaged in military action you can't be a leader these days. Albob will be our IM equivalent of Wesley Clark.

**milliman** · 10-22-2004, 05:08 PM

Originally Posted by redspy

Okay Milli, maybe you're joint first.

Wee e e e e e . . .

**ALBOB** · 10-22-2004, 05:34 PM

Originally Posted by redspy

Albob will be our IM equivalent of Wesley Clark.

A retired General who ran on the Democratic ticket. Hmmmmm. Well, if I can get a piece of his retirement check I'm game. (You know how us conservatives are always grubbing for money.

)

**TheGreatSatan** · 10-25-2004, 02:07 AM

Shoot liberals. Save us all.

Thread: Bush's Achievements

Thread Tools

Display

Similar Threads

How do you feel about the UCONN women's latest achievements?

bush's fault again

Hurricanes are G.W. Bush's Fault

Bush's resume

Posting Permissions