Go to Should Bush Be Impeached?
- Add a comment
- Go to Proof Positive that the Intelligence was Cooked!
thanks for the visit
Dirk
posted by
brabander
on June 20, 2005 at 11:08 AM
| link to this | reply
If it was the intention of Mr Bush to oust Saddam, which I think it was from the beginning, why didn't he say so in the first place ? Why thinking up such reasons as that Saddam had weapons of mass-destruction, when after months and months of searching, nobody found even a lucifer-box containing dangerous material ?
No, to us Europeans it was clear from the start that it was Bush's goal to remove Saddam from office. Now, Saddam is removed and what do we have in place ? A country that has gone back to the Middle Ages with the US -army present trying to prevent the outbreak of full blown cicil war.
But there are other foes. What about North-Korea, what about Iran, Syria ?
Lucky for the world, this is Bush last administration.
Dirk
posted by
brabander
on June 20, 2005 at 8:17 AM
| link to this | reply
Kingmi,
It amazes me that I have a computer terminal or monitor still operational! Because you really get my dander up! You never write anything that has an element of truth or validity. It is my hope that when "W" is "perp" marched out of my White House in irons, you are somewhere in the line! It will happen. Damn it!!!
Everybody on the Planet against George Bush and 60 million Americans! John Kerry and John Edwards were the best that the opposition could deliver. I do not think so! What a bunch of losers!
posted by
Glennb
on June 19, 2005 at 4:12 PM
| link to this | reply
Katray, There is no doubt that the terrorists were a wide network
including OBL, Saddam, threats of WMD's, Yassir Arafat. There is no doubt that there were terror cells in Saudi, Pakistan, etc. But one concentrates ones resources so as not to be too quickly spread thin. The initial strategy was to shore up support from non-terrorist nations. Thus the Bush Doctrine, you are with us or against. Now Pakistan played along, vowing to hunt down the rats in their own country.
Saudi turned over terrorists and went along, making arrests. The main country which refused was Afghanistan. Individualized efforts were shut down to concentrate on that war.
My vote is with a guy who only wants to lead in a time of war. He did not ask for this, but he is asking for the support to finish it.
posted by
kingmi
on June 19, 2005 at 2:02 AM
| link to this | reply
Glenn, I have George W. Bush on speed dial. Think I will!
posted by
kingmi
on June 19, 2005 at 1:54 AM
| link to this | reply
Kingmi,
Why don't you sit him down and ask him?
posted by
Glennb
on June 18, 2005 at 7:28 PM
| link to this | reply
kingmi-Terrorists must love U.S./England in-fighting.
posted by
reasons
on June 18, 2005 at 2:54 PM
| link to this | reply
p.s. off subject, I just wanted to wish you a lovely day tomorrow- Happy Father's Day.
posted by
Katray2
on June 18, 2005 at 2:53 PM
| link to this | reply
More thoughts Kingmi
If Bush and administration had only our best interests in mind security wise (though I'm gleaning from your response that the interests of Israel took precedence in the early days of Bush's first term) why weren't OBL and his activities, supporters (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan) given as much or more focus and attention? After all, the administration was specifically informed by the NSA's outgoing director that this was the largest and most immediate threat, in addition to growing warnings and reports from other countries. Yet several FBI agents have testified they were stopped cold in their investigations into terrorist cells and especially Saudi Arabia; clues strongly indicate this came from administration officials. Considering the horror of 9-11 and Bush's declaration OBL and minions were the ones responsible, I wonder how you cannot have some doubts about the intentions and agenda of this president.
posted by
Katray2
on June 18, 2005 at 2:41 PM
| link to this | reply
Burly, you are right. Propoganda for the dems, nothing more.
They can take an innocent remark and suddenly: you want proof? Here's the smoking gun.
posted by
kingmi
on June 18, 2005 at 11:01 AM
| link to this | reply
katray, My true belief is that Bush thought and still does that Saddam
had all kinds of bad plans for us, and was merely biding his time with support for the PLO against Israel. I truly believe (if I may draw from history) that like the Nazis in the Spanish Civil War, 1936, that he was merely practicing for us. His network included OBL. And part of his network was the propoganda (or truth) that he had WMD's.
I firmly believe, again from history, that even if Bush exaggerated the danger as he is now being charged with, that he will be regarded byhistory as loyal, aggressive, counter-attacking war-time president, like FDR, victorious because he was smart.
posted by
kingmi
on June 18, 2005 at 10:59 AM
| link to this | reply
I'm no fan of Clinton
or his foreign policy, so I view his opinions as not worth much - especially in light of more meaningful evidence that we were deceived. I have a question Kingmi - do you think it's acceptable that Bush and his administration lied to us, Congress and the world about the reasons for attacking Iraq? That the end result will be worth whatever tactics they used? I'm not asking this in a combative manner, I am truly interested in knowing your thoughts.
posted by
Katray2
on June 18, 2005 at 8:39 AM
| link to this | reply
Kingmi
The Downing Street memo is just the British take on what they thought was taking place. That's all. It's worth taking note of but it is unimportant legally.
posted by
Burly
on June 18, 2005 at 6:13 AM
| link to this | reply
KINGMI
KEYWORD.......PERFECT BULLSHIT!
posted by
Offy
on June 17, 2005 at 8:43 PM
| link to this | reply