[RhinofromWA]

Actually Iraq caved and the inspectors were allowed _full_access_ (finally)by Saddam but were pulled out (not thrown out).

When? If it weren't the pressing thumb of the military ammassing at his door step he wouldn't have budged. An empty attempt to stop his removal....when by the very act of not cooperating before open the gates to have him removed regardless of future "promises of cooperation" he historically chose not to abide by.

They were pulled out for their safety....but prior to then were pushed around, stopped, and not given full access. But if OKing to inspections after all the dung has hit the fan....is compliance. Then I guess he did....after he had time to do what he needed (*cough* speculation) with what ever he didn't want the inspectors to find.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Actually Iraq caved and the inspectors were allowed _full_access_ (finally)by Saddam but were pulled out (not thrown out). Al-samud2 missiles were being dismantled despite Iraq's protestations that they were not within the remit of the ban.

And 'small amounts of WMD'? Weapons of a little bit of mass destruction?

That is spin.

Fluff, you're spinning hard now.
The WMD were to include chem/bio weapons? How did those found not fall into that category? They were supposed to be accounted for and never were. You cant spin around it.
The Al-Sammud's dismantling was haulted DURING the time that the inspectors were there and had ordered the dismantling. Or cant you remember the news reports?
I dont recall ever seeing the inspectors say "We are being given full cooperation and complete documentation of all WMD Programs in Iraq" so anything past that is irrelevant IMO.

 

[LordOpie]

Actually Iraq caved and the inspectors were allowed _full_access_ (finally)by Saddam but were pulled out (not thrown out). Al-samud2 missiles were being dismantled despite Iraq's protestations that they were not within the remit of the ban.

And 'small amounts of WMD'? Weapons of a little bit of mass destruction?

That is spin.

I won't go into detail *again*, but remind y'all that the reports filed by both UNMOVIC -and- Iraq's reports detailing the weapons they clamied to have had are all public record.

It's a fact.

 

[fluff]

I won't go into detail *again*, but remind y'all that the reports filed by both UNMOVIC -and- Iraq's reports detailing the weapons they clamied to have had are all public record.

It's a fact.

And I won't go into the detail *again* but remind y'all that the quotes from weapons inspections chiefs stating that the WMD did no longer exist and will not be found are a matter of public record.

They aren't there.

That *is* a fact.

 

[BurlyShirley]

So, fluff...where'd they go?

 

[LordOpie]

So, fluff...where'd they go?

That's a valid question, but it seems now that Saddam's own staff lied to him about it. At the time of the invasion, there was enough concern to kick his ass, but 20/20 and all that.

 

[fluff]

So, fluff...where'd they go?

I give up. What is the answer oh wise one.

 

[BurlyShirley]

...and what have I been saying?


WASHINGTON — President Bush repeated his assertions Thursday that Saddam Hussein (search) and Al Qaeda (search) had a relationship before the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

The president added that he did not infer that the two had a "collaborative relationship" on the attacks, a conclusion rejected by the commission investigating the intelligence failures that prevented the United States from warding off the attacks.

"There was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda," Bush insisted to reporters following a meeting with his Cabinet at the White House.


"This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and Al Qaeda," he said.

"We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, for example, Iraqi intelligence agents met with [Usama] bin Laden, the head of Al Qaeda in Sudan."

The president added that Saddam gave safe haven to Al Qaeda associate Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (search). An Iraqi interior minister on Thursday alleged that Zarqawi was responsible for a car bombing on Thursday that killed 35 Iraqis as they were signing up to join the nation's new army.

 

[LordOpie]

i know people are annoyed that there might have been zero relationship between two bad guys and that the admin lied, but really, they're both bad, so what's the problem?

It's like if a guy got framed for robbing a liquor store and went to jail eventho he didn't do it, but he did rape a woman... would you really be upset that he went to jail for the wrong crime?

 

[nicklin]

i know people are annoyed that there might have been zero relationship between two bad guys and that the admin lied, but really, they're both bad, so what's the problem?

It's like if a guy got framed for robbing a liquor store and went to jail eventho he didn't do it, but he did rape a woman... would you really be upset that he went to jail for the wrong crime?

lordopie:

i gotta cut in here.
there is no doubt that saddam was a douche and all that. i am very happy to see him go.

but i'm a little concerned about where we stop. why aren't we invading african countries since they got their fair share of dictators and such atrocious figure?

for all of you:

are we doing too much, or is it because we aren't doing enough?

 

[MMike]

I'm more...bemused (for lack of a better word, I guess), by the die-hard right-wingers who trash Clinton and his character for lying about getting his jollies.... "he must be impeached because he lied to the american people!!" etc etc.... when really what he did only really afftected his personal life (or should have anyway).

But then you get Dubya..."fibbing" about something that is WAY more important and affects thousands and thousands of people, and the right-wingers, completely blow it off.

It's the flexible logic I guess that astounds me.

 

[RhinofromWA]

I'm more...bemused (for lack of a better word, I guess), by the die-hard right-wingers who trash Clinton and his character for lying about getting his jollies.... "he must be impeached because he lied to the american people!!" etc etc.... when really what he did only really afftected his personal life (or should have anyway).

But then you get Dubya..."fibbing" about something that is WAY more important and affects thousands and thousands of people, and the right-wingers, completely blow it off.

It's the flexible logic I guess that astounds me.

Well for one.....abusing his power and position to get tail is one thing. Lying under oath about it during a trial is another. Then appologizing for it later after figuring he couldn't weasal out of it.... Sexual harassment is a big thing in corporate america today I don't see where the Presedency is any different. Even if the ladies flung themselves on him....he had the power to effect their employment.....yada...boring sexual harrassment crap...yada But no his BJ was via company(government time) and part of the office he occupied.

Personally I am more ticked at the wilderness initiative he slammed through in the 11th hr and disguised it as the greatest protection of forest land since Rosevelt or whomever. It effected me directly and I took it to heart. The lying to the courts and to the country via TV speach made me "less than happy" His crooked business dealings on his personal level.....but I tend to ramble so I will stop.

Saying bush LIED is inflamitory at this point, correct? Just pointing out the difference. Acting on missinformation and lieing are different things. You act like Clintons BJ was the only scuff on his presedency. Have you made a decision with later to be found out erroneous information? I am willing to bet you have. Did you effect thousands of thousands of people? Probably not, you and I don't have that influence (well you design parts for planes....so you do in a way ) Is it way more important? Yes, definately. Does everything equate to lieing to the US to go to war? Not yet. If it does it is because you want it to, and that is a shame.

I sit back in my chair and watch as left-wingers, still fuming at Clintons escapades and his treatment, and having the election "stolen" (not!) from them that they are doing all they can to drive the unsubstantiated opinion that Bush intended to decieve the public and go after Saddam by lying to us. If it is found that Bush LIED to us I will be the first to shake my head in disgust. If he acted on bad information (that most of the world agreed about at the time, just not how to approach it) then is that "fibbing" to go to war? No , not really. It is a mistake made, with bad information, while trying to do the right thing. War sucks....anyone who thought it was going to be clean like Desert Storm was is severly unrealistic in what happens durring a war....I have never been in one, but I know it is never good....though necessary at times.

Rhino

 

[LordOpie]

but i'm a little concerned about where we stop. why aren't we invading african countries since they got their fair share of dictators and such atrocious figure?

I think we should be more involved in Africa, but their instability is really just localized whereas the whole middle east could explode and start WWIII.

 

[LordOpie]

I sit back in my chair and watch as left-wingers, still fuming at Clintons escapades and his treatment, and having the election "stolen" (not!) from them that they are doing all they can to drive the unsubstantiated opinion that Bush intended to decieve the public and go after Saddam by lying to us.

oh come on now, you know that Bush mislead the public. Sure, he didn't come out and say Saddam and Osama were buddies, but he sure danced around the topic leading people to think that was the case. And Saddam and WMDs being a reason, really?

Look, you know I support Bush and the invasion, but lets not kid ourselves, he intentionally mislead the public -- that's different than lying... it's, uhh, marketing -- to get support.

 

[MMike]

oh come on now, you know that Bush mislead the public. Sure, he didn't come out and say Saddam and Osama were buddies, but he sure danced around the topic leading people to think that was the case. And Saddam and WMDs being a reason, really?

Look, you know I support Bush and the invasion, but lets not kid ourselves, he intentionally mislead the public -- that's different than lying... it's, uhh, marketing -- to get support.

Sure! Call it marketing! That's fine. I have no great love for any of the presidents. They aren't mine. But if we can accept that he "fibbed" on a grand scale, how is that any more noble than what Clinton did? And puh-lease... I don't think Clinton will be remembered for his Wilderness laws.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Im not saying Bush didnt emphasize certain areas more than others to sway public opinion, but that doesnt mean he isnt telling the truth. That's what politics is, what Opie said "marketing". I mean, look at the whole Gay Marriage topic...does that even matter in the grand scheme of things? NO, but people emphasize it to draw distinction on political stances every day. If saddam hussein does a number of things wrong, but they emphasize ONE in particular to bring him down...where's the foul?

 

[LordOpie]

Sure! Call it marketing! That's fine. I have no great love for any of the presidents. They aren't mine. But if we can accept that he "fibbed" on a grand scale, how is that any more noble than what Clinton did? And puh-lease... I don't think Clinton will be remembered for his Wilderness laws.

since you quoted me, I'll reply... I think what the repugnicans did going after Clinton was fvcking stupid.

If saddam hussein does a number of things wrong, but they emphasize ONE in particular to bring him down...where's the foul?

exactly

 

[MMike]

If saddam hussein does a number of things wrong, but they emphasize ONE in particular to bring him down...where's the foul?

By why only emphasize the bad? What about his 1976 Olympic bronze medal for ice dancing? Eh? Eh?????

 

[drift1492]

I think we should take the next president (whomever it may be) and lock him in a box right after his inauguration. NO matter what he does, the other party is going to get all pissy about it. I mean, come on--

Democrats blaim bush for not doing enough to stop Al Qaeda.

Democrats blaim Bush for going to war to stop Saddam.

Damned if you do, Damned if you dont. (That should be added to the presidental symbol from here on out)

 

[fluff]

LOL, Bush says that Saddam and Bin Laden had a non-collaborative relationship?

Didn't Bush and his clan have something similar going down?

Maybe he should depose himself.

 

[jmvar]

my question is, if the UN and allies were so opposed to the US going in balls to the wall in IRAQ, why wouldn't Bush ENSURE that the info he was getting was legit?

He knows, and he was told that the intelligence was not 100%.......in my view, he took information that he knew could very well be wrong and spun it to the public to go into Iraq.

Bush should have just sold Hussein WMDs to fund operations in Central America, then he would have gotten an airport named after him.....

 

[fluff]

Some interesting quotes from the mouth of Bush in these pinko, liberal, biased reports from the beeb:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3814111.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3816699.stm

(As you can see, I've not got the hang of the new site layout...)

 

[MMike]

Some interesting quotes from the mouth of Bush in these pinko, liberal, biased reports from the beeb:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3814111.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3816699.stm

(As you can see, I've not got the hang of the new site layout...)

GO BACK TO MOSCOW!!

 

[Silver]

You know what I love about Bush and Cheney? It's their amazing ability to be standing in front of me, pissing all over my face, and insist without even a smirk that it is merely raining.

If Bush said in a press conference tomorrow that the sky was blue, I'd have to go out and check to make sure...

 

[valve bouncer]

You know what I love about Bush and Cheney? It's their amazing ability to be standing in front of me, pissing all over my face, and insist without even a smirk that it is merely raining.

...

And the frothing at the mouth brigade would all be saying "how 'bout this lousy weather"

 

[Silver]

And the frothing at the mouth brigade would all be saying "how 'bout this lousy weather"

Nah, they'd open their mouths wider and thank Bush for ending the drought...

 

[luznmemnd2002]

silver, i dano what to say to u, uve annoyed the heck outta me all night...go start a bikers union or somethin...

i totally agree with rhino and l'opie...

ohh yeah, bill clinton was full of crap man...our economy started going down b4 he left office

 

[LordOpie]

silver, i dano what to say to u, uve annoyed the heck outta me all night...go start a bikers union or somethin...

i totally agree with rhino and l'opie...

ohh yeah, bill clinton was full of crap man...our economy started going down b4 he left office

please don't be offended, please don't leave the forum, but please type more clearly. I promise you that if you force people to re-read your posts multiple times to understand you that you'll quickly be ignored.

As for the economy, the Fed (Federal Reserve Board... they're the branch of government whose responsible for money) said the recession officially started in March 2001... a couple months into Bush's reign.

 

[luznmemnd2002]

thanks smart***

 

[drift1492]

You do understand that a recession begins after 2 consecutive quarters (so 6 months) of a decline in GDP. So actually, the "downturn of the economy" began while Clinton was in office as a result of his economic policy. Everyone was all happy about the "surplus" he left, but the only reason he had a surplus is because he stopped spending the goverment's money, which is a main contributor to the recession. The recession might have been prevented if he would have attempted to stimulate the economy. But the Clinton administration did the smart thing (politically at least) and stopped spending knowing that it would help bring on a recession that would not be "official" until Bush had taken office.

P.S. Recessions are very confusing. I dont think I could really make sense of what exactly I am trying to show without some sort of graph. So im not going to even make an attempt to make myself more clear.

 

[luznmemnd2002]

Good, at least i know im not crazy,first time someone has agreed with me in a while. this is really random, but does neone here like the O'Reilly factor?

 

[Silver]

You do understand that a recession begins after 2 consecutive quarters (so 6 months) of a decline in GDP. So actually, the "downturn of the economy" began while Clinton was in office as a result of his economic policy. Everyone was all happy about the "surplus" he left, but the only reason he had a surplus is because he stopped spending the goverment's money, which is a main contributor to the recession. The recession might have been prevented if he would have attempted to stimulate the economy. But the Clinton administration did the smart thing (politically at least) and stopped spending knowing that it would help bring on a recession that would not be "official" until Bush had taken office.

That makes no sense. The election was close, remember? I'd be hard pressed to say that Clinton intentionally sent the economy into recession to screw over his successor.

I don't blame Bush for the recession either. Business cycles, these things happen. I am appalled at the way a "fiscally responsible" president handled the situation though...

 

[LordOpie]

thanks smart***

You do understand that a recession begins after 2 consecutive quarters (so 6 months) of a decline in GDP. So actually, the "downturn of the economy" began while Clinton was in office as a result of his economic policy. Everyone was all happy about the "surplus" he left, but the only reason he had a surplus is because he stopped spending the goverment's money, which is a main contributor to the recession. The recession might have been prevented if he would have attempted to stimulate the economy. But the Clinton administration did the smart thing (politically at least) and stopped spending knowing that it would help bring on a recession that would not be "official" until Bush had taken office.

The Fed needs ~6 months to get enough data to declare when economic changes occur, yes, but they're the ones who state when things happen and they said it started in March 2001, as such, it didn't start until March 2001. However, factors that lead to it did, of course, start before then.

What caused it?

I believe it was more of a factor of the obnoxious and unstable tech boom. The economy is cyclical. I like the spend in a recession, save in a boom philosophy cuz it helps even out the highs and lows of the cycle. I believe that nothing was going to stop this recession, but I do believe tax cuts at the beginning of a recession are a horrible idea and only exacerbated the problem.

As for your blaming Clinton, that's misplaced. Since the Fed declares such economic swings and didn't until 3/01, then either Clinton was a genius or psychic for him to have done what you're claiming.

 

[LordOpie]

That makes no sense. The election was close, remember? I'd be hard pressed to say that Clinton intentionally sent the economy into recession to screw over his successor.

I don't blame Bush for the recession either. Business cycles, these things happen. I am appalled at the way a "fiscally responsible" president handled the situation though...

you were a bit more to the point than I was on both accounts.

 

[drift1492]

That makes no sense. The election was close, remember? I'd be hard pressed to say that Clinton intentionally sent the economy into recession to screw over his successor.

I don't blame Bush for the recession either. Business cycles, these things happen. I am appalled at the way a "fiscally responsible" president handled the situation though...

I'm not saying that he intentionally sent the economy into a recession. I really just want to emphasize that the "surplus" that made Clinton look so good on the way out, actually hurt the successor.

 

[LordOpie]

I'm not saying that he intentionally sent the economy into a recession. I really just want to emphasize that the "surplus" that made Clinton look so good on the way out, actually hurt the successor.

it was the successor's tax cut that hurt the most.

And imagine if you saved $2000 for a new ride only to have your little brother blow YOUR money on GI Joe toys :devil:

 

[luznmemnd2002]

i have nothing more to say...i am 15 and i truly dont know that much about our government. Lord Opie, you are a smarta**, but your very very intelligent from what ive been reading, gotta give it to you. ive changed some of my opinions about bill clinton, he was a pretty good president, but i still feel that Bush(even if he isnt a very good leader) would have handled some of the countries issues differently, but i also think he would have screwed up some of the decisions that clinton had made a good choice on. thanks...

 

[luznmemnd2002]

hope that wasnt too slangy...sry guys for being a a**hole little bit ago, im just trying to tell my thoughts

 

[drift1492]

The Fed needs ~6 months to get enough data to declare when economic changes occur, yes, but they're the ones who state when things happen and they said it started in March 2001, as such, it didn't start until March 2001. However, factors that lead to it did, of course, start before then.

What caused it?

I believe it was more of a factor of the obnoxious and unstable tech boom. The economy is cyclical. I like the spend in a recession, save in a boom philosophy cuz it helps even out the highs and lows of the cycle. I believe that nothing was going to stop this recession, but I do believe tax cuts at the beginning of a recession are a horrible idea and only exacerbated the problem.

As for your blaming Clinton, that's misplaced. Since the Fed declares such economic swings and didn't until 3/01, then either Clinton was a genius or psychic for him to have done what you're claiming.

I agree. Again, I wasnt blaming Clinton, just stating that he did not help the situation. I actually like Clinton much more than I like Bush.

 

[LordOpie]

...sry guys for being a a**hole little bit ago...

eh, you'll get used to being an asshole, hell, most of us here are. Except Valve Bouncer, very nice guy.