We have a lot of conservatives here... is it time for Bush/Cheney to resign?

[Roger in Kensington]

Well, Dave, you've convinced me.

I've spent the last two days investigating your statements and must reluctantly conclude that the war in Iraq was just a diversion to deflect attention from Bush's domestic problems and to accrue power to the federal government.

Thanks to your urging, I have been able to track down the conspirators who participated in this nefarious plot which we now know without a doubt was based upon nothing more than a tissue of lies involving individuals at the very highest levels of government.

The truth is out there! Actually, the truth is here.

Thank you for removing the scales from my eyes.

[Joshu]

The 9/11 report said over and over that there is no link between Al queda and Saddam, AT ALL.

[Jeff_in_Atl]

The 9/11 report said over and over that there is no link between Al queda and Saddam, AT ALL.

They also said there were no WMDs found in Iraq. Like I said, no one can convince me that I didn't see what I saw. I don't know why but the 9/11 committee is not reporting the truth. I saw the damn plane on TV. It wasn't some trick of the camera. Now some politician is trying to tell me I didn't see what I saw. That is BS. Some sort of deals were made within the committee before they made the report for some political gain. I don't know why. That report is a farce.

[Dave M]

They also said there were no WMDs found in Iraq. Like I said, no one can convince me that I didn't see what I saw. I don't know why but the 9/11 committee is not reporting the truth. I saw the damn plane on TV. It wasn't some trick of the camera. Now some politician is trying to tell me I didn't see what I saw. That is BS. Some sort of deals were made within the committee before they made the report for some political gain. I don't know why. That report is a farce.

If the report is false then how can we believe it when it says (according to RIK's link): "The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, manipulate, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities."

[Dave M]

OK I know you think Afghanistan was needed and Iraq is unneeded and unjust. Afghanistan was to go in and get Al Qaeda being harbored by the Taliban. Iraq was also to get Al Qaeda that were being harbored by Saddam. (We know Al Qaeda was in Iraq because we found there training camp there with the 707.) How is that different? Bush said we will go after the countries who aid an harbor terrorist.

We found a training camp? There are likely training camps in this country. If there was a training camp in Iraq, and we knew about it, why couldn't it have been taken out with airstrikes, missles, or special ops? If we didn't know about it until after the invasion, then how could we use "they were harboring terrorists" as a reason for invasion if we hadn't found the camp until afterwards?

And if we knew about it but were going after the govt that supported it, why haven't we done so with the dozens of other countries that harbor terrorists, like Bush promised in '01?

[Dave M]

Well, Dave, you've convinced me.

I've spent the last two days investigating your statements and must reluctantly conclude that the war in Iraq was just a diversion to deflect attention from Bush's domestic problems and to accrue power to the federal government.

Thanks to your urging, I have been able to track down the conspirators who participated in this nefarious plot which we now know without a doubt was based upon nothing more than a tissue of lies involving individuals at the very highest levels of government.

The truth is out there! Actually, the truth is here.

Thank you for removing the scales from my eyes.

I never said there was a plot or conspiracy, although this administration is one of the most secrative I've ever seen so not much would suprise me. What I have said is that I was not privy to the intelligence. If the advertised intelligence was correct I still think more could have been done before resorting to war. Look at what we're doing now that we can't use force aginst other nations. We're in talks with North Korea and have successfully gotten them to shut down their reactor and abandon their nuclear program. We are engaging Iran, albeit with limited success so far. I'm no dove or pacifist, but I believe sending our young men and women off to war should be an absolute last resort. I believe the Iraq war was rushed into. Faulty intelligence or not.

I also believe a country has a right to defend itself. Why do we, with the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, get to foul when others express an interest in aquiring the same defenses? We (likely) gave WMD to Israel. We turned a blind eye to India and Pakistan having them, even though those two countries are constantly skirmishing at the borders and are at risk of falling into all-out war at any time.

Do we only have a problem when it's countries we don't like? Muslim countries? That can't really be true because India and Pakistan have large Muslim populations and governments. I can see having a problem with Iraq, because Saddam had shown a willingness to use the weapons in an offensive capacity, but again, I believe war could have been averted. It wasn't a war about terrorism, it was about WMD and it has distracted us against the war on terrorism. Now we are bogged down, unable or unwilling to go after terrorists elsewhere. Instead we are training them in bomb making, urban fighting, evasion, snipers, etc.

Bush vowed to go after any country that harbors or assists/funds terrorists. I was all for that. But instead of going after any of the various terrorist organizations or the countries that sponsor it (Iran, Syria, etc) or harbor them (pick any of a dozen countries) we went after Iraq because it had WMD (that was the first and primary stated reason for going into Iraq). We had a lot of political goodwill in the world at the time, and instead of using it on rooting out and fighting terrorists we squandered it on a dictator with a Napolean complex. Now it will be much harder to root out those same terrorists because few countries will be willing to partner with us.

Pakistan is a prime example. Intelligence says al qaeda has free reign in the mountains of Pakistan. They've built themselves back up to pre-9/11 strength. Pakistan is unwilling or unable to go after them themselves and will not allow us to conduct raids in the area (so the media reports say). Why are we not taking a harder stance with them? The answer is obvious. We can't.

The adminstration warns of heightened risk of attack this summer, of a resurgent al qaeda that has rebuilt its command structure and stregth. I thought we were in Iraq so they wouldn't "follow us home". Why are we so worried about attacks if we're still in Iraq fighting them there? Perhaps it's because that war has done nothing to forestall the threat and has only distracted us from the real threat.

I apologize for mispellings in my posts, these work computers suck.

[Jeff_in_Atl]

If the report is false then how can we believe it when it says (according to RIK's link): "The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, manipulate, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities."

I'm not sure you can.

[Jeff_in_Atl]

We found a training camp? There are likely training camps in this country. If there was a training camp in Iraq, and we knew about it, why couldn't it have been taken out with airstrikes, missles, or special ops? If we didn't know about it until after the invasion, then how could we use "they were harboring terrorists" as a reason for invasion if we hadn't found the camp until afterwards?

And if we knew about it but were going after the govt that supported it, why haven't we done so with the dozens of other countries that harbor terrorists, like Bush promised in '01?

Don't assume there was just 1 camp. They said they had information like "chatter" that they were harboring terrorists. They said they didn't know about the 707. What gets me about that is nobody spotted a 707 on the ground via satellite? You would think they would have been going over the satellite imagery with a fine tooth comb. I remember the report about the training camp because the reporter said something that was unusual and it stuck in my head. He said for all of Saddam's bad points he was an excellent record keeper. There were boxes and boxes of papers at the camp that showed every person who had been there for training. Pretty weird. Another thing about that camp is there were no airstrips near the camp. How the heck did they get a fuselage of a 707 out in the middle of the desert without anybody knowing about it. I don't believe for a second that Saddam didn't know about it. They didn't fly it in.

As for the other countries I believe I said this before, is because we are stretched too thin right now. We also expected to get help from other countries. I believe the media has driven other countries away from helping. They will pay the price for it later. France is going to be the first country to really feel the heat from it. The Muslim population is growing so fast it is predicted that France will be a Muslim state in less than 20 years. Are they then going to call us to bail their butts out again like in WWII? If you could go forward 100 years I believe you would see most of Europe as Muslim run countries. I was thinking about this this morning. At some point somebody like Iran is going to get a nuclear bomb. They have already stated that they intend to "wipe Israel off the face of the map". I fully believe that Iran will detonate it in Telaviv somehow. At that point what will happen? Do you think that the US or anybody will be able to convince Israel not to launch a full scale nuclear attack and turn Iran into a parking lot? Then what will happen? Will the rest of the middle east retaliate against Israel? If they do then what? Bla bla bla. My point is we are going to have to deal with the radical Islam's at some point in the future. Is it better to do it now before they have nuclear bombs or after? Bush's whole plan is to try and put a functioning democratic state right in the middle of the middle east. If it succeeds it will eventually thrive and grow in prosperity like every other democratic state. When other countries around them see the Iraqis living in nice houses driving nice cars with nice toys they are going to want some of that in their country. They are going to put pressure on their government to change from radical Islam to a moderate Islam that is democratic so they can prosper just like their neighbor Iraq. Now isn't that a lot less bloody than the alternative of a full out nuclear war? Fine, you don't like the war. What is your (anybody not just Dave) plan to keep from having an all out nuclear war in the middle east. If something doesn't change it's gonna happen. Inspections don't work. Even Hans Blik said that at one time. The UN isn't going to prevent it. The UN is a anti western joke. How do you change countries like Iran from trying to kill all Jews and Christians in the name of Islam? Bush's plan is the only thing I have ever heard. Isn't it worth a shot to keep from having an all out nuclear war?

[Jeff_in_Atl]

Instead we are training them in bomb making, urban fighting, evasion, snipers, etc.

Have you ever wondered if that will come back to haunt us? What if we leave Iraq and it implodes into a radical Islam state. Now they are cranking out terrorist left and right and they are taking down planes all over the world. Now we have to go back into Iraq and clean it out again but this time we are facing well trained, not to mentioned trained to do what we do, soldiers.

This wasn't on my mind when I first started this but doesn't this mean that we really do need to stay and make damn sure that when we leave it will not fall apart over there?

I'm finished for now. I need to do some work.

[Dave M]

Have you ever wondered if that will come back to haunt us? What if we leave Iraq and it implodes into a radical Islam state. Now they are cranking out terrorist left and right and they are taking down planes all over the world. Now we have to go back into Iraq and clean it out again but this time we are facing well trained, not to mentioned trained to do what we do, soldiers.

This wasn't on my mind when I first started this but doesn't this mean that we really do need to stay and make damn sure that when we leave it will not fall apart over there?

I'm finished for now. I need to do some work.

I'm not saying we shouldn't finish what we started. We destroyed the country we should rebuild it. I'm saying the war shouldn't have been started in the first place.

[Jeff_in_Atl]

I'm not saying we shouldn't finish what we started. We destroyed the country we should rebuild it. I'm saying the war shouldn't have been started in the first place.

And I'm saying it should have because it's better to face them without nuclear weapons than with nuclear weapons.

[Dave M]

Moving away from the war for a while (we could debate it ad nauseum (sp?)), what about other controversial moves by the administration? What is the feeling among people about some of the other stuff?

Here's a starter: Cheney gets advice on hen house security from the fox....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

Begin the debate. I've got my flame suit on.

Also, I'd like to congratulate everyone on keeping this debate fairly civil. It's amzing we can debate something so explosive (no pun intended) as the war in Iraq and not resort to the kind of antics that happens on other boards. There is good information being exchanged and I, for one, enjoy having my preconceptions challenged. It's good for you to have to defend what you believe. Keep it coming.

[Jeff_in_Atl]

Moving away from the war for a while (we could debate it ad nauseum (sp?)), what about other controversial moves by the administration? What is the feeling among people about some of the other stuff?

Here's a starter: Cheney gets advice on hen house security from the fox....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

Begin the debate. I've got my flame suit on.

Also, I'd like to congratulate everyone on keeping this debate fairly civil. It's amzing we can debate something so explosive (no pun intended) as the war in Iraq and not resort to the kind of antics that happens on other boards. There is good information being exchanged and I, for one, enjoy having my preconceptions challenged. It's good for you to have to defend what you believe. Keep it coming.

Why don't you move this to another thread.

[Dave M]

Why don't you move this to another thread.

I don't want to crowd the board with various Bush debate threads, but if it's really needed to keep the debates coherent, I will.

I thought you were going back to work. I never actually work, I just get paid, so I have an excuse. What's yours?

[Jeff_in_Atl]

I don't want to crowd the board with various Bush debate threads, but if it's really needed to keep the debates coherent, I will.

I thought you were going back to work. I never actually work, I just get paid, so I have an excuse. What's yours?

multitasking.