Bush's Veteran's Day Speech: What did you think of it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melf

Hao, I never said Congress was innocent, and I'm not saying anything about the intellegence. I'm talking about the use of force, which Bush said would be saved as a last resort and wasn't. Kerry said he would vote for force only under those terms, and Republicans twisted it around completely. Your own quotes support my argument.

---

Your engaging in semantics. He voted for the war, Iraq failed to comply with multiple (over 10, some say 17) UN Resolutions to disarm, and Bush waited 5 months to go to war from the time both houses of Congress voted yea. Even in Kerry's own speech addressing Congress he cited evidence from the CIA suggesting that Iraq might have nuclear capability within a year. You can't have it both ways, because if Iraq had been seeking these weapons and had them finished within a year then everyone would be saying what an idiot Bush was for NOT going to war. Kerry's "last resort" would've been an Iraqi attack on one of its neighbors or on us and that, my friend, is no longer acceptable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melf

I see no mention there that Saddam was confirmed to have WMDs. This sound hypothetical, not literal. If he had them, it would be a great threat (which is true). IF he had them.

---

Then re-read it. He makes many specific references (even within the quote you're using to rebut me) to the fact that Saddam had weapons.

Kerry - "And while the administration has failed to provide any direct link between Iraq and the events of September 11, can we afford to ignore the possibility that Saddam Hussein might accidentally, as well as purposely, allow those weapons to slide off to one group or other in a region where weapons are the currency of trade? How do we leave that to chance? "

How could he "slide off" weapons to one group or other that DO NOT EXIST? Revisionist history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melf

Where does he say "let's go in and get 'em!? This supports what he said earlier about using force, but only as a last resort. There's nothing here that says Kerry believed Saddam had the weapons now and had to be taken out now. It talks about the possibility of having them, something Kerry wanted inspections to prove. Not allowing more inspections could have given Hussein time to move the weapons.

---

He would have absolutely NOTHING to gain, either politically or otherwise, by making such a statement as it's not his call to make, it's the executive branch's ultimate decision. There would be no reason for him, or any other Senator, to call for blood or incite war because it's NOT THEIR JOB.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melf

But a full-scale invasion did?

---

Is Saddam Hussein a threat anymore? Was he before when he invaded Kuwait and gassed his own people? Hussein is removed and now the biggest threat is insurgency. So, yes, the invasion worked to achieve its goal even if it was on faulty intelligence that I believe everyone, not just Bush, is guilty of relying on. If anything, this has proven what a complete overhaul our intelligence gathering agencies needed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haohmaru

Your engaging in semantics. He voted for the war, Iraq failed to comply with multiple (over 10, some say 17) UN Resolutions to disarm, and Bush waited 5 months to go to war from the time both houses of Congress voted yea. Even in Kerry's own speech addressing Congress he cited evidence from the CIA suggesting that Iraq might have nuclear capability within a year. You can't have it both ways, because if Iraq had been seeking these weapons and had them finished within a year then everyone would be saying what an idiot Bush was for NOT going to war. Kerry's "last resort" would've been an Iraqi attack on one of its neighbors or on us and that, my friend, is no longer acceptable.

---

So Iraq would have attacked its neighbors or us with weapons that never existed? Did that CIA evidence include the year's worth of intelligence they gave the White House stating that the evidence in the whole Niger thing was false? Or Bush's reference to an IAEA report (that never existed) that supposedly said Iraq would have nukes within half a year? As you said, the decision was the President's to make, and the intelligence wasn't half as convincing as they made it out to be (aluminum tubes). If Congress fell for it, they're as dumb as he is.

Thing is, you can't have it both ways either. Had Kerry voted against the resolution, the right would have nailed him the way they nailed Dean. He voted based on certain criteria, and still they nailed him. Yet the President is clean as a whistle.

I also don't recall seeing anyone but Bush state on national television that the US could be hit within 48 hours by Iraq. The push to attack was his, and he would have done it whether Congress agreed or not.

Quote:

---

Then re-read it. He makes many specific references (even within the quote you're using to rebut me) to the fact that Saddam had weapons.

Kerry - "And while the administration has failed to provide any direct link between Iraq and the events of September 11, can we afford to ignore the possibility that Saddam Hussein might accidentally, as well as purposely, allow those weapons to slide off to one group or other in a region where weapons are the currency of trade? How do we leave that to chance? "

How could he "slide off" weapons to one group or other that DO NOT EXIST? Revisionist history.

---

He said it was possible, and all avenues should be exhausted before attack. That didn't happen. And have those weapons been found? Nope. Was there ever any concrete proof that they ever even existed? Nah-ah. I think the revising of history comes from the President going from "we could be attacked within 48 hours" to "he had the potential to develop WMDs."

REASONS FOR ATTACKING IRAQ

A. He has WMDs!

Ah, no...

B. He's linked to Al Qaeda!

Sorry...

C. We need to liberate the Iraqui people!

Yeah! There ya go!

Quote:

---

Is Saddam Hussein a threat anymore? Was he before when he invaded Kuwait and gassed his own people? Hussein is removed and now the biggest threat is insurgency. So, yes, the invasion worked to achieve its goal even if it was on faulty intelligence that I believe everyone, not just Bush, is guilty of relying on. If anything, this has proven what a complete overhaul our intelligence gathering agencies needed.

---

So even though everyone in the American government had the wool pulled over their eyes due to faulty intelligence, Bush still managed to stumble into a good deed all by himself? I doubt it was that cut and dry.

The Bush administration knew better than what the intelligence said. Collin Powell himself answered "I don't know" when asked by the Washington Post whether or not he would have recommended an invasion of Iraq had he known there were no WMDs. Heck, even Cheney himself forshadowed what would happen if we invaded waaaaay back in April of 1991 when he said:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the VP

I think that the proposition of going to Baghdad is also fallacious. I think if we were going to remove Saddam Hussein we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad, we would have to commit a lot of force because I do not believe he would wait in the Presidential Palace for us to arrive. I think we'd have had to hunt him down. And once we'd done that and we'd gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we'd have had to put another government in its place.

What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi'i government or a Kurdish government or Ba'athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that government in place? What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable?

I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it's my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq.

---

But it's all the CIA's fault that we're stuck there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melf

So Iraq would have attacked its neighbors or us with weapons that never existed? Did that CIA evidence include the year's worth of intelligence they gave the White House stating that the evidence in the whole Niger thing was false? Or Bush's reference to an IAEA report (that never existed) that supposedly said Iraq would have nukes within half a year? As you said, the decision was the President's to make, and the intelligence wasn't half as convincing as they made it out to be (aluminum tubes). If Congress fell for it, they're as dumb as he is.

---

Yeah, they fell for it and I think Bush is far dumber than many members of Congress.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melf

Thing is, you can't have it both ways either. Had Kerry voted against the resolution, the right would have nailed him the way they nailed Dean. He voted based on certain criteria, and still they nailed him. Yet the President is clean as a whistle.

---

Yeah, but I'm not denying that Bush was for the War - you're denying that Kerry was while using semantics like "last resort" and intelligence shenanigans when he had access to the SAME EXACT info that Bush did. Kerry is the same dumbass that Bush is and that all the members of Congress are that bought into the CIA/FBI and everyone else's ficticious "facts" about Iraq's capabilities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melf

I also don't recall seeing anyone but Bush state on national television that the US could be hit within 48 hours by Iraq. The push to attack was his, and he would have done it whether Congress agreed or not.

---

No, he couldn't have done it without Congress and wouldn't have - which is the exact reason he sought their approval. And selectively pulling quotes out of mid-air is a battle you and I could engage in for the rest of our lives it still doesn't debunk the underlying argument that John Kerry voted for the war based on the same crap info that Bush did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melf

He said it was possible, and all avenues should be exhausted before attack. That didn't happen. And have those weapons been found? Nope. Was there ever any concrete proof that they ever even existed? Nah-ah. I think the revising of history comes from the President going from "we could be attacked within 48 hours" to "he had the potential to develop WMDs."

---

You sure you're not speaking of his demand for Saddam to go into exile within 48 hours? This whole thing could've been avoided entirely if that country was run by an obviously delusional madman with entirely too much pride.

REASONS FOR ATTACKING IRAQ

A. He has WMDs! (which he HAS used before)

Ah, no... (ah, yes...)

B. He's linked to Al Qaeda!

Sorry... (Gee, uh, where is Al Qaeda the strongest? Iraq? Coincidence?)

C. We need to liberate the Iraqui people! (And dispose of Hussein)

Yeah! There ya go! (I'm sure most of them would agree)

Quote:

---

So even though everyone in the American government had the wool pulled over their eyes due to faulty intelligence, Bush still managed to stumble into a good deed all by himself? I doubt it was that cut and dry.

The Bush administration knew better than what the intelligence said. Collin Powell himself answered "I don't know" when asked by the Washington Post whether or not he would have recommended an invasion of Iraq had he known there were no WMDs. Heck, even Cheney himself forshadowed what would happen if we invaded waaaaay back in April of 1991 when he said:

But it's all the CIA's fault that we're stuck there.

---

No, it's Congress' - they authorized the use of force. ;)

Heh, awesome discussion Hao. :)

This discussion has been much improved with Haoh's arrival. I do want to note this though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haohmaru

B. He's linked to Al Qaeda!

Sorry... (Gee, uh, where is Al Qaeda the strongest? Iraq? Coincidence?)

---

Al Qaeda is strong in Iraq now yes. But it wasn't before the war. The reason Al Qaeda has been able to get a foothold there is because of our actions in tearing down the structure of the country. Saddam was not linked to Al Qaeda anymore then Chirac was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bbobb

Saddam was not linked to Al Qaeda anymore then Chirac was.

---

Is that why he sheltered the architect of the first trade center bombing for most of the 90's in Iraq?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bbobb

This discussion has been much improved with Haoh's arrival.

---

If he's able to finally dispel all this "unjust war, Bush lied" nonsense to some of you then he's more than improved it. I've been trying and obviously failing in straightening you out, I'll give him a shot :)

The three men responsible for the first WTC bombing had been caught within two years after the bombing, including Ramzi Yousef. He was in Iraq for less than a year and was caught in Pakistan. I think the guy you're referring to is Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, no? He was the #2 guy after Osama.

LOL at all of you arguing. John Kerry is a schmuck and was the worst choice possible for the Democrats. (Yeah, I bitched after the election, fuck you.)

Iraq: Liberation of the Iraqi people was not the original intent. The fact that we ended up using that as our motivation (and Saddam being a piece of shit) makes the war justified. You're wrong if you feel otherwise on either point.

But seriously, let's talk frankly here. They lied. They lied their asses off. BUT! It was a good lie. It was the fucking best lie ever, much better than not inhaling and not having sex with the intern. Why? Because it's was the kind of lie you can't trace. Now you can bitch about faulty intelligence all you want, but I'm talking from the "OJ did it," "Scott Peterson did it," point of view. They fucking lied, okay? But that can't be proven. Get over it, both of you.

Liberals, you're never going to win the argument, you can't PROVE they lied.

Conservatives, you're never going to stop hearing about it, BECAUSE THEY FUCKING LIED.

It's a never ending circle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpoDaddy

If he's able to finally dispel all this "unjust war, Bush lied" nonsense to some of you then he's more than improved it. I've been trying and obviously failing in straightening you out, I'll give him a shot :)

---

No, but it's nice to actually discuss with someone who can actually put up a logical argument and when they're wrong will actually accept it and learn from it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpoDaddy

Is that why he sheltered the architect of the first trade center bombing for most of the 90's in Iraq?

---

As Melf pointed out... he didn't.

It comes down to the fact that Saddam was part of what Al Qaeda hates... secularization of their holy land. You can't lump all the Brown People that hate us together as Jihadist Murderers as you like to term them. They are not a united front against us. Just like Communism was never a united front against us either. It's time to stop seeing things in starkly black and white terms. This cold war attitude really needs to go away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calliander

Now you can bitch about faulty intelligence all you want, but I'm talking from the "OJ did it," "Scott Peterson did it," point of view. They fucking lied, okay? But that can't be proven.

---

Well, someone though Scott Peterson lied, 'cause the state of California is about to kill that mother fucker.