bin Laden’s most successful attack on....

Snake, just give it up with the WMD thing. It's been three years, even the administration has given up looking.

We found one leftover shell from the 80's that escaped destruction. Hell, it was probably one we sold him in the first place. Big deal.

To use the crackhouse analogy, it's like launching a raid on a know crackhouse that's been raided before, checking the plumbing and finding some excriment-encrusted crack he flushed last time you raided it.

The Iraq War was a huge intelligence failure that was botched on the ground. That's a fact. Where the blame lies is the point of contention. Saddam certainly wasn't going to any lengths to prove the he got rid of the weapons, and he was still for some unknown reason screwing with the weapons inspectors. That is a fact. If he had done more to prove he didn't have them he (probably)could have stopped the invasion. As to wether or not he would have restarted a program had he got the inspectors out without finding anything and kept the US from invading, who knows. But I will credit Bush with that he realized that this was a possibility and could have been very costly later. I don't blame Bush for not beleiving Saddam Hussein when Saddam had obviously not been complying with inspectors and UN resolutions. He did indeed violate UN resolutions(The Al Samud II ballistic missles) and did shoot at us just about every day in the no fly zone.

But what is really screwed up is the lengths this administration went through to present it's case. Using highly questionable intelligence, and the whole Valeri Plame thing. If he had sold the war on the facts as we know them today, we probably still would have invaded. I think it was very foolish of the administration to listen to the INC, who figured they'd be put in power if Saddam was toppled. They got hosed by them big time.

The handling of the war itself was botched severly as well. Bush (with a lot of help from Saddam) put himself in a position where summer was coming and he had a lot of restless troops in a big desert waiting to blow stuff up. He also had the very real risk of Hans Blix being given the run around and still not finding anything and having that nagging doubt added to the lack of justification to invade. He simply would have lost the option of invasion without decent proof Saddam had no WMD.

So he decides to go with a plan to use minimal troops and defeat the Iraqi military as fast as possible. Which worked perfectly well from a totally tactical standpoint. Of course, if they were going to go with a low number of troops THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE DISBANDED THE IRAQI ARMY. The looting was a total disater and the insurgency should have been crushed at it's birth. ow much easier would this whole thing be if we hadn't dismantled the whole Army and didn't have to retrain it? I'm not saying that most of them didn't shed their uniforms and blend in, but we should have given the POW's their rifles back and told them to start capping looters, then sealed off the Iraqi borders effectivly. We still would have had to train more troops, but we'd have had a head start. I'd put most of the blame for this on Paul Bremer, but Bush is by no means clean.

Bush gambled on UN inspections and did what he thought was the right thing. It's his fault for gambling like that and getting played so hard by Saddam Hussein and the INC. It's his fault for letting the African Uranium thing get in his speech. It's his fault for horribly managing public relations by refusing to disclose anything that happens without getting badgered by the press, related to the war or otherwise. He just can't stop putting himself in bad political positions and for some unfathomable reason doesn't seem to think he has to tell the press anything, which just makes him look like a tool even if he's not doing anything wrong. Bush can't get out of his own way and he hangs out with too many shifty characters. He has also probably forever destroyed anything good he has done in the realm of international politics with the handling of the war. The Bush Doctrine on Premption is the only thing we really have on the subject, and it will certainly be relevant in the future, however, good luck getting that done when it's a dire necessity since people will just think "Oh crap not another Iraq. Let's wait until they gas somebody or the smell of genocide is carried far enough by the wind for Eurpoe to smell it."

And I managed to write all that without calling anybody on the forum nasty names, making gross generalizations,or making the observation that George W. Bush bears a striking resemblance to a chimpanzee.

rednekk98 wrote: Snake, just give it up with the WMD thing. It's been three years, even the administration has given up looking. We found one leftover shell from the 80's that escaped destruction. Hell, it was probably one we sold him in the first place. Big deal.

He's using the shell to point out that Saddam did indeed have weapons of mass destruction. If you find an ant, there is likely an ant hill. That is a big deal.
                                                         

rednekk98 wrote: The Iraq War was a huge intelligence failure that was botched on the ground. That's a fact. Where the blame lies is the point of contention. Saddam certainly wasn't going to any lengths to prove the he got rid of the weapons, and he was still for some unknown reason screwing with the weapons inspectors. That is a fact. If he had done more to prove he didn't have them he (probably)could have stopped the invasion. As to wether or not he would have restarted a program had he got the inspectors out without finding anything and kept the US from invading, who knows. But I will credit Bush with that he realized that this was a possibility and could have been very costly later. I don't blame Bush for not beleiving Saddam Hussein when Saddam had obviously not been complying with inspectors and UN resolutions. He did indeed violate UN resolutions(The Al Samud II ballistic missles) and did shoot at us just about every day in the no fly zone. But what is really screwed up is the lengths this administration went through to present it's case. Using highly questionable intelligence, and the whole Valeri Plame thing. If he had sold the war on the facts as we know them today, we probably still would have invaded. I think it was very foolish of the administration to listen to the INC, who figured they'd be put in power if Saddam was toppled. They got hosed by them big time.

What does Valerie Plame have to do with Iraq? The president used the intelligence he felt was substantial. And since you yourself said it was inconsequential, it's a meaningless point.

rednekk98 wrote: The handling of the war itself was botched severly as well. Bush (with a lot of help from Saddam) put himself in a position where summer was coming and he had a lot of restless troops in a big desert waiting to blow stuff up. He also had the very real risk of Hans Blix being given the run around and still not finding anything and having that nagging doubt added to the lack of justification to invade. He simply would have lost the option of invasion without decent proof Saddam had no WMD. So he decides to go with a plan to use minimal troops and defeat the Iraqi military as fast as possible. Which worked perfectly well from a totally tactical standpoint. Of course, if they were going to go with a low number of troops THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE DISBANDED THE IRAQI ARMY. The looting was a total disater and the insurgency should have been crushed at it's birth. ow much easier would this whole thing be if we hadn't dismantled the whole Army and didn't have to retrain it? I'm not saying that most of them didn't shed their uniforms and blend in, but we should have given the POW's their rifles back and told them to start capping looters, then sealed off the Iraqi borders effectivly. We still would have had to train more troops, but we'd have had a head start. I'd put most of the blame for this on Paul Bremer, but Bush is by no means clean.

Give the freakin enemy their guns back? That's what was wrong with World War II. We should have given those silly Nazi's their guns back and let them hunt down their buddies.

rednekk98 wrote: Bush gambled on UN inspections and did what he thought was the right thing. It's his fault for gambling like that and getting played so hard by Saddam Hussein and the INC. It's his fault for letting the African Uranium thing get in his speech. It's his fault for horribly managing public relations by refusing to disclose anything that happens without getting badgered by the press, related to the war or otherwise. He just can't stop putting himself in bad political positions and for some unfathomable reason doesn't seem to think he has to tell the press anything, which just makes him look like a tool even if he's not doing anything wrong. Bush can't get out of his own way and he hangs out with too many shifty characters. He has also probably forever destroyed anything good he has done in the realm of international politics with the handling of the war. The Bush Doctrine on Premption is the only thing we really have on the subject, and it will certainly be relevant in the future, however, good luck getting that done when it's a dire necessity since people will just think "Oh crap not another Iraq. Let's wait until they gas somebody or the smell of genocide is carried far enough by the wind for Eurpoe to smell it."

I didn't make any sense of that, so...Just out of curiousity, what do you mean he got played by Saddam?

rednekk98 wrote: And I managed to write all that without calling anybody on the forum nasty names, making gross generalizations,or making the observation that George W. Bush bears a striking resemblance to a chimpanzee.

I'll give you that.

I honestly do not know how I am supposed to keep this up without hurling insults.

Snake. Here are the facts, not rhetoric.

Joe Wilson's original piece, that got his wife's cover blown two days later in retaliation:

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm

Lewis Libby, Cheney's former right hand quit after being indicted by a grand jury. Here is where he says that it came from his superiors, being either **edited** Cheney or Der Bush:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/09/politics/main13028 07.shtml

Now, what is significant about this is that it is indisputable proof that the Bush admin. did suppress, bully, and threaten anyone who opposed their rush to war. If that is not sufficient for you, then I concede because there is no hope for you.

Rednekk, your post was excellent. That is exactly what I used to do, until people like Linus and Snake "6" destroyed all civility in my body due to their inability to process any information that challenges their narrow-minded beliefs. I guarantee that they will come up with some truly ridiculous argument for the articles that I post, and be content with spewing the exact same arguments to their grand children one day.

Linus wrote: goodsmitty wrote: That is exactly what I used to do, until people like Linus and Snake "6" destroyed all civility in my body due to their inability to process any information that challenges their narrow-minded beliefs. I guarantee that they will come up with some truly ridiculous argument for the articles that I post, and be content with spewing the exact same arguments to their grand children one day. Um.. correct meif I'm wrong, but if we are narrow-minded, you are even more so. You stick with the same exact arguements too (Valeria Plame LOOK AT VALEIE PLAME!!!!!111!!one) and then you ATTACK us for having a different view. We dont attack you, we dont say you follow undeveloped people, we dont call you names. It's ALL you. Snake and I have been pretty civil throughout this whole name-calling fest and the forum see's it as well. You don't.

So it doesn't bother you that your VP sold out a CIA operative in retribution for his husband's criticisms of the war. Which means either 1) the articles I posted are over your head, or 2) justice has no value to you.

Since you:

1. Have no idea what Richard Clarke testified to the 9/11 commission, and how it implicates Bush.,

2. Have no idea who Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame, Lewis Libby, or Robert Woodward are, or the implication of their story has on the war,

3. Have no idea who Charles Dulfuer is, or what he wrote in his congressional report,

I am going to guess that the links I posted were in fact, way above your head, with points and implications you cannot grasp, so your answer is to rely on the only point that you know, that Iraq had WMD in the 1990s and used them on Kurds as your complete and utter justification of the war.

You and your steadfast resistance to the written word are the biggest enemies to the soldiers you claim to support, and the rest of the free world, for that matter.

Face it, you don't really know much about anything, except how to talk loud like the conservative talk show hosts that you imitate, and can only answer facts with the sound bites you pick up on Fox News.

I don't understand what you're saying, GS, and neither do you

OOO OOO

AAA AAA

Rambino wrote: Congratulations - family strikes for the Smittys. I encourage both of you to review the part of the forum policy and rules that tells you to play nice. I am always very loathe to interfere in political discussions, but this stopped being a political discussion a few pages back. And a quick warning as well - any gloating from other participants to this abomination of a thread will not be tolerated. How hard is it to play nice?  Just pretend that you are actual adults, and all will be well.

Congratulations accepted.  See ya.  Anyone interested in airsofting in southern ohio, p.m. with your info over the weekend.