Scouts reference in Ann Coulter Commentary

[Gonzo1 10]

BrentAllen,

Thanks for the insight.

 

mmhardy,

The prominent democrats who called Saddam a threat said so DURING THE CLINTON YEARS.

Let's not forget that Bill Clinton could have had Bin Laden, but passed.

 

Also, Iraq had WMD, we found them, lots of them. I would bet that many are still buried in the desert.

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

BrentAllen, as you say, hindsight is 20/20. However, that cannot excuse Bush's incompetence at the time.

 

Yes, IN HINDSIGHT, there probably wasn't much that he could have done - BUT NOBODY KNEW THAT AT THE TIME. He was the only one with authority to order a shootdown, yet he was not available for seven minutes.

 

Yes, he wasn't targeted by terrorists that day, but they also couldn't have known that at the time. Not ordering an evacuation of the school was dangerously incompetent. Any fool should have realized that.

 

Yes, Iraq is a quagmire that we can't just walk away from, but we're there because of the dangerously incompetent Bush administration.

[Hunt 11]

"It's a shame you like Saddam so much and his terrorist buddies, I suggest you join Saddam."

 

You should do more than "tone it down"--you should apologize for repeatedly saying things like this, when you must know it is untrue.

 

"Also, Iraq had WMD, we found them, lots of them. I would bet that many are still buried in the desert."

 

? I'll bet you get mad when flaiming liberals make similarly basesless statements (i.e., Bush knew about 9/11 in advance).

[DanKroh 11]

Gonzo, just a couple of pieces of friendly advice about netiquette that you might not be aware of.

 

Typing in all caps traditionally denotes shouting. And it's hard on the eyes to read. If you want to set apart what you are writing from something you are quoting from someone else, try putting quotation marks around things written by someone else. That way, what you are writing will stand out without having to shout.

 

Not trying to moderate you in any way, just trying to pass along something you might not be aware of.

[mmhardy 10]

Gonzo.

You stated: The prominent democrats who called Saddam a threat said so DURING THE CLINTON YEARS.

Let's not forget that Bill Clinton could have had Bin Laden, but passed.

 

Youre absolutely correct on that assessment. But its out of context. Saddam was a regional threat that had the high potential of destabilizing the Mid-East. (Remember his foray into Kuwait.)

 

However his regime was always checked by Sanctions, Iran and to a lesser extent the Saudis. As long has this triad been in place this teapot dictator was king of his own sand hill.

 

I dont buy, for a minute, that he represented a threat to the US nor to US interests in the area. When the US removed Saddam from power it created a huge vacuum of influence that Iran has rushed in to fill with an Islamic Theocratic view of state ship. In addition we are now so stretched out, (and now exhausted after 5+ years on war footing), that these states are emboldened to act up. Now we have North Korea to worry about!

 

[Gonzo1 10]

Hunt, DanKroh, mmhardy, Merlyn and anyone else else i may have offended:

I apologize if what I have said here offends you.

I am offended by the constant criticism our our president and our military. It seems that the left just can not stand GWB.

 

Dan,

I know that typing in CAPS generally means SHOUTING, that's because I was. Except for one reply where I separated my comments from the other poster. I haven't figured out how to make italics, colors and bold on the forums, I tried using MS Word and then pasting them, but no luck.

 

Hunt,

There is no possible way anyone in the Bush administration could know in advance that planes would be used as missiles. We don't have thought detection systems in place, at least not yet (wink), I know I could use the little sybmol, but wink brings more attention to it.

Also, liberals make their baseless charges and then hope for no response, what do you expect?

 

Another word about Saddam, he repeatedly violated UN sanctions/resolutions and the terms of the surrender of the Gulf War. Should we just have let it go? The resolutions had "teeth" in them. Bush warned that there would be harsh consequences, and then there were.

 

mmhardy, I agree that we could have taken a different tack in Iraq, and perhaps Afganistan. Perhaps we should have continued the pounding with missiles rather than dragging out the ground war. I agree that we are spread pretty think right now.

 

Good day to all, sorry to offend. Please accept my sincere apology.

[packsaddle 753]

Gonzo1, Hey guy, you can beat on me any ol' time. As you have learned some of us have very thin skins but me, I love to play tag. I'm just not as fast on my feet as I was a few decades ago. Besides, there is absolutely nothing that you or anyone else in these forums could say or do that would come close to matching the wrath of my wife.

Men must practice their evil tendencies in order to perfect them. Women merely summon them.

 

However, you must understand that you are the only person I know who clings to an idea that even the administration has admitted is false and abandoned, that WMD exist or existed when we invaded.

You may take issue with some of the statements on this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

but you are free to submit your corrections if you have the evidence to back them up. But I have seen the actual report by the CIA and you can too:

https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html

You evidently know something they don't...not outside the realm of possibility, I add.

[BrentAllen 10]

mmhardy,

You are definitely in the liberal camp; you must be getting your news from the far left web sites. Example:

"... Our national guard cannot respond in force to national disasters. Our recruiters have problems recruiting. Do you think that if this administration wins these midterms that we will not have a draft? I hope not but I am not willing to bet my sons lives on it. Are you?"

 

Instead of dealing in "stories" that "abound" how about deal with facts?

 

"The U.S. Army will meet its fiscal year 2006 active recruiting goal of 80,000 on Sept. 22.

The Active Army and the Army National Guard previously announced they had met their annual retention missions. The Army Reserve expects to meet its retention mission in the next week."

"The Air Force Reserve Has Recruited 105 Percent Of Its Year-To-Date Goal. The Marine Corps Reserve Has Recruited 100 Percent Of Its Year-To-Date Goal."

The only person calling for a draft is your liberal buddy Charlie Rangel. So go ahead and vote Democrat on November 7th, let the Democrats win the House, and Charlie will give you the draft.

 

If you can't see progress of the conservative agenda, then you belong in the liberal camp. Tax cuts? Market setting new records? Over 6 million jobs created? Low unemployment? Low inflation? I say all that is pretty impressive, especially considering we are at war. Other than in liberal Mass., marriage is protected.

 

Merlyn,

Do you really think the DOD and SS don't have an idea of what is going on in the air space above the president at all times? And you really think if the president had been needed to make some critical decision, they wouldn't have interupted?? All I can say is "thanks" - I hadn't come across my most ridiculous item of the day, until now.

 

packsaddle,

That CIA link is dead.

I still just have one question for the liberals who call Bush a liar and think he knew there weren't any WMD's, but invaded anyway. Why didn't he plant WMD's to cover his story? You state he is a liar, over and over again. You say he knew there weren't any WMD's. So, if all that were true, he must have known he would have a day of reckoning, where people would ask "where are the WMD's?" Surely if he knew there weren't any, and he was a liar who had no respect for the truth, he would have planted them.

 

On the other hand, if Bush is an honest man, and thought there were WMD's, as our intelligence and the British and others stated, he would find himself in the current situation.

So, you have to decide which camp you are in. If you are in the liberal camp, please tell me why Bush didn't plant WMD's. Don't say it was because he wasn't capable. We have nut jobs on the left claiming Bush created 9/11! So just answer that one simple question.(This message has been edited by BrentAllen)

[SR540Beaver 116]

Brent,

 

Just to address one of your points. Kind of like Paul Harvey says, and now the Rest of the Story.

 

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2274910.php

 

Only by lowering standards, increasing bonuses and putting more recruiters on the streets was the Army able to meet its goal, he said. The other services also had problems and needed more incentives.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101000131.html

 

The U.S. Army recruited more than 2,600 soldiers under new lower aptitude standards this year, helping the service beat its goal of 80,000 recruits in the throes of an unpopular war and mounting casualties.

 

The recruiting mark comes a year after the Army missed its recruitment target by the widest margin since 1979, which had triggered a boost in the number of recruiters, increased bonuses, and changes in standards.....

 

About 17 percent of the first-time recruits, or about 13,600, were accepted under waivers for various medical, moral or criminal problems, including misdemeanor arrests or drunk driving. That is a slight increase from last year, the Army said.

 

Of those accepted under waivers, more than half were for "moral" reasons, mostly misdemeanor arrests. Thirty-eight percent were for medical reasons and 7 percent were drug and alcohol problems, including those who may have failed a drug test or acknowledged they had used drugs.

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

BrentAllen writes:

Do you really think the DOD and SS don't have an idea of what is going on in the air space above the president at all times?

 

The school the president was at was near an airport - that's one reason they selected that particular school. Are you saying that if an airplane taking off from that airport had been hijacked, they would have been able to evacuate the entire school in the time it would take to fly it into the school? That's utter nonsense. The Bush administration is dangerously incompetent.

[packsaddle 753]

Brent, I just checked it and the link worked for me. I don't know what else could be the problem.

I can't speak for others when answering your question. However, I was one of the people who believed Bush back at the beginning of all this. He lied. I answered your question for Rooster7 in another thread (RE: Religious Tolerance (or not)) back in January 2005. I quote from my previous response:

In the 48-hour warning to Saddam on March 17, 2003, Bush said, "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves NO DOUBT that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.... The terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country or any other."

5 February 2003: Colin Powell to the UN Security Council, "There can be NO DOUBT that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more. And he has the ability to dispense these lethal poisons and diseases in ways that can cause massive death and destruction. If biological weapons seem too terrible to contemplate, chemical weapons are equally chilling"

In August 2002, Vice President Cheney said: "Simply stated, there is NO DOUBT that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."

On March 30, a week and a half after the start of the invasion, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld boasted about the weapons of mass destruction, "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat."

4 December 2002: When questioned about the validity (read doubt) of these claims, the White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said, "The president of the United States and the secretary of defense would not assert as plainly and bluntly as they have that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction IF IT WAS NOT TRUE, and if they did not have a solid basis for saying it"

Brent, I went on to state that even an illiterate person must have heard these statements. The fact that 'throw down' WMD weren't employed is evidence of nothing whatsoever. I can only speculate that a person who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, partied through college, was given everything by his parents, and was drunk until age 39...that person just might have been too afraid to attempt it, knowing the risk of being discovered. Better to go into deep denial and keep lying, even if after a time mostly to himself - few others are buying anymore. That person's life is mostly a lie anyway, might as well remain consistent.

I am a scientist. When someone tells me there is 'no doubt' about something, it is a powerful statement for which the assertion has been established as unassailable fact. However, as we all later learned, the intelligence reports prior to the invasion did NOT state there was no doubt. As a matter fact, the reports all made their assertions couched in various degrees of doubt (read probability). These were reports within the executive branch. There was doubt.

I can't say what this must constitute in your mind, but he lied to me and I bought it. And thousands of our people are dead, tens of thousands wounded and maimed, families destroyed, and many tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis dead. The huge amount of moral capital we had after 9/11 was poured out on the sand of Iraq and our treasury has been raided, stealing from future generations. But gosh, at least he didn't cheat on his wife.

[packsaddle 753]

Mmhardy, regarding the draft. Congress voted on that back in 2004 and I think they realize that 2008 would be out of the question for all of them if they went back on their decision. Besides the military has good reason to resist the idea. I'm not worried about this and my children also would be on the line if it happened.

[BrentAllen 10]

packsaddle,

Careful you don't fall off that high horse. Are you sure Bush didn't kill any puppies with a baseball bat??

 

Since you provided quotes, here are some for you - notice these are before Bush took office - was he able to control and lie about the intelligence before he even got into office?? He is powerful!!

 

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

 

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the GREATEST security threat we face."

Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

 

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."

Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

 

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

 

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

 

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

 

Please, oh please, tell me how Bush manipulated the intelligence they were seeing. This I gotta hear!

 

Here are a few after Bush took office, but notice who they are from:

 

"There is NO DOUBT that Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."

Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

 

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and IS building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."

Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

 

"We KNOW that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

 

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

 

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

 

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are CONFIDENT that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."

Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

 

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a REAL and grave threat to our security."

Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

 

"There is UNMISTAKABLE evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

 

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."

Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

 

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports SHOW that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to TERRORISTS, including AL QAEDA members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

 

"We are in POSSESSION of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is REAL ...

Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

 

Yes, I know - "But, but, but, but, but, but..... Bush lied!" How tiring.

 

[SR540Beaver 116]

Brent,

 

Where does the buck stop in your view?

 

Did any of the people you quoted take us to war? Regardless of their statements on WMD's, did they push the button or did they believe their were other ways to accomplish the goal?

 

The responsibility for going to war rests with one man and one man only regardless of how you attempt to deflect the fact.

[Gonzo1 10]

Packsaddle, I'm sorry if you thnk I'm beating up on you, we just don't agree on everything.

 

.....wrath of my wife. Very funny, thanks for the laugh.

WMD's did exist, our soldiers have found them. However, I believe that Bush gave too many warnings to Saddam which allowed him to hide or move weapons, I had a photo of one of his jets that was buried in the desert. I suppose that didn't exist either.

 

Regarding a draft, that's like a politician trying to cut medicare spending, neither will ever happen. Since 1975, we've had an all volunteer armed force, no draft required. It's odd that when a US Territory was attacked on Dec. 7, '41, men were lining up to enlist. I thik it was Democratc Congressman Charlie Rangel who proposed a draft legislaton, but then he voted against his own bill, why would he do that?

 

Merlyn,

In the pre-Sept 11 world, the USA did not have war planes just sitting around loaded with missiles ready to shoot down airliners, so that would not have been feasible. You can't imagine the red tape required to get a bullet, much less a missile. After Sept 11, nearly all fighters were loaded. Even on Sept 11, we didn't really comprehend the attack, my old unit went about business as usual. 3 days later, we went to 24 hour operations for the next 2 years.

 

SR540Beaver,

Bush didn't take us into war, we were attacked. Al-Qaida attacked us and declared war on us. I know, during the Clinton years, we had embassies attacked, USS Cole attacked, 1993 WTC bombing etc. What did Clinton do? He sent a flew missiles to aspirin factories in the middle of the night. Whew, that solved everything. 14 UN resolutions did nothing, UN inspectors got kicked out, that did nothing too. I'm glad we're there, though I also wish we could pick up the pace. I wonder what Gore or Kerry would have done? I suspect nothing too.