[goMac]

Originally Posted by Kevin

BTW I wanna know why Gore was never called a liar here either

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

Because Gore isn't President.

Gee... let's compare people who aren't President, to people who are. That's a great idea.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Kevin

No, no they aren't offering a solution. They are just bitching about what IS going on.

Apparently someone missed the "Let's get the hell out before we screw things up more" memo.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by goMac

Because Gore isn't President.

LAWL!

So it's ok for vice presidents and congressmen to lie as long as you aren't president?

Must have found that in the bottom of the barrel.

BTW Clinton was president when he said such things. And he was never called a liar either.

So there goes that spin.

Gee... let's compare people who aren't President, to people who are. That's a great idea.

Who is and who isn't president is irrelevant. But even if it was, I showed example of comparing to presidents that said Iraq had WMDs.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by goMac

Apparently someone missed the "Let's get the hell out before we screw things up more" memo.

That isn't a solution. That is a cut and run. And that is a copout do nothing approach, like I said Dems favor.

It will only make things worse.

You know, we weren't in Iraq when we got attacked in 9/11

Do you honestly believe if the US becomes isolationists that the terrorists will just leave us alone?

[ink]

Originally Posted by Kevin

That isn't a solution. That is a cut and run. And that is a copout do nothing approach, like I said Dems favor.

It will only make things worse.

You know, we weren't in Iraq when we got attacked in 9/11

Do you honestly believe if the US becomes isolationists that the terrorists will just leave us alone?

Oh yes, the only two choices available: Occupy Iraq or become isolantionst. There can be no middle ground.

We also had stupid baggage screeners on 9/11 who let boxcutters on a plane.

We also had comlacent passengers and pilots on 9/11 who thought that it would be another run-of-the-mill plane hijacking.

Which change do you think is really preventing another 9/11-style attack? Invading Iraq, or improved domestic security?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Kevin

BTW I wanna know why Gore was never called a liar here either

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

He said "WE" knew that he had WMDs throughout his country.

This was said in 2002.

Why didn't get get flamed?

Anyone?

Because at one point Saddam did have WMDs throughout his country. We know that because we gave them to him.

[marden]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

Because at one point Saddam did have WMDs throughout his country. We know that because we gave them to him.

"...there was a massive nuclear weapons development program that was probably nine to 18 months away from having its first nuclear weapons detonation and that CIA had totally missed it; we had bombed everything we could bomb in Iraq, but missed an enormous nuclear weapons development facility. Didn't know it was there; never dropped one bomb on it.
[...]
I know that Dick Cheney that morning looked at that report and said, "Here's what the Iraqis themselves are saying: that there's this huge facility that was never hit during the war; that they were very close to making a nuclear bomb, and CIA didn't know it." I'm sure he said to himself, "I can never trust CIA again to tell me when a country is about to make a nuclear bomb."
[...]
There's no doubt that the Dick Cheney who comes back into office nine years later has that as one of the things burnt into his memory: that Iraq wants a nuclear weapon; Iraq was that close to getting a nuclear weapon; and CIA hadn't a clue."

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by marden

"...there was a massive nuclear weapons development program that was probably nine to 18 months away from having its first nuclear weapons detonation and that CIA had totally missed it; we had bombed everything we could bomb in Iraq, but missed an enormous nuclear weapons development facility. Didn't know it was there; never dropped one bomb on it.
[...]
I know that Dick Cheney that morning looked at that report and said, "Here's what the Iraqis themselves are saying: that there's this huge facility that was never hit during the war; that they were very close to making a nuclear bomb, and CIA didn't know it." I'm sure he said to himself, "I can never trust CIA again to tell me when a country is about to make a nuclear bomb."
[...]
There's no doubt that the Dick Cheney who comes back into office nine years later has that as one of the things burnt into his memory: that Iraq wants a nuclear weapon; Iraq was that close to getting a nuclear weapon; and CIA hadn't a clue."

Um, so what exactly are those quotes supposed to prove?

[marden]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

Um, so what exactly are those quotes supposed to prove?

Would you let the peace of the M.E. and the possibility of a nuclear exchange and the lives of millions in the region rest on the kind of doubt Cheney must have had about Iraq's WMD's?

Israel WOULD have retaliated had they been attacked. Saddam had been buttering up the Palestinians. This is why. If Israel retaliated then Saddam could appeal to them and this could have turned into a regional or global fatwa against Israel and the whole region could have exploded.

NYTimes.com Article: Israel Tells the U.S. It Will Retaliate if Attacked by Iraq
2002-09-21 14:58:00

Israel Tells the U.S. It Will Retaliate if Attacked by Iraq
September 22, 2002
By MICHAEL R. GORDON

JERUSALEM, Sept. 21 - Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has
informed the Bush administration that he plans to strike
back if Iraq attacks Israel, according to Israeli and
Western officials.
[...]
In his appearance before Congress, Mr. Rumsfeld argued that
Israel would be vulnerable to an Iraqi attack but that the
American military would be so effective against the Iraqi
forces that the vulnerability would not last long. "There's
also no doubt in mind but that it would be in Israel's
overwhelming best interest not to get involved," he said.

A senior Israeli official argued differently. "The
Americans prefer that we not retaliate but they don't
understand that if we are hit we have to retaliate," he
said. "This is the dilemma. The questions are: When? How
much? If? We will have to see first where this big American
military machine is going. But if something happens we will
have to solidify our deterrence. We think that everybody
has to understand that it is not an easy task to try and
challenge Israel from a military point of view."

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/22/in...76ce62cba54732

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ink

Oh yes, the only two choices available: Occupy Iraq or become isolantionst. There can be no middle ground.

I never said there was no middle ground. I said doing nothing as you proposed wasn't an option.

Stop making up arguments out of the blue.

We also had stupid baggage screeners on 9/11 who let boxcutters on a plane.

We also had comlacent passengers and pilots on 9/11 who thought that it would be another run-of-the-mill plane hijacking.

Which change do you think is really preventing another 9/11-style attack? Invading Iraq, or improved domestic security?

I think one is more present prevention, and the other is future prevention.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

Because at one point Saddam did have WMDs throughout his country. We know that because we gave them to him.

He was talking about present time 2002.