Iraqi People Fear Democrat Victory(Chig.Trib.)

[guyone]

What that you balance the facts to suit your leftist ideals?

Try this on for size:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialRe...20041004a.html

[LG]

guyone, I'm fed up with people like you finding some obscure news report and trumpeting it as gospel without even bothering to digest the points of the report or, in fact, look at the date it was published.

So you try this one from the BBC website buddy. Unlike your news reports, it comes from the most reputable news service in the world. And, given that it's two months old and not two years old, it's still fresh.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5329350.stm

The Senate Intelligence Committee has found no evidence of links between the regime of Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.

Composite image of Saddam Hussein at his trial in Aug 2006 and an undated US Department of Defense handout photo of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was killed in June
No allies: Saddam Hussein and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi
In a report issued on Friday, it also found that was little or no evidence to support a raft of claims made by the US intelligence community concerning Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

The 400-page report was three years in the making, and is probably the definitive public account of the intelligence used to justify the invasion of Iraq.

The full Senate Committee report is here:

http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf

I believe this has reduced your argument to rubble, but, then again, it was pretty shit to begin with.

I also believe that the WMD discussion is now closed.

[White_Male_Canada]

guyone, I'm fed up with people like you finding some obscure news report and trumpeting it as gospel without even bothering to digest the points of the report or, in fact, look at the date it was published.

So you try this one from the BBC website buddy. Unlike your news reports, it comes from the most reputable news service in the world. And, given that it's two months old and not two years old, it's still fresh.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5329350.stm

The Senate Intelligence Committee has found no evidence of links between the regime of Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.

Composite image of Saddam Hussein at his trial in Aug 2006 and an undated US Department of Defense handout photo of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was killed in June
No allies: Saddam Hussein and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi
In a report issued on Friday, it also found that was little or no evidence to support a raft of claims made by the US intelligence community concerning Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

The 400-page report was three years in the making, and is probably the definitive public account of the intelligence used to justify the invasion of Iraq.

The full Senate Committee report is here:

http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf

I believe this has reduced your argument to rubble, but, then again, it was pretty shit to begin with.

I also believe that the WMD discussion is now closed.

Pfft~ You don`t get out much do you ?

The much vaunted Senate report.So much omited,so little time to type. That report was tabled BEFORE Saddam`s documents were translated !

Time magazine's Joe Klein, an Iraq War critic who is dubious of a broader Iraq-al Qaeda relationship: "Documents indicate that Saddam had long-term, low-level ties with regional terrorist groups--including Ayman al-Zawahiri, dating back to his time with the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. There is strong evidence as well that elements of the Special Republican Guard ran terrorist training camps."

June 2003, U.S. News & World Report, "A captured senior member of the Mukhabarat, Iraq's intelligence service, has told interrogators about meetings between Iraqi intelligence officials and top members of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, a group that merged with al Qaeda in the 1990s. The prisoner also described $300,000 in Iraqi transfers to the organization to pay for attacks in Egypt. The transfers were said to have been authorized by Saddam Hussein."

There is no mention at all of captured Iraqi documents that indicate the regime was providing financial support to Abu Sayyaf, an al Qaeda affiliate group in the Philippines. On June 6, 2001, the Iraqi ambassador to the Philippines, Salah Samarmad, faxed an eight-page report on an Abu Sayyaf kidnapping to the Iraqi Foreign Ministry. According to the fax, the Iraqi Intelligence Service had provided assistance to Abu Sayyaf, but following the high-profile kidnapping decided to suspend this support. According to the document: "The kidnappers were formerly (from the previous year) receiving money and purchasing combat weapons. From now on we (IIS) are not giving them this opportunity and are not on speaking terms with them."

There is no mention of the Clinton administration's 1998 indictment of Osama bin Laden, which noted that al Qaeda had "reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."

Etc,etc,etc.

You`re Senate report ? Not worth the paper it was wasted on.

[guyone]

guyone, I'm fed up with people like you finding some obscure news report and trumpeting it as gospel without even bothering to digest the points of the report or, in fact, look at the date it was published.

...and I'm fed up with people who name themselves after electronic companies.

[LG]

guyone: Actually LG is something to do with my name, but never mind. If that's the only comment you can make...well then I'd rather not read any more of your comments.

White_Male_Canada:

Pfft~ You don`t get out much do you ?

Actually, judging by the fact that, according to your profile, you've been posting an average of 2.89 posts a day compared to my average of 1.11 posts per day, I'd say I get out a lot more than you do.

You`re Senate report ? Not worth the paper it was wasted on.

Okay, let me just take this in. Everything that seems to corroborate your point is gospel, right? While everything that proves my side of the argument is bunk? Isn't that what you mean? What arrogant crap! You don't even bother to answer my individual points and prefer to go "Pfft" all the time.

You said:

Time magazine's Joe Klein, an Iraq War critic who is dubious of a broader Iraq-al Qaeda relationship: "Documents indicate that Saddam had long-term, low-level ties with regional terrorist groups--including Ayman al-Zawahiri, dating back to his time with the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. There is strong evidence as well that elements of the Special Republican Guard ran terrorist training camps."

I doubt Klein would like being quoted out of context, but that is what you have just done. In fact, Klein also wrote:

Al Qaeda was pretty much everywhere in the region before the war, but not as the active terrorist force they are today...and certainly not in Iraq.

And Klein also wrote:

there are appropriate levels of military activity that can be more effective than full-scale invasion

As for all the documents you speak of- including the bogus ones we haven't seen yet- I wonder if they are as fake as last batch. See:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/

What is confusing about the whole WMD debate is the way the US administration started off saying that Iraq had WMDs, then when they realised they couldn't find any began to talk of regime change. A little after that, Rumsfeld and pals started even questioning reporters who quoted them on their belief that WMDs would be found in Iraq. Later, when some old munitions where found, more or less, abandoned they shouted with glee: "We've found them". And now we're being told about some documents which we've never seen and hearing right wingers criticise a report that was put together jointly by both parties.

So you might as well admit it. The Bush administration may have suspected that Saddam was developing WMDs but they knew he didn't have them. Do you think they would have attacked if he did?

The WMDs were not the issue and nor was "regime change" considering that the US had supported that regime so long in the past and has continued to support other oppressive regimes. The al-Qaeda link, even if it is true, was not truly suspected at the time. We were all fed a pack of lies and Americans swallowed these lies becuase they believed that their country was in danger, their patriotism was in question and that the US is truly God's chosen nation.

And now, even Republicans like Newt Ginrich and Lindsey Graham are unhappy with how things are being handled. Meanwhile, for many Americans, the paranoia and fear have given way to anger.

Finally, I will leave you with a quote:

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger".

The words ring kind of relevant today. Kind of what you'd expect a Republican leader to believe if not actually to say. I think you might want to know that they were uttered by Hermann Goering. Spooky, eh.

I'm done with this topic. I'm going for a walk outside.

[guyone]

I doubt Klein would like being quoted out of context, but that is what you have just done. In fact, Klein also wrote:

Quote:
Al Qaeda was pretty much everywhere in the region before the war, but not as the active terrorist force they are today...and certainly not in Iraq.


And Klein also wrote:
Quote:
there are appropriate levels of military activity that can be more effective than full-scale invasion

What??? Talking about rewriting history. During the Iran-Contra hearings Oliver North stated that he feared a certain Al Qaeda member - Osama Bin Ladin and you're seriously not going to try to pass off that the USS Cole and the two embassy bombings were not the work of Al Qaeda? Talking about blinders...the mind is a terrible thing to waste.

[LG]

guyone,

That's a quote from Klein, not something I said. It is there merely to show that WMC quoted Klein out of context, which he did, and by using it like that you are quoting both me and Klein out of context.

And the Al Qaeda activities you mention still don't prove a link between Saddam and the Iraqi government.

A mind, as you say, is a terrible thing to waste. So why the fuck don't you use yours? You can start by reading other people's posts properly before spouting any old garbage.

[guyone]

I never stated you said it. You quoted Klein. I quoted your quote. If you think Saddam was such a great guy and humanitarian good for you. I suggest stepping into reality every once in a while. It can be quite informative.

[LG]

guyone,

Your buddy WMC actually tried to quote Klein to prove his point and I proved that he misquoted Klein by not giving the rest of the quote. It seems as you disagree with part of Klein's quote but WMC endorses another part of it. Let me know when you've reached a common decision. Or can we just use bits of text to prove our points while ignoring the jist of the argument they make?

In any case, to answer your other point, Saddam was a shitbag who oppressed his own people, invaded Kuwait, and probably gassed the Kurds in Iraq using weaponry from Britain and the US. He was supported at various times by the US and there is evidence to show that he was helped into power by the CIA.

Your point is mere flatulence. Who said Saddam was good? The question isn't whether he was a nice guy or not, obviously. These are the questions we need to be asking:

- Was the US justified in attacking and under what pretext?
- Did the US leadership actually believe, at the time, that Saddam possessed WMDs that could be used against America or was it a mere excuse to wage war? And has the evidence CONCLUSIVELY proven that such belief was correct?
- Was there ever a REAL, PROVABLE link between Saddam and Osama bin Laden?
- Is "regime change" a justified reason for waging war and, if so, why has the US not invaded other oppressive regimes?
- Is it ever correct to ignore the UN and wage a war?
- Did those who chose to go to war gain financially or in other ways from the war?
- Why did the US not instill regime change in Iraq back when Saddam began gassing the Kurds?

And finally:

- Was the attack and the occupation properly planned? If so, why is the insurgence still going stong and the death toll still rising?

When you have answered these questions, I will be able to engage in a proper argument with you. Until then, I'm not going to bother with the tripe you and others keep spewing out.

[White_Male_Canada]

guyone:

What is confusing about the whole WMD debate is the way the US administration started off saying that Iraq had WMDs, then when they realised they couldn't find any began to talk of regime change. A little after that, Rumsfeld and pals started even questioning reporters who quoted them on their belief that WMDs would be found in Iraq. Later, when some old munitions where found, more or less, abandoned they shouted with glee: "We've found them". And now we're being told about some documents which we've never seen and hearing right wingers criticise a report that was put together jointly by both parties.

So you might as well admit it. The Bush administration may have suspected that Saddam was developing WMDs but they knew he didn't have them. Do you think they would have attacked if he did?

The WMDs were not the issue and nor was "regime change" considering that the US had supported that regime so long in the past and has continued to support other oppressive regimes.

I'm done with this topic. I'm going for a walk outside.

The fact I have continuous access to computers may help dispell you`re illogical notions.

Regime change ? No Bill Clinton talked of it (H.R. 4655, Iraq Liberation Act of 199 and signed it in October 1998.

President Bush alone suspected Saddam did have WMDs?

We know he did.They were found. "oh but they don`t count." Well then,crack open a binary sarin container,breathe deeply,then if not dead come back and tell us that.

"The world hasn’t seen, except maybe since Hitler, somebody quite as evil as Saddam Hussein. If you don’t stop a horrific dictator before he gets started too far, he can do untold damage…."
Clinton Secretary of State Madeline Albright on February 20, 1998.

“For the last eight years, American policy towards Iraq has been based on the tangible threat that Saddam poses to our security. That threat is clear.”
Clinton National Security Council advisor Sandy Berger in December 1998

"...it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power.
And in 1998, Congress authorized President Clinton to
…use US armed forces pursuant to UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 678 to achieve implementation of UNSCRs 660-667.

-- U.N. Ambassador Bill Richardson: "Facts are facts. Iraq has been deceiving the international community with the weaponization of nerve gas. It's that simple."
-- Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.): "[Saddam] is too dangerous of a man to be given carte blanche with weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.): "[Saddam's] chemical and biological weapons capabilities are frightening."
-- Former Vice President Al Gore: "We know that [Saddam] has stored away secret supplies of biological weapons and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.): "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.): "Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose real threats to America today, tomorrow."
-- Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.): "These weapons represent an unacceptable threat."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.): "Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Clinton, On Saddam's WMD: "Some Day, Some Way, I Guarantee You He'll Use The Arsenal. And I Think Every One Of You Who Has Really Worked On This For Any Length Of Time, Believes That, Too."

You`re memory is so selective it`s embarrassing,to you.