Would Gore have invaded Iraq?

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Thank you, skywalker. I've often wondered the same about Neddie.

Che, if you want me to address you civily in the future, I would ask you to withdraw this.

[MrFun]

Don't worry Ned -- Che hates me too.

[Ned]

MrFun, I find this forum to be a lot of fun as I hope you do to. We can be logical at time. At other we can play around and say outrageous things (for troll purposes, which I have admitted to). But all of this should be in good humor and with good fellowship. I just wish we could avoid ad hominem's and give and accept apologies if we have offended someone.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by skywalker
chegitz - weren't the majority of Americans for war with Iraq? Yes, this was after Bush made his case for it, but still...

If the US got UN approval. It was not until just before the war, that the slimmest of majorities supported the President for war in any case in some polls. Once the bombs began falling, that changed. As with Gulf War I, Americans forgot their opposition and lined up to support the troops.

[Dis]

or would Iraq have invaded Gore?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
I'm sorry, Che. But didn't Clinton ...

Clinton tried to launch a major bombing campaign against Iraq, and get embarressed at his "town hall" meeting where the protesters were constantly audible. Then when that guy stuck it to Albright, it was all over. Clinton would have backed down before world wide protests, which says something about the fact that he has slightly more respect for democracy than the current occupants of the White House.

As for skywalker's comment, I'm sorry if it offended you, but you have to admit, when it comes to people like Coulter and other right-wind bags, you are rather gullible. That crap you posted from The Weekly Standard just took the cake.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ned
MrFun, I find this forum to be a lot of fun as I hope you do to. We can be logical at time. At other we can play around and say outrageous things (for troll purposes, which I have admitted to). But all of this should be in good humor and with good fellowship. I just wish we could avoid ad hominem's and give and accept apologies if we have offended someone.

I msyelf, would like to think I have been much better at laughing along with jokes targeted towards me the past year.


I think Che is just angry with me because he thinks I might have done one too many jokes/trolls about communism -- not because I don't like him though. But I guess maybe I went overboard??

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Clinton tried to launch a major bombing campaign against Iraq, and get embarressed at his "town hall" meeting where the protesters were constantly audible. Then when that guy stuck it to Albright, it was all over. Clinton would have backed down before world wide protests, which says something about the fact that he has slightly more respect for democracy than the current occupants of the White House.

As for skywalker's comment, I'm sorry if it offended you, but you have to admit, when it comes to people like Coulter and other right-wind bags, you are rather gullible. That crap you posted from The Weekly Standard just took the cake.

As to Coulter, I think she is hillarious.

As to the Weekly Standard, you know they were discussing a memo written by a defense department official. It is curious, though, that the White House has disclaimed it. This seems like evidence of some sort of internal struggle going on in the admin.

BTW, I heard on the news that an Iraqi general has said that he was the source of Blair's 45 minute to launch with WMD. He said that front line units had been given bio and chem WMD in late 2002 by the Fedayeen that could be launched within 45 minutes of an order and that he told that to Brit intelligence.

Lies? (I don't have a link at this moment.)

Back to Clinton, the point of my litany was different than your defense of your earlier statement. You suggested that Clinton would have never gone after Iraq without UN approval. I just pointed out that Clinton often used force without consulting anyone.

[Zylka]

Hi there!

"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

"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

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated 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, December 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
mandated 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

"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 October of 1998. 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 Robert kkk byrd

"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
always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of
weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), 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

"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

I guess those mean little to nothing out of context though, eh boys??

[Ned]

Here is the BBC story on the 45 minutes to use of WMD:

"An Iraqi army officer has claimed it was he who told UK intelligence that weapons of mass destruction could be used within 45 minutes of an order from Saddam Hussein.

The officer, identified as Lt Col al-Dabbagh, told the London-based Sunday Telegraph newspaper he had provided several reports on the president's WMD plans from early 2002.

These included details of how frontline units were supplied with cases of WMD warheads towards the end of last year.

Downing Street has so far refused to comment on the report.

However, a spokesman said anyone with relevant information should contact the Iraq Survey Group as it hunts for WMD.

'100% accurate'

The 45-minute claim was a key component of the UK government's dossier on the threat posed by Iraq published in the run up to the invasion in March.

"I am the one responsible for providing this information," Lt Col al-Dabbagh is quoted by the newspaper as saying after he was shown the dossier.

"It is 100% accurate."


Forget 45 minutes, we could have fired these within half-an-hour

Lt Col al-Dabbagh

He told the paper how he reported on the deployment of WMD warheads to units such as the air defence command he led in the western desert.

"Forget 45 minutes, we could have fired these within half-an-hour," he was quoted as saying.

The devices were said to have been made in Iraq and designed to be launched by hand-held rocket-propelled grenades.

It is not made clear whether the weapons contained biological or chemical agents.

Lt Col al-Dabbagh said they were only to be used on personal orders from Saddam. He added that the bulk of the Iraqi army did not want to fight for Saddam.

"The west should thank God that the Iraqi army decided not to fight," he told the Telegraph.

Exile group

He said that he believed that the warheads had now been hidden at secret locations by Saddam's Fedayeen militias still in Iraq.

The Sunday Telegraph said that Lt Col al-Dabbagh had spied for the Iraqi National Accord - a London-based exile group - for several years before the war and was now working as an adviser for the Iraqi Governing Council.

Controversy has surrounded the 45 minute claim ever since it was made.

A BBC report that accused Downing Street of "sexing up" the dossier in which it was published triggered a furious row between the Corporation and the government.

During the debate government scientist Dr David Kelly was named as the source of the BBC report, and he was subsequently found dead after apparently committing suicide.

The Hutton Inquiry has been investigating his death and is due to report early next year

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3297771.stm

[Nubclear]

Zylka: Anything after 2001 can be safely attributed to how the democrats wanted to be like republicans

[Zylka]

Sounds like a classy crew full of integrity that you're rootin for. As for anything before 2001?

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Zylka
Sounds like a classy crew full of integrity that you're rootin for.

Don't delude yourself into thinking any politician has integrity

As for anything before 2001?

They must have throught that.

[Ned]

No comment on the statement of Lt. Col al Dabbagh?

If he is right, the Fedayeen still have the bio WMD.