We told you so- and it's confirmed yet again

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:So a guy who realizes he was once misguided- whether by displaced loyalty or by sheer ignorance and from being duped- should not come clean because people might buy his book?

Any good investigator will tell you, first and foremost, find the motive. Even Stephanie sees it here Frank. Why can't you? You seem smarter then that.

Why wouldn't this be a good place to just say again:

Aaron wrote:Whether it's the truth or not isn't relevant. ...............................

ziggy wrote:Why wouldn't this be a good place to just say again:

Aaron wrote:Whether it's the truth or not isn't relevant. ...............................

Because it is relevent here. Where not talking about a college kids graduation ceremony, were talking about your is your constant unproven accusations that GWB purposefully lied and took this country into war because he wanted to for his own personal whims. I say those accusations are pure and total bullshit.

If what you say were true, at the VERY least, he would have been impeached. So why hasn't he?

Stephanie wrote:No, I do not think so, Aaron. He is one of the most powerful men in the world. He has the power, and the means, to avoid full public disclosure of his bad acts. He is employing those right now.

Seems to me that lately new presidents pardon past presidents for crimes they may have committed while in office. If our next president continues this practice, he's never going to be held accountable.

No offense Steph but that's a crock. Democrats won control of Congress and if what you and Frank say were true, that George Bush purposefully lied and took this cournty to war becasue he wanted to, he would have, at the very least, been impeached.

He has no more power then Clinton had and he was impeached for obstructing justice. There simply is no proof to the BS accusations you, Frank and others are making.

Aaron wrote:

Stephanie wrote:No, I do not think so, Aaron. He is one of the most powerful men in the world. He has the power, and the means, to avoid full public disclosure of his bad acts. He is employing those right now.

Seems to me that lately new presidents pardon past presidents for crimes they may have committed while in office. If our next president continues this practice, he's never going to be held accountable.

No offense Steph but that's a crock. Democrats won control of Congress and if what you and Frank say were true, that George Bush purposefully lied and took this cournty to war becasue he wanted to, he would have, at the very least, been impeached.

He has no more power then Clinton had and he was impeached for obstructing justice. There simply is no proof to the BS accusations you, Frank and others are making.

Oh really? You don't see any major differences? Lemme point a couple out to you.

Bill Clinton engaged in extramarital sex acts in the White House and lied about it under oath. None of the Democrats in Congress helped him lie, or aided him in covering it up.

George Bush mislead the public into supporting a pre-emptive war in Iraq. He had the support and approval of nearly every member of Congress, Republican & Democrat alike. He still has the support of a number of Democrats.

I think it's fair to say the vast majority of Senators and Representatives didn't know what Bill was doing with his intern behind closed doors.

You seem to think the truth is that all members of Congress had access to the same information the President had in the days, weeks, and months leading up to the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq.

So while the Republicans in Congress during the Clinton administration had no role in President Clinton's perjury, the same cannot be said about the Democrats (or any other member of Congress) who gave approval to invade Iraq. They knew, therefore they are guilty too. If they impeach Bush, their duplicity will become crystal clear. So they don't.

That's an opinion Stephanie.

I don't buy it but you're entitled to it.

You guys keep saying GWD purposefully lied to take us to war. That most certainly falls under the umbrella of a 'high crime' don't you think. Hell, it could be reasonably argued that it might be treason.

At any rate, IF he purposefully lied, someone would have come forth, if not in Congress, then at least to the press, which most definatly would have outed him by now.

Ask Tricky Dick.

Someone just did, Scott McClellan.

Stephanie wrote:Someone just did, Scott McClellan.

Stephanie wrote:It would have been nice if he'd passed a little of that inside knowledge on to the rest of us. He's just in this for the $$ now.

Make up your mind Stephanie. Is he in it for the money or is he the next deep throat?

Aaron wrote:

Stephanie wrote:Someone just did, Scott McClellan.

Stephanie wrote:It would have been nice if he'd passed a little of that inside knowledge on to the rest of us. He's just in this for the $$ now.

Make up your mind Stephanie. Is he in it for the money or is he the next deep throat?

He's in it for the money. He didn't have the backbone to speak up then, he's doing it now for the almighty buck. That doesn't make what he says any less true, and there is evidence to support his assertions. I mean, you agree we had no compelling reason to invade, right?

Stephanie wrote:

Aaron wrote:

Stephanie wrote:Someone just did, Scott McClellan.

Stephanie wrote:It would have been nice if he'd passed a little of that inside knowledge on to the rest of us. He's just in this for the $$ now.

Make up your mind Stephanie. Is he in it for the money or is he the next deep throat?

He's in it for the money. He didn't have the backbone to speak up then, he's doing it now for the almighty buck. That doesn't make what he says any less true, and there is evidence to support his assertions. I mean, you agree we had no compelling reason to invade, right?

Don't you know Stephanie that people our age shouldn't be jumping back and forth over a fence like that. Pick one side and stick to it.

But to answer your questions, yes, the fact that he has financial incentatives to say what he's saying, imo, creates a HUGE cloud that creasts doubt to his statements. I think that's something any logical, reasonable person woud agree to.

I think the only people who are swallowing what he is saying hook, line and sinker without consideration to his motives are those who need for what he's saying to be true.

As to your last question, No we do not agree. I said yesterday I understand GWB's reasons for invaiding. I just personally didn't agree with them and I have said that. I didn't like or agree with the 'pre-emptative' statement and that I thought Sadaam Hussein was pretty much controlled and I felt the decision could have been handled with more diplomacy.

But I do believe Sadaam Hussein posed a threat, that if left unchecked, wouldn't have hesitated in doing what he could to bring harm to America.

I also believe GWB had hard, substantial information and that is what he based his decision to invade on. Congress had access to the same information though and if they didn't agree with his decisions, for whatever reason, they shouldn't have handed over their constitutional responsibilities.

No one was duped, GWB didn't lie and Scott McClellan's trying to sell books. You buy it. I'm not.

TerryRC wrote:Take Tucker Carlton fer instance, one of the most honest persons that was on TV ...

There are other schools of thought on that.

Why no comment on Keith Oberman?

TerryRC wrote:On Crossfire, he was the king of partisan hackery.

HA, then Bill Press was Galactic Emperor of partisan hackery, and still is.

Bill Press started his broadcasting career in Los Angeles for TV stations KABC-TV and KCOP-TV. He is a former CNN and MSNBC political commentator, and an accomplished liberal author. He is best known for co-hosting CNN's The Spin Room opposite Tucker Carlson, and Crossfire and MSNBC's Buchanan and Press.

Since May 2005 he's been a contributing blogger at The Huffington Post.

TRC, apparently you didn't understand "the point" of the Crossfire program.

The name should be self-ex-plan-a-tory.

.

Aaron,

I will concede that the money issue does cast doubt onto everything, including this book. I don't buy what he's selling hook, line, or sinker and I won't purchase his book either.

Saddam Hussein never possessed the ability to harm Americans on American soil. He may have possessed the ability to harm Americans in the Middle East. If we MYOB'd and didn't send our forces into the ME then he would not have had so many American targets and he would no longer have a motive for targeting our citizens to begin with.

These are facts. Hussein didn't have nuclear missles, or warheads to deliver biological or chemical weapons to American shores. The people in gravest danger from that lunatic were Iraqi citizens. Given the number of Iraqis who have died, been horribly injured, and/or been displaced as a direct result of US actions, it isn't unreasonable to purport the Iraqis were better off before our invasion than they have been since our invasion and subsequent occupation.

ziggy wrote:

Well hell Sam, even a blind man could have reasonably predicted those things 5 or 10 years ago- because they've already been going on all our lives. And in a larger sense, they've been going on for thousands of years. Are you wanting a cookie for just now catching on?

Well hell Zigster, ...... then why didn't you do it. You are blinded so much with hatred for bout damn everything ......... that you should be able to predict about anything.

Always the smartass to CYA, right Ziggy. And you have been that way all your life, right Zigster. And your are not going to experience some sort of "self realization" after 40 years claiming you had been hoodwinked into believing falsehoods that made you what you are,........ are you Ziggy baby.

It ain't gonna happen with you .......... and it didn't happen with your preacher friend.

He was probably forced out of the church and wrote his little pamplet to CHA. And that is why he only gave it to his friends and didn't want it published for general circulation.

He sure snookered you Ziggy about his reasons for not publishing it.

GEEEZUS, him sure smart enough to know if he published it for sale ........ he couldn't get elected to "septic tank cleaner outer".

.

Stephanie wrote:Aaron,

I will concede that the money issue does cast doubt onto everything, including this book. I don't buy what he's selling hook, line, or sinker and I won't purchase his book either.

Saddam Hussein never possessed the ability to harm Americans on American soil. He may have possessed the ability to harm Americans in the Middle East. If we MYOB'd and didn't send our forces into the ME then he would not have had so many American targets and he would no longer have a motive for targeting our citizens to begin with.

These are facts. Hussein didn't have nuclear missles, or warheads to deliver biological or chemical weapons to American shores. The people in gravest danger from that lunatic were Iraqi citizens. Given the number of Iraqis who have died, been horribly injured, and/or been displaced as a direct result of US actions, it isn't unreasonable to purport the Iraqis were better off before our invasion than they have been since our invasion and subsequent occupation.

Even if what ALL you say is true, that doesn't change the current situation and marching out will do nothing but make things worse for all Americans.

What Americans will it make things worse for? Those heavily invested in the military industrial complex. Anybody else?

IF what McClellan is saying is true then the LAST thing he should be doing is trying to profit from it. He should be at confessional 5 times a day and donating all of his book proceeds to charity.

SOMETHING tells me that's not what he is going to be doing. Is he sorry he was "complicit" in the sins of the adminstration? It depends how many dollars are asking:)

Those without eyes cannot see Stephanie and those without ears can't hear.

Aaron,

Why do you continually refuse to answer simple questions posed directly to you? How many times does this make it today alone?

All McClellan is saying is what the Bush skeptics were saying all along.

Just like what McNamara eventually told us is what the skeptics of Johnson's Vietnam war rationale were saying all along.

But maybe it's like Aaron says- that whether it's the truth or not isn't relevant.

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:Why wouldn't this be a good place to just say again:

Aaron wrote:Whether it's the truth or not isn't relevant. ...............................

Because it is relevent here.

What was that you were telling Stephanie about us old folks shouldn't be jumping back and forth across the fence? I think you just showed us why. I hope your athletic cup was in place.

ziggy wrote:All McClellan is saying is what the Bush skeptics were saying all along.

Just like what McNamara eventually told us is what the skeptics of Johnson's Vietnam war rationale were saying all along.

But maybe it's like Aaron says- that whether it's the truth or not isn't relevant.

McClellan is out to make a buck, that's all. He comformed his message to what he knew would sell. He also knew people like you would eat it up Frank and sure enough, you did. It took you what, about 3 minutes after you read the article to post this thread? Just be careful you don't choke.

I've told you all day Stephanie what I beleive will happen should we march out. All Americans will suffer for it. You don't want to believe it, that's fine, go back and stick your head in the sand. The one thing I'm thankful for is that people like you and Ziggy are in a very distinct minority.

How will all Americans suffer for it? Saying all Americans will suffer isn't explaining how.

Stephanie wrote:How will all Americans suffer for it? Saying all Americans will suffer isn't explaining how.

Severely if we just march out. I'm going to bed. I may get into it tomorrow. It depends on if it rains or not.

Nite.

Stephanie wrote:Aaron,

These are facts. Hussein didn't have nuclear missles, or warheads to deliver biological or chemical weapons to American shores. The people in gravest danger from that lunatic were Iraqi citizens. Given the number of Iraqis who have died, been horribly injured, and/or been displaced as a direct result of US actions, it isn't unreasonable to purport the Iraqis were better off before our invasion than they have been since our invasion and subsequent occupation.

Stephanie, first, a simple question.

Is booking an airplane flight out of Charleston the only option you have for making a trip back to Rhode Island to visit your family?

UH, ............ I didn't think so. You can just as easily book that trip to go by car, bus, train or boat.

And neither were missiles the only option Saddam had for delivering nuclear warheads, biological weapons and/or chemical weapons to American shores.

GEEEZE, airplanes and boats are aplenty ......... and the US wouldn't see it coming like they would a missile, …. which by the way, …… they would know about a missile within 2 minutes after it left the ground, .. was launched.

Saddam could have slipped a “bomb” onto a freighter and sailed it into a US port. Or attached a “bomb” to the hull of an oil tanker coming out of the Middle East ….. and detonated it when that tanker entered New Orleans or was unloading at one of those refineries. Now wouldn’t that have been a pretty sight to see after it went “BOOM”?

Saddam could have slipped a “bomb” onto a commercial airplane and flew it into a US city. Maybe had Fed Ex or UPS deliver it for him.

But Steph, the simplest method of all would have been for Saddam to send his “bomb” by private jet. Stephanie, you do realize don’t you that US Customs don’t inspect such planes for contraband until AFTER they have landed on US soil.

Now Stephanie, a second simple question.

If the American people were not thought to be in the gravest danger from such a lunatic as Saddam, …. then why were the Bush Hating partisan Democrats who are and have been the most vocal against the War in Iraq ……… the very same ones that are now, AFTER THE FACT, also the most vocal ones about insuring our Port Security to protect the American people from the gravest dangers posed by the possibility that a nuclear warhead, biological weapon and/or chemical weapon could be smuggled onto American shores?

Steph, those Bush Hating partisan Democrats ….. “want to eat their cake and have it to”.

They are still adamantly claiming that Saddam was not a great enough threat of having a nuclear warhead, biological weapon and/or chemical weapon to justify the Invasion of Iraq, ………… but Saddam was a great enough threat at delivering a nuclear warhead, biological weapon and/or chemical weapon into one of our Ports that security at all of our Ports must be 100%.

Stephanie, here following are two news articles that based on the claims of the Bush Hating partisan Democrats …….. needs some explaining to be done, to wit:

1981: Israel bombs Baghdad nuclear reactor
The Israelis have bombed a French-built nuclear plant near Iraq's capital, Baghdad, saying they believed it was designed to make nuclear weapons to destroy Israel.
It is the world's first air strike against a nuclear plant.

An undisclosed number of F-15 interceptors and F-16 fighter bombers destroyed the Osirak reactor 18 miles south of Baghdad, on the orders of Prime Minister Menachem Begin.

The army command said all the Israeli planes returned safely.

The 70-megawatt uranium-powered reactor was near completion but had not been stocked with nuclear fuel so there was no danger of a leak, according to sources in the French atomic industry.

Mortal danger

The Israeli Government explained its reasons for the attack in a statement saying: "The atomic bombs which that reactor was capable of producing whether from enriched uranium or from plutonium, would be of the Hiroshima size. Thus a mortal danger to the people of Israel progressively arose."

It acted now because it believed the reactor would be completed shortly - either at the beginning of July or the beginning of September 1981.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/7/newsid_3014000/3014623.stm

So Stephanie, did or did not …… Saddam have intentions and plans for completing a nuclear bomb making facility?

And since it had/has been confirmed that said facility had not yet been stocked with the nuclear fuel (and for sure none of the nuclear bomb making equipment) then where did Saddam have all that stuff stored awaiting completion of said facility?

Saddam must have had that nuclear fuel (and bomb making equipment) ……. so what happened to it, does anyone know. ….. NOPE.

Now Stephanie, 2nd article:

NEW YORK — Sunday, October 14, 2007 An Israeli airstrike on Syria last month targeted a partially built nuclear reactor that was years away from completion, the New York Times reported Saturday, citing U.S. and foreign officials.

The report said President Bush's administration had intense discussions with the Israeli government before the strike and U.S. officials were divided over whether it would be premature.

Syrian President Bashar Assad has said Israel bombed an "unused military building" in the Sept. 6 raid. Israel has been extremely secretive about the affair. It only recently relaxed censorship to allow Israel-based journalists to report that Israeli aircraft attacked a military target deep inside Syria.

In the weeks that followed the attack, U.S. officials said it was aimed either at a nuclear or missile facility that Syria operated jointly with North Korea.

The New York Times said the nuclear reactor was modeled on one North Korea had used to create its stockpile of nuclear weapons fuel, though the role of any North Korean assistance in building it remains unclear. North Korea has denied involvement in any such activities in Syria.

Satellite photographs detected the partly constructed Syrian reactor earlier this year, the Times said, citing American officials.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301604,00.html

So Stephanie, tell me, ….. does anyone know where in hell Syria got their nuclear material (and equipment) they needed for constructing that nuclear facility? ……. NOPE.

So Steph, several FACTS should be damn obvious to even the Bush Hating partisan Democrats and their clueless gullible proles, to wit:

1. Saddam had nuclear material and bomb making equipment stored somewhere in Iraq in 1981.

2. Said material and equipment was never used because the Israelis destroyed his facility.

3. Said material and equipment has never been located or accounted for even to this day.

4. Pre October 14, 2007 Syria just “happened to have” enough stored nuclear material and bomb making equipment to begin construction of a nuclear facility of their own.

5. No one knows where Syria obtained said nuclear material and bomb making equipment.

Stephanie, do the Bush Hating partisan Democrats and their loyal believing proles …. actually believe that maybe Syria purchased their nuclear material and bomb making equipment at maybe a “garage sale” in Zambia or Nairobi?

.

Sam,

The scenario you are painting.....Saddam Hussein sneaking a dirty bomb or what have you into a US port, or by private plane, is certainly a possibility. So how do we solve the problem of preventing any one of our numerous other enemies from doing the very same thing?

North Korea, Syria, Lebanon, Venezuela, Iran.......the list is quite lengthy. All of these nations have the potential for doing exactly what you described, delivering a weapon of mass destruction by plane, or boat, or carrier pigeon. What should we do, invade them all? Topple all of their governments? Is that the solution?

That is why I agree we need far better port and border security. I'm telling you right now that if I were a terrorist or a despot who wanted to bring mass destruction to America I'd be sneaking into Canada or Mexico and crossing the porous borders there. OR, if I didn't want to be anywhere near the scene of the crime, I'd be sending packages through the ports. So I don't fault the Democrats for wanting stricter port security. I've been screaming we need tighter security at our ports and borders too.

Of course Syria, and Iraq, and Iran and all the other Muslim nations in the region want nuclear weapons. Why shouldn't they? Their neighbor and enemy possess those weapons, those missles. That's called self preservation.

There is something I think you're failing to realize about these despots. They are not in the same position as the sucide bombers. The suicide bombers are deperate, they have nothing left. They have no liberty, they have no money, they have no education, they have no say in the political process. They have nothing to lose.

This is untrue of the despots. As we have very clearly seen, Hussein lead an enviable lifestyle. Nothing but the best for the ruthless dictator who ruled with an iron fist and struck fear in the hearts of so many Americans and Isrealis. We can be reasonably certain the same is true for the leaders of Syria, Iran, North Korea, and all the other governments out there that wish us and/or Israel harm.

Now these people are crazy. There's no disputing the insanity and malice of a guy that would gas his own people like Hussein, or allow his nation's children to die of starvation like Kim Jong-Il. Still, these men don't want to die. They enjoy their lives and they enjoy what they are doing.

So to suggest that Saddam Hussein or Al-Assad are going to risk their own anhilation by launching nuclear weapons at Israel or any US target is really quite silly. They're vicious, they're contemptable, but they are not suicidal. Quite to the contrary, they have lots and lots to live for.

So, if Israel is allowed to have nuclear weapons, in clear violation of international law, why shouldn't Syria or Iran? Why, because Israel, who stole that technology from the United States, is such a good friend of America? I don't hardly think so.

btw........I seem to recall reading a little something a while back about how the Russians provided these nations with nuclear materials.