Wolfowitz & Rumhead Blame Reporters

[StevieD]

Freeze you did not answer my question or I will open it up to CTG since he seems to have an opinion too but never really sets free his thought process. How was Iraq a threat to the United States and what proof do you have that they were? Before this invasion did you go to bed worrying about Iraq attacking us? If you did what gave you the idea that they could?
To straighten the record once again I do not mock the sacrafice made by our soliers but I do question the reasons and the people that put them in harms way.

 

[dr. freeze]

Stevie D reread my posts......

Yes I was worried about Iraq. And according to the senate record, so were Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and the rest of your liberal friends. But now all of a sudden they have turned into political criticizers of every move of the President with absolutely NO intellectual honesty.

I criticize the President. Do I think he has made every move perfectly??? Of course not. Am I and every one of us able to criticize every move after the fact? Yes. It is extremely unfair to do so. The man is taking a hard stance and NOT wavering in spite of hatred coming from Europe and the extreme left side of the aisle. Give him some leeway. We are fighting in Iraq and now have even more extremist Muslim terrorists fueled by doctrine which seeks to kill you and I. Our men and women are over there in harms way and people have absolutely no conscience fueling that fire against them. Just look at the press!!!!

Reread my points and regardless of what you hear about democratizing Iraq however add to the point about oil interests and you should have good reason as to why this was necessary. Sure there were reasons as to why we shouldnt go in but that is past the point. Why fight that old battle and continue to criticize? Valid points could be made either way. As posted before, I certainly tried to understand some of the reasons to ignore the man altogether and essentially build a wall around the country. However there were good indications to proceed as we have and it DID have bipartisan support. Certainly you must be able to understand this.

Do what is best for the country. For our men and women over there fighting for our freedom. We chose path A together. Fortunately we have a leader who doesn't waver from that path and in doing so could have demonstrated even more weakness. That would have been the WORST option.

We need solidaritary in times of war. Republicans showed it to FDR during WWII. There was bitter partisanship at the time. He was called a socialist by nearly every republican in Congress and despised for his policies. But you know what? Through deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans, support did not waver. Did Germany bomb us? Heck no. Were they involved in Pearl Harbor? As much as Iraq was involved in 9-11. Were they strongly linked to Japan? Undoubtedly. Sound familiar?

Now we have deaths of hundreds of Americans, and we have bickering and stabbing in the back of the President. The press is no longer the greatest press in history. Their predecessors are probably jumping out of their graves listening to this armchair quarterbacking, waiting for things to go wrong culture and busting out with headlines glaring with yellow.

We are at war with fundamentalist, radical Islam. Look all over the world and see what this ideology does if left unchecked. Check out what happened to Ghandi in India. A million Hindus were slain because they didn't adopt what these fascists believe. Check out what is happening in Africa. See how this religion tolerates any differnet point of view in the Middle East.

RIght now there is no other option but to fight and support what is going on for stability. We do not need to go back to 2002 and criticize decisions that were bipartisanly made as if they were made by one person or party alone and then assign blame for every death. That never happened before in history and there is no need for it now. It represents intellectual dishonesty and unfortunately if you tell this lie long enough people will start to believe it.

We need to win this war and every American should decide it is in their best interest to do so or the freedom that they enjoy to criticize be it with some honesty or not will be evaporated and their children will be getting killed on the school bus as some brainwashed classmate has a bomb strapped on their back.

 

[StevieD]

Once again you equate Hussein with Hitler when there is no evidence of Hussien invading any countries since at least 1992. He did not pose any threat to the United States and everything he did, that we know condemn him for he did with the full grace of the United States back when we needed him.
If this is a war for oil as you imply then that is another reason for the removal of Bush. I would like to think that when he sends our son's and daughtewrs in harms way he would at least be honest about why he is doing it.
I no doubt believe that you believe what you posted but the facts do not support your theories.

 

[dr. freeze]

To answer your question more directly:

Proof: although I am not sure what is true and what is not, there seems to be proof from Russia and from what other sources have said that Al Quaeda was operating in Iraq, had had contact with Saddam Hussein, and also Hussein was involved somehow to either abet terror or carry through with plans himself to undergo an operation on the US.

I slept better 9/10/2001 with Al Quada on my mind than I did the day before we went into Iraq with what Hussein might be behind. I dont believe an attack was imminent but I do believe one was inevitable. Because he never came clean and supported our effort on terror but in fact was supporting terror's effort on us, he seemed like a good place to start.

Also, I dont think we need to be all worried about democratizing Iraq. I think it is a good slogan to use to get support in the Middle East -- whatever little we may obtain -- but there is no US interest in doing so. We need to stabilize it -- yes. Which it can be argued it was stabilized, and we have staken a step back in that area as Hussein did have it stabilized. But as far as being a breeding ground for terror -- that is unacceptable. And I think some people have it confused as to what exactly we are there for. Our goal is to have it stabilized AND without support of terror. Anything else is unacceptable in this day and age.

I think maybe some of your fury towards Bush is that he and other conservatives are all bent on "democratizing" Iraq. Well, in truth they (we) are not. We could care less. But that is part of war is propagandizing it and selling it to the people. And democratizing and ending a brutal regime are what we are selling.

What we are REALLY trying to achieve is stability and an end to the breeding grounds of terror.

Unfortunately the administration can't go to the American people and explain such things -- explain what is exactly in it for us. In doing so, our propaganda front would be exposed even further.

So all this attack from the left on how we want to democratize Iraq and how impossible that will be is in effect meaningless other than to hurt the war effort. That is not an objective on our part.

 

[dr. freeze]

Once again you equate Hussein with Hitler when there is no evidence of Hussien invading any countries since at least 1992. He did not pose any threat to the United States and everything he did, that we know condemn him for he did with the full grace of the United States back when we needed him.
If this is a war for oil as you imply then that is another reason for the removal of Bush. I would like to think that when he sends our son's and daughtewrs in harms way he would at least be honest about why he is doing it.
I no doubt believe that you believe what you posted but the facts do not support your theories.

Oil is a part of it but ending the threat to terror is a much larger part. To sit here and have to have one reason and have to separate reasons as to why we are there is ridiculous. Unfortunately we do need oil. That is reality. Hussein attempted to sequestor the world's supply in 1992 as you correctly stated and only a fool would presume he didn't have it on his mind to do it again. But his dealings with Al Quaed, his support thereof and his location right in the midst of the Middle East made him an ideal location. Continuing to deny this by yourself and the rest of the liberals is intellectually dishonest. I know I say this again and again but you and your friends seemingly ignore it.

I don't understand why you expect everyone to be up to date on the US intelligence. I dont read every report that comes out. I read that Putin said Hussein was threatening the US. I see that the 9-11 commision while stating that Hussein did not involve himself with 9-11 he was involved with Al Quaeda and other terrorist organizations. What I see is terrorism running rampant in the Middle East and it needs a handle on it. Our security requires that. George Bush and the rest of America on Sept. 12 2001 decided we wont be reactive or unreactive -- however you describe it -- anymore. We will be proactive against terrorist groups because we could not affort to be reactive anymore both from a financial standpoint and a standpoint of American lives and way of life.

You cannot sit here and say Hussein did not pose a threat to the US just as you could not sit here and say Al Quaeda did not pose a threat on Sept. 10th '01. We are not fighting a 19th century war against conventional militaries who abide by rules to not put civilians in harms way and who invade may invade us. Al Quaeda will not invade us nor would Hussein. Currently we are not threatened by invasion. Please do not try to pretend that we need Paul Revere to hang out by the lighthouse and tell us whether or not the extreme fascist Muslims are coming.

 

[dr. freeze]

I got an idea, instead of belaboring what we "should have done" and armchair quarterbacking....why not be proactive yourself and argue what we should now do?

I myself have some beefs with Bush right now.

1. We should fund the rebuilding of Iraq with profits from their oil.

2. We should find some way to hold accountable the Islamic press for falsely reporting against our effort and fueling the fire of fascist terror groups. Bush admin. complains about this all the time and rightly so, but they dont do anything about it.

3. Please do something about what is going on in Saudi and hold accountable someone who is allowing these terrorist cells to operate. Start at the top with the Royal family and tell them if something doesn't get done we will withdraw completely until chaos starts in the country -- which would be what would happen if the US got out -- then we woudl go in and do what we are doing now in Iraq. I have a feeling they would listen and get a handle on things. They know that we are all that is holding back the extremists in their own country, and taht our withdrawel would translate into them either being killed or losing their country at best. I would think action would result.

Regardless of what you say about everyone falling in line with Bush from the right, that is far less true than what the left does. We criticize to and have all the right to do so....but arguing against decisions what we made and giving no viable alternatives while distorting what was going on is pointless and harmful to the cause of our country.

 

[djv]

Well why stay in Iraq if all is well. They have there own government. We trained according to Rummy 45000 securtiry forces. They hired another 20000 hired guns from ex soldiers form nato. So hell come on home nothing more for us to lose men over. And now that the worlds terroest are oprating out of Saudi and Iraq. Good deal leave them there to have there fun. 55% of Iraqis in latest poll say go home USA.

 

[StevieD]

Doc, I am argueing that we never should have gone into Iraq. The argument of what has to be done now that we are there is another one. I do not believe the same people who got us into Iraq on false pretenses should be the same ones deciding what to do now.
I think that that American soldiers should be protected by the full force and fury of our military machine. So far in Iraq they are not. You are correct that this is not a conventional war which is why we should not be fighting it in a conventional way.
I honestly do not know what to do now. Stay the course is not the answer. Get more European help is the way to go. If Bush can pull that off it will be late but at least a step in the right direction.
You say we are safer now than we were before 911 and I don't think so. I keep hearing reports of more attacks planned this summer. I think the money could have been used building a security system for our rails for one. Just blow up a subway station in a financial district and the effect will be paralyzing to this country. Millions of people relly on the subways to get to work and if they become targets people will be afraid to go to work.
Match that with the effect that interest rate hikes will cause. Greenspan has be artifically holding them low to make it looks like the tax cuts are working but once they rise we will have millions of people with upside down mortgages. They will have house that aree worth less than what they paid for them. This could be devastating.
Also we will probably need a draft. A lot of questions yet to be answered that's gor sure.

 

[dr. freeze]

to be honest, nothing will make me feel safer.....I never said that and I don't understand why you put words in my mouth.

And it pisses me off that you put words in my mouth time and time again. Just like it pisses people like Wolfowitz off when they put words in his mouth. No one ever said the stuff that they are accused of saying. It seems that either liberals are extremely dense or that they just are extremely dishonest in that they ignore and ignore and ignore the reasons why we went to Iraq. It is nauseating to listen to this.


Asserting false reasons as to why we went there is outrageous. I outlined exactly why we went there and if you have a problem with that, those reasons should be addressed. To address other reasons such as Hussein was involved with 9/11; Halliburton; etc. are pathetic and hold no standing other than to piss people off.

That is like saying I didn't shoot under par playing golf today because I couldn't make a putt. Well, it rained so I didn't even play.

The whole point of arguing that we never should have gone into Iraq -- even the valid points -- does not do us good now. We aren't arguing why we went in Serbia anymore, and we aren't arguing why Clinton bombed an aspirin factory anymore, so why are we maintaining this argument? Especially using false pretences?

You yourself have failed to adress this question.

I like hearing your points on maybe we need more European help, how to protect the rails, etc. etc. If only your liberal buddies in Congress would be so helpful. And not only helpful in bringing forth ideas but demonstrating a little leadership in helping executing them. Now would be a good time to get Europe in the picture especially as they see how these pukes are beheading anyone who is civilized. But of course they will expect to get more $$ and put forth less sacrifice like they always do.

 

[djv]

Doc what's the heck's got in to you. There is no reason good enough for us to be there. If you say had to because he didn't obey the law of the UN. You talking about the same UN that said no reason to support us going there.

 

[Eddie Haskell]

Steve and DJV:

Why argue with Ctown and the good Doctor. You can't win the agrument or even get them to acknowledge the slightest bit of common sense. You see, they, like the President of this country, have a direct line to the Almighty. Their thought processes (if any) are divinely enlightened.

Facts mean little. Grace governs and guides them. They are a moving target on Iraq. First it was wmd. Then after that fell through, it was the humanitarian schtick. (Thats also why we are building up to invade Sudan where best estimates have the dead at 50,000 to 100,000)

The scariest part of these two guys is not that they are so transparently wacko but, that there are many others out there who think (or don't think) like them. I see people with Bush/Cheney 04 bumper stickers on their respective cars and wonder what in Gods name they can be thinking.

Stupid, greedy, but most of all scarry, are these people.

Eddie

 

[dr. freeze]

Eddie the character assassinator and honest lawyer speaks again

All the guy can do is do his best to humiliate.

Ed I know that is all you do at your job, and no client of yours would actually want you to be honest, but reread Dr. Freeze's essays and you may discover what truth really is.

 

[dr. freeze]

Doc what's the heck's got in to you. There is no reason good enough for us to be there. If you say had to because he didn't obey the law of the UN. You talking about the same UN that said no reason to support us going there.

It was a CEASE FIRE agreement. If you don't know what you are talking about please do not speak. REread what i wrote and address those issues genius. Its like talking to either a dense old man or a dishonest one. I can't figure out which.

 

[Chanman]

Truth Missing at The Memorial

Truth Missing at The Memorial

The following will be posted under the above moniker...Dammit trying to work & F.O. can be a, well a, work