Bush, GOP Could Be In Big Trouble

[Anthony]

The findings of the Senate Intelligence Committee appear to debunk the Bush Administration's repeated assertions that Saddam Hussein had ties to al-Qaeda - and appear to do so in the strongest possible terms.

Here's a link to the story (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060909/ap_on_go_co/iraq_report) - and I'm absolutely shocked that Kevin or Doug didn't beat me to this! :)

[HibachiDG]

I noticed the story, did not want to point it out here because doing so would be walking a fine line. I believe that the path to war in Iraq was based in large part on bad information that did not turn out to be true, which this report more or less concludes. However, a lot of democrats say that they were intentionally duped and I don't agree with that at all. I think it's just a looking back on it in retrospect, we messed up, let's do what we can do make this better thing rather than a "these dudes were jerks, they misled us intentionally, let's yell at them sort of thing".

[KevinBeane]

I didn't post it because, I actually don't start a lot of these political arguments, and I don't really like them, actually. I just feel compelled to defend my position.

[bama4256]

Here's the good news Bush can't be re-elected in 2008. But I'm glad Hussein is no longer in power along with his two sons.

Yes I believe the situation is worse in Iraq than it was before our invasion, but the people had a choice when we did oust Hussein. They could have chosen to live a life of order and new freedoms or choose chaos. They have chosen chaos.

The Sunnis and the ****es can either hate and destroy each other or live in peace. It is up to them.

[Anthony]

Here's the good news Bush can't be re-elected in 2008. But I'm glad Hussein is no longer in power along with his two sons.

Yes I believe the situation is worse in Iraq than it was before our invasion, but the people had a choice when we did oust Hussein. They could have chosen to live a life of order and new freedoms or choose chaos. They have chosen chaos.

The Sunnis and the ****es can either hate and destroy each other or live in peace. It is up to them.



Then again the Jews and the Arabs could live in peace as well, but 3,700 years of history strongly suggest otherwise (in the struggle you speak of it's "only" 1,300 years).

And while I'm still not firmly convinced that the Democrats are going to gain control of Congress in November, I'd say the odds in favor of them doing so just went up with this committee report.

[bama4256]

Things are messed up right now, but just wait till the Democrats control things again. Bush's mistakes will look like child's play.

[eric]

Things are messed up right now, but just wait till the Democrats control things again. Bush's mistakes will look like child's play.

I doubt it.:thumbup:

[tobynosker]

Originally Posted by bama4256
Things are messed up right now, but just wait till the Democrats control things again. Bush's mistakes will look like child's play.

I usually try to refrain from getting involved in petty political debates that often times lead to ridiculous claims like "my Republican is at least better than your Democrat," or vice-versa, but what is your reasoning for the above-assertion?

[KevinBeane]

I usually try to refrain from getting involved in petty political debates that often times lead to ridiculous claims like "my Republican is at least better than your Democrat," or vice-versa, but what is your reasoning for the above-assertion?

Hey, let me jump in with some pettiness and point out you are asking this of a guy who suggested the Indonesian/Southeast Asian tsunami a couple years ago was God (the Christian one) punishing non-Christians.

[Anthony]

Let's say the Democrats do win the 2008 Presidential election, and then the terrorists pull something in 2009. If the Democrats didn't strike back - and strike back hard - there would be a massive Republican landslide in the 2010 mid-term elections and the Democratic President would be impeached and removed from office in 2011.

With that in mind, full-scale war is more likely if the Democrats win - not less.

[eric]

Let's say the Democrats do win the 2008 Presidential election, and then the terrorists pull something in 2009. If the Democrats didn't strike back - and strike back hard - there would be a massive Republican landslide in the 2010 mid-term elections and the Democratic President would be impeached and removed from office in 2011.

With that in mind, full-scale war is more likely if the Democrats win - not less.


My guess is that if a Dem is elected in 2008 he/she may begin a pullout of the Middle East which may keep the terrorists of our backs for awhile.

[tobynosker]

Originally Posted by Anthony
Let's say the Democrats do win the 2008 Presidential election, and then the terrorists pull something in 2009. If the Democrats didn't strike back - and strike back hard - there would be a massive Republican landslide in the 2010 mid-term elections and the Democratic President would be impeached and removed from office in 2011.

With that in mind, full-scale war is more likely if the Democrats win - not less.

Why wouldn't the Democrats want to attack back - and hard - against those responisble for another domestic terrorist attack, should it happen?

I believe the majority of Democrats in this country were, and remain strongly in favor of going after those responsible for the September 11th terrorist attacks.

[IntheNet]

The findings of the Senate Intelligence Committee appear to debunk the Bush Administration's repeated assertions that Saddam Hussein had ties to al-Qaeda - and appear to do so in the strongest possible terms.

Here's a link to the story (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060909/ap_on_go_co/iraq_report) - and I'm absolutely shocked that Kevin or Doug didn't beat me to this! :)

I am absolutely shocked, shocked I tell you, that the Senate liberal leftist Dems haven't yet petitioned Rome to Cannonize Saddam Hussein and make him the Patron Saint of Anti-Terrorism; after all Iraq was such a terror-free, pro-women, peaceful, and democratic state before the coalition of nations acted on it!!!

[tobynosker]

Originally Posted by InTheNet
I am absolutely shocked, shocked I tell you, that the Senate liberal leftist Dems haven't yet petitioned Rome to Cannonize Saddam Hussein and make him the Patron Saint of Anti-Terrorism; after all Iraq was such a terror-free, pro-women, peaceful, and democratic state before the coalition of nations acted on it!!!

And this is the exact reason that I try not to get involved in political debates on these boards,

How does pointing out that Saddam Hussein had no ties to al-Qaeda even suggest that a Hussein-led Iraq was a "terror-free, pro-women, peaceful and democratic state?"

It doesn't.

All it does is point out that the Bush administration's contention of close cooperation between Saddam Hussein's regime and al-Qaeda was false.

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties." (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030917-7.html) - President George W. Bush on September 17, 2003

[bama4256]

History my friend history!

[IntheNet]

How does pointing out that Saddam Hussein had no ties to al-Qaeda even suggest that a Hussein-led Iraq was a "terror-free, pro-women, peaceful and democratic state?"

It doesn't.

All it does is point out that the Bush administration's contention of close cooperation between Saddam Hussein's regime and al-Qaeda was false.

Sorry toby... I am just not buying it...

The cooperation between Saddam Hussein and terrorism was valid. Liberal senator efforts to somehow paint Saddam Hussein as not fostering terrorism and acting hand-in-hand with terrorism groups doesn't wash...

It's a bit like saying Iran is not complicit with hezbollah or Syria is not funding hamas... fiction both....

I choose to believe the obvious and not rely on the growing mountain of distortion being heaped on the American people by liberal Dems willing to suspend reality for a chance to win at the upcoming polls....

[190 Octane]

I am absolutely shocked, shocked I tell you, that the Senate liberal leftist Dems haven't yet petitioned Rome to Cannonize Saddam Hussein and make him the Patron Saint of Anti-Terrorism; after all Iraq was such a terror-free, pro-women, peaceful, and democratic state before the coalition of nations acted on it!!!

This right here is why I hate political discussions. Reminds me of an actual conversation with a friend about 9/11

ME: I still can't understand why we diverted millions of dollars and thousands of troops from the effort to bring in Bin Laden.
HIM: Iraq harbored terrorists.
ME: ...The conspirators of 9/11 lived in the U.S.
HIM: Saddam's regime supplemented terrorists with money though.
ME: No, that was disproven some time ago.
HIM: So you're saying Saddam was some good guy? He killed millions of his own people.
ME: Um, no of course not. But what happened to bringing Bin Laden to justice?
HIM: Clinton should have done that.

Oh yeah, and I just have to add: "Coalition of nations?" 2003 called, it wants its rhetoric back. Not even the Bush administration is calling it that anymore.

[tobynosker]

Originally Posted by InTheNet
Sorry toby... I am just not buying it...

The cooperation between Saddam Hussein and terrorism was valid. Liberal senator efforts to somehow paint Saddam Hussein as not fostering terrorism and acting hand-in-hand with terrorism groups doesn't wash...

It's a bit like saying Iran is not complicit with hezbollah or Syria is not funding hamas... fiction both....

I choose to believe the obvious and not rely on the growing mountain of distortion being heaped on the American people by liberal Dems willing to suspend reality for a chance to win at the upcoming polls....

I never read anywhere in the Senate Intelligence report where it said that Saddam Hussein didn't foster terrorism.

I believe the report said that "Iraq has no past, current, or anticipated future contact with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda.

It also said that "bin Laden was in fact a longtime enemy of Iraq."

And this report was not liberal Democrats looking to "suspend reality," but it was actually a bipartisan report.

The Republicans involved in the report were Pat Roberts (KS, Chair), Orrin Hatch (UT), Mike Dewine (OH), Chris Bond (MO), Trent Lott (MS), Olympia Snowe (ME), Chuck Hagel (NE), Saxby Chambliss (GA) and John Warner (VA).

The Democrats involved in the report were Jay Rockefeller (WV, Vice-Chair),
Carl Levin (MI), Dianne Feinstein (CA), Ron Wyden (OR), Richard Durbin (IL), Evan Bayh (IN), John Edwards (NC) and Barbara Mikulski (MD).

[IntheNet]

I believe the report said that "Iraq has no past, current, or anticipated future contact with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda...
:rolleyes:
We can't find Osama and we are not sure yet the full extent of Al Qaeda however we can definately say without a shadow of a doubt that neither Osama bin Laden or Al Qaeda contacted or coordinated with Saddam Hussein?

That's absolutely amazing!!!!!!!

[tobynosker]

Originally Posted by InTheNet
We can't find Osama and we are not sure yet the full extent of Al Qaeda however we can definately say without a shadow of a doubt that neither Osama bin Laden or Al Qaeda contacted or coordinated with Saddam Hussein?

That's absolutely amazing!!!!!!!

And this is again why I don't debate politics.

Until someone can provide some actual evidence as to why we should reject the claims from this bipartison report, why even debate the issue?

[Richard the Lionheart]

Well, with regards to something 190 Octane said, that Saddam funded terrorists, and gave money to families of suicide bombers is factual, and has never been disproven by anyone. This whole thing is about his connections to a particular terrorist organization...al Qaeda.

The debate, for me, splits along two lines. One camp looks at this as a revenge war, so the focus is obviously exclusively on al Qaeda and one terrorist (OBL) for them. Those who look at this as a preventative war and a war of progress and transition (of which I would include myself), think it is ridiculous and dangerous to focus exclusively on one terrorist organization out of many, and one terrorist out of tens of thousands. This report says Saddam had no ties to al Qaeda, if this is true (which I would like to see more evidence of, but am open to) that doesn't mean he had no connection to terrorism, it just means he had no connection to one particular organization that practices terrorism. Saddam himself, was essentially a terrorist, and repressive regimes like the one he ran in Iraq are the main cause of terrorism IMO.

[KevinBeane]

The debate, for me, splits along two lines. One camp looks at this as a revenge war, so the focus is obviously exclusively on al Qaeda and one terrorist (OBL) for them. Those who look at this as a preventative war and a war of progress and transition (of which I would include myself), think it is ridiculous and dangerous to focus exclusively on one terrorist organization out of many, and one terrorist out of tens of thousands.

Can't it be both? I don't think any Dems are suggesting that 100% of our anti-terror focus should be on OBL/Al-Qaeda, or that any Republicans are suggesting that the focus should be 100% on Iraq.

So we can take for granted that we have to cast a wide strategic anti-terrorism net. The question becomes where you concentrate a higher amount of resources than others. For my money, it's on the organization that has been proven to be the most effective and devastating to the US already, which of course is Al Qaeda. If we are going to put a large number of troops in harm's way, I want a more convincing case that the place we need to do that is in a now-Saddam-deposed Iraq than I'm getting from this administration or its defenders.

[Anthony]

Now Bush is facing even more War-On-Terror-related controversy - see this story (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14848798).

[tobynosker]

Originally Posted by Ricky the Kid
The debate, for me, splits along two lines. One camp looks at this as a revenge war, so the focus is obviously exclusively on al Qaeda and one terrorist (OBL) for them. Those who look at this as a preventative war and a war of progress and transition (of which I would include myself), think it is ridiculous and dangerous to focus exclusively on one terrorist organization out of many, and one terrorist out of tens of thousands. This report says Saddam had no ties to al Qaeda, if this is true (which I would like to see more evidence of, but am open to) that doesn't mean he had no connection to terrorism, it just means he had no connection to one particular organization that practices terrorism. Saddam himself, was essentially a terrorist, and repressive regimes like the one he ran in Iraq are the main cause of terrorism IMO.

Similar to what Kevin said, I don't think any Democrat believes we should exclusively focus on al-Qaeda. And I also think the Democrats would be in full-support of a "preventative war," as long as the war was fought against the terrorists who, as Kevin said, appear to be "the most effective and devastating to the US."

It just bothers me to no end when a bipartisan report is released and InTheNet immediately claims that the entire report is "liberal Dems willing to suspend reality" who thought of Iraq as "a terror-free, pro-women, peaceful, and democratic state."

I have no doubts that Saddam Hussein was bad guy who harbored terrorists, but a "preventative war" ought to be fought against your biggest threat, and I don't believe that Hussein ever was the United States' biggest threat.

But, he was presented as such, because the Bush administration on numerous occasions said there was close cooperation between Saddam Hussein's regime and the United States' biggest threat, al Qaeda.

And until someone can provide some actual evidence as to why we should reject the claims from this bipartisan report, I have no reason to believe that there contention was false.

[bama4256]

Common sense would tell me Hussein would be willing to cooperate with any terrorist outfit that called for the destruction of Israel or America.

[Richard the Lionheart]

I think what Toby and Kevin said is reasonable, although I would hope Toby isn't suggesting that the Administration lied about ties, but merely was incorrect. There is a big difference.

Anyway, we could turn this into another debate about why we are Iraq, but we've had plenty of those already so I see no real point in it. The point of the thread is this specific report, which of course is a setback for the Administration in supporting its positions on the war, but if enough of the opponents of the war are as reasonable as Kevin and Toby, and realize that this is bigger...much bigger than a U.S. vs. Al Qaeda war, then I don't see how the administration is in as much "trouble" over this as Anthony seems to believe. Then again, I'm assuming a rational, reasonable assessment being made by the general public...perhaps too much to ask?

[IntheNet]

Common sense would tell me Hussein would be willing to cooperate with any terrorist outfit that called for the destruction of Israel or America.Exactly bama and well said... but realize that common sense is not something the liberal Democrats have in any amount...

What is clear is that the fight in both Iraq and Afghanistan are FRONTS in the War on Terror; we moved this FRONT from the USA (NYC and Wash) to Iraq and Afghanistan but liberal Dems refuse to understand the FRONT doctrine in warfighting... liberal Dems would rather have the FRONT in the war back here in USA instead of overseas... they do not understand the central warfighting doctrine of a FRONT in the war... they have never read Clausewitz but instead subscribe to Dean in their war tactics....

[eric]

Exactly bama and well said... but realize that common sense is not something the liberal Democrats have in any amount...

What is clear is that the fight in both Iraq and Afghanistan are FRONTS in the War on Terror; we moved this FRONT from the USA (NYC and Wash) to Iraq and Afghanistan but liberal Dems refuse to understand the FRONT doctrine in warfighting... liberal Dems would rather have the FRONT in the war back here in USA instead of overseas... they do not understand the central warfighting doctrine of a FRONT in the war... they have never read Clausewitz but instead subscribe to Dean in their war tactics....

ANYTHING can be justified with spin, it is whether or not a majority of the voters believe it. During the Watergate scandals there were actually Republicans who believed that breaking into Daniel Ellsberg's Pyschiatrist office, and the Watergate were jsutified because it was protecting our country against the liberal attitudes of the Democrats. Fortunately the country didn't believe those lies either.

[IntheNet]

During the Watergate scandals there were actually Republicans who believed that breaking into Daniel Ellsberg's Pyschiatrist office, and the Watergate were jsutified because it was protecting our country against the liberal attitudes of the Democrats. Fortunately the country didn't believe those lies either.
The break-in was clearly wrong, but the noble effort to protect this fine nation from the "liberal attitute of Democrats" is a worthy cause worth defending, in my opinion.

[eric]

The break-in was clearly wrong, but the noble effort to protect this fine nation from the "liberal attitute of Democrats" is a worthy cause worth defending, in my opinion.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[buckeyefan78]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Too bad it took 2 pages for you to get that chuckle eric. Stick around...we usually accomplish that reaction on post 2 or 3 in here...on average. :thumbup:

[The Pirate Bob]

Since someone brought this subject up, allow me to interject with today's blog http://blog.spiritofamerica2008.com/