Bush, Cheney Concede Saddam Had No WMDs

That's great. A point worth noting is that you defined the phrase "stay the course," but didn't give any insight as to the the exit strategy.
What was the "task at hand" and how does that define our exit strategy?
How would you characterize "success" and how does that define our exit strategy?
What constitutes "victory" and how does that define our exit strategy?

Did you notice that I didn't say anything about Bush not having a plan? Where did I say anything about President Bush in my initial post? Perhaps you could help Ballfan give us an exit strategy. Your answer was just as vague.

Have you considered the possibility that the people of Iraq could elect a government that will establish an Islamic Republic similar to that of Iran? Will this election be deemed "legitimate" if a hostile government is put in power?

 

Bush hopes that nobody asks for more than slogans. It works pretty well for him, but will it be enough to win in Novermner?

 

If that is true (something not yet actually proven that I know of), it isn't a big deal. We have military bases all over the world. No one is talking about an exit strategy for Germany, or Korea (though that came up in the last few years I think). People with common sense understand why there may be a necessity to have an overseas presence. I am not saying we should necessarily, but common sense says that there are good reasons for it.

 

Yes, so??? What is your point? I was referring to a general position often articulated that Bush never had a plan. I don't know if you hold that position or not. It doesn't matter to me.

Nowhere that I saw. Why do you ask?

No it wasn't. It was clear. Have a legitimate self governance; have traininig for self protection; and get out. What are you looking for? Dates? Detailed plans? You don't have either the time or the interest to read the detailed plans. That is the exit strategy. It has been around a long time.

Yes.

I don't know. That is not my decision. But I presume that it would be. I also presume that the UN and the US are giving sufficient help to the Iraqis in order to prevent such a condition. But not being "in the know," I can't answer that.

 

Yes, so??? What is your point? I was referring to a general position often articulated that Bush never had a plan. I don't know if you hold that position or not. It doesn't matter to me.</font>[/QUOTE]The reason I asked is because you quoted me. If it didn't matter, then why did you quote me?

Nowhere that I saw. Why do you ask? </font>[/QUOTE]Once again, because you quoted me. If you weren't directly addressing me, then why is my statement used in your response?

No it wasn't. It was clear. Have a legitimate self governance; have traininig for self protection; and get out. What are you looking for? Dates? Detailed plans? You don't have either the time or the interest to read the detailed plans. That is the exit strategy. It has been around a long time.</font>[/QUOTE]Clear? You must be joking. General statements never equal an clear answer. As for "not having the time or the interest to read the detailed plans," that is quite a statement you make about someone you do not even know.

Yes.</font>[/QUOTE]Are you sure about that?

I don't know. That is not my decision. But I presume that it would be. I also presume that the UN and the US are giving sufficient help to the Iraqis in order to prevent such a condition. But not being "in the know," I can't answer that. </font>[/QUOTE]If they are giving "sufficient help to the Iraqis in order to prevent such a condition," then how could anyone claim that this is "legitimate self governance?" [Your words, not mine.] If they want an Islamic Republic, and elect one, how do you propose that we stop this? Moreover, what justification would we have to stop a democratically-elected government?

 

Because your post sparked my thought on it. I was responding in general to your post. My specific comments about Bush were general comments regarding an often stated misconception.

Same reason. I can't imagine that is something get bent out of shape over. I apologize for offending you with it. There was nothing in the least intended.

How much more clear can it be? We need a legitimately elected government and we need a police and army able to defend itself. When that is true, then the exit will take place. I am not sure how to make that any clearer. It is, incidentally, exactly what Kerry has said.

Not really, I am sure that the detailed plan involves thousands of pages of reading and it is likely classified. If you are into that kind of stuff, then help yourself I guess. I was taking a guess based on the fact that the vast majority of people including myself wouldn't do it.

Yes.</font>[/QUOTE]Are you sure about that?</font>[/QUOTE]Yes. Why did you not believe me the first time?

Because the help is going into the constitutional process. The Iraqis will approve their own constitution and then will govern themselves under it. That is legitimate self governance by any definition I know of.

I don't know that I would stop it. If that is how they decide to live and they are not taking over their neighbors and creating world havoc, then let them do what they want.

I wouldn't think we would have any, unless they were causing war, threatening us, causing genocide, or something like that. I don't think there is any need to stop a democratically elected government unless they are doing something like I mentioned above.

Just look at all the places like that that we aren't trying to stop. That is evidence that Iraq was a very unique situation. The standard is not whether or not we like their government. If this situation in Iraq turns into a general conquest and overthrow of the middle east, I will completely oppose it. I think the situation in Iraq was justifiable given the intelligence we had at the time and the statements of the international community about the behavior of Iraq. Knowing what we know now, I would not have supported it. But there was no way to know that at the time. I cannot in good conscience hold people responsible for that which they had no way to know. Saddam bluffed and we called his bluff. Turned out, he didn't have the hand he tried to lead the world to believe he had.

 

That is fine - you have amplified your response.

I was not offended, and do not feel that my reply to you implied offense. I would dare imagine that, if roles were reversed, you would also request an amplification if your comments were contained in a response from me.

Clear?
How much more vague can it be? Nothing was said as to how this will be accomplished, or at what point we can pull our troops out of Iraq.

Yes. Why did you not believe me the first time?</font>[/QUOTE]Because you insist that a vague response is clear cut.

Because the help is going into the constitutional process. The Iraqis will approve their own constitution and then will govern themselves under it. That is legitimate self governance by any definition I know of.</font>[/QUOTE]Perhaps I am not adequately conveying my point. Let me try this again: have you considered that possibility that a majority of Iraqis want to establish an Islamic Republic similar to that of Iran? I am not talking about an Iraqi "constitution," but an Islamic Republic. Suppose that this is the preferred form of government. If that is truly the will of the people, what will happen?

I don't know that I would stop it. If that is how they decide to live and they are not taking over their neighbors and creating world havoc, then let them do what they want. </font>[/QUOTE]Are you sure about that?
Do you really think that the US is going to stand by and watch the birth of another Iran?

I wouldn't think we would have any, unless they were causing war, threatening us, causing genocide, or something like that. I don't think there is any need to stop a democratically elected government unless they are doing something like I mentioned above. </font>[/QUOTE]We already did take out one government.

Some of us did indeed know that the the intelligence we had at the time was not accurate, most notably Ritter.

 

I posted the link when I first referred to it. Go back and read carefully (please stop embarrassing yourself).

Did anyone say you made them up? Nevertheless, WMDs have not been found as both Blix & Kay confirmed. You even quoted Kay saying that he was wrong in thinking that they would be found.

I did; go look again.

Blix suspected Iraq did not have WMDs by March 2003 when he was asked to leave off inspecting, as your own sites confirmed.

Blix said, " But we never stopped saying it! We said that we had no proof of the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but that we did have numerous proofs of the existence of unresolved questions."link; "unresolved questions" are the evidence they existed?
Furthermore, "On Thursday, Blix told the U.N. Security Council his team found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction before the U.S.-led Iraq war." link

He said, "It's one suspicion I have [that there were none]. You want to pin me down, but I still think it's too early to do that". He suspected there were none because not only did he find no WMDs, but he could find no evidence of them either. But there were those unresolved questions.

*snip* (using the Lord's name as a minced oath omitted) *snip* Larry, when I said "Kay recanted" what tense do you think that was? Just now, when I said "said", what tense was that? There is no reference to any particular year, clearly or obscurely. I posted the link; all you have to do is click on it.

I'm not the one who is lying.

Were they found in amounts which could cause mass destruction? Were they weapons grade? Were they useable? Both Kay and Blix have said, both Bush and Cheney have confirmed, even Rumsfeld has admitted that WMDs have NOT been found, your previous page notwithstanding. You seem to be conflating all weapons with WMDs.

I'm not the one who is lying.

Can't you read? The interview was not in March(which is what I said). And you used it to say to say that they had been found.

How can I answer a question that is based on a lie? When you ask a question based on a faulty premise, I do not have a chance to answer.

Oh just click on the link and read it for yourself.

He did say they had found no proof that they did not exist, and no evidence that they did exist.

It's the first I've seen you make it.

Again, I'm not the one lying and distorting. If you'd just read carefully (conditional), you would see (subjective) that I posted the link (simple past).

[ October 13, 2004, 04:06 PM: Message edited by: Gina L ]

 

You KNEW no such thing. Not even Ritter KNEW.

Note from mod: one and only warning. No profanity.

[ October 13, 2004, 04:01 PM: Message edited by: Gina L ]

 

The questions that Saddam saw it better to leave unresolved were an indication he was hiding something. He had been given years to resolve these things. His answer was just take my word for it. Thats not exactly the way he needed to resolve the issues. The responsibility for not getting these issues resolved lies strictly with him. It was not up to us to resolve them. What amazes me is that I have yet to see where any Democrat or Bush hater said Saddam had any responsibility to resolve them. They place all the responsibility on the US.

There was a time in the mid 30's when another nations leader said about the same thing. At that time Neville Chamberlain said he's just a good old boy and doesn't mean any harm. A few years later Adolf Hitler led off with a world war.

The head in the sand approach didn't work well then and doesn't work today either. Especially today when we really can't afford to just take chances with little despots like Saddam.

The war on terror has just begun. It will be a long difficult one.

 

Saddam Hussein was seen by many as a toothless tiger. He was not a terrorist, he was a head of state. Diplomacy and inspections were actually working. By invading Iraq and destroying the civil order there, we helped open their borders to terrorists. Now we can hardly tell the difference between terrorists and native patriot insurgents defending their country from foreign invaders.

The war on terror and the invasion of Iraq are two different wars, with two different motives.

 

Customer to mechanic: "What's wrong with my car?"

Mechanic: "It's not running well."

Customer: "What do you have to do?"

Mechanic: "Fix it."

Customer: "How much will it cost?"

Mechanic: "Enough to get the job done."


I guess you could argue that it's clear, but it doesn't tell you anything.

Of course, if the mechanic was Bush, Larry would recommend him to all his friends, even if he ruined his car.

 

Customer to mechanic: "What's wrong with my car?"

Mechanic: "It's not running well."

Customer: "What do you have to do?"

Mechanic: "Fix it."

Customer: "How much will it cost?"

Mechanic: "Enough to get the job done."


I guess you could argue that it's clear, but it doesn't tell you anything.

Of course, if the mechanic was Bush, Larry would recommend him to all his friends, even if he ruined his car. </font>[/QUOTE]It would be nice if it were as simple as having a car repaired. Trouble is its not.

 

How can I stop doing something I never started??? That is confusing to me. Where is the link? I looked in this thread for it several times and cannot find it. The only link you appear to have posted was this one:
http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/18/2196/4.html? It has nothing to do with anything I said. Now, would you like to go back and find the link, or post it? Either way would be fine. I cannot find it.

Failure again to understand the point. Blix documented the finding of mustard gas and other prohibited weapons. They did not find stockpiles which is what they were looking for. I was right. Sorry.

But, as my site confirmed, he left open the possibility that they did. He said he thought the missiles may have been the tip of the iceberg. He wanted more time. Go back and read it.

So what? I understand.; You are the one that doesn’t. This is so simple. Show the link and I will click on it.

You are not listening. I have pointed out several time that WMD is a class of weapon. .22 caliber bullets could be a WMD under your definition because they could cause mass destruction. But that is not a WMD.

Yes you are and you should know it by now. You have accused me of saying stuff I didn’t say. That is a lie.

Of course …

The interview was around March of 2004 which is what I said. And I did not use that interview to say that they had been found. You are simply conflating things in your attempt to make me look back. If you would post the link, we could all see. I said that interview in question was about what Blix believed prior to the war.

Irrelevant nonsense. You are avoiding the question.

I have read carefully. I have looked several times. I am asking you to show where it was posted. Give me the date and time. If you do not, I will assume that you are lying about it. I think you are actually mistaken. I think you think you posted it but you probably forgot. I have done that before. It is an easy thing to fix. Post the link.

Secondly, quit coming after me. You will not win this. You are wrong and you are lying. You are misrepresenting what I said. You are conflating things because you are not thinking straight. I have clarified for you what I said so if there was any confusion, it should be gone. You should remove yourself from this board until such time as you are willing to be honest about what people say.

 

Really funny Jim ... but totally off base. My comments were in no way similar to that. If you read what I said, you know that you have made that fooolishness up. But as usual, you don't really want to talk issues. You just want to attack me. That is a shame.

 

I thought it was pretty funny, too. Thanks.

 

Daisy, I owe you an apology (sort of) and you owe me one. I finally found the link I asked for. You were right that it was in yoru first comments on this. Your posted so so poorly constructed that the link is invisible until it is copied and pasted, or until your cursor is directly over it. Had you formatted your post better, it would have been more easily seen. However, since I didn't really accuse you of not posting it, but rather asked for it, I don't really owe you an apology.

Howeer, you do owe me one because the link does not say what you claim it says. Here is the full paragraph:

That info can be found here: http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/18/1604/5.html

(Notice how visible the link is. That is how you should have posted yours to begin with.)

Very clearly, my comments were a reference to prewar intelligence. So you misrepresented my words, either becuase of a lack of ethics or a lack of understanding. I honestly am not sure which. I would like to think you just didn't understand the conversation. You have unfortunately shown yourself to lack ethics in this area before. You cannot twist people's words and expect to get away with it. Others might not care and might not check. I do and I will. You lied about what I said and thought you would get away with it. You didn't ... again. Learn the lesson Daisy. Quit doing this stuff. You will not win. I know what I said and when you mispresent it, I will call you on it. The better thing for you to do is just stop before you get caught again.

 

You KNEW no such thing. Not even Ritter KNEW. </font>[/QUOTE]Here is an English lesson for you:
By "us" I am referring to "us" as a nation. The word "us" in no way implies that I knew anything. As a matter of fact, I have never implied any first-hand knowledge on the subject. Perhaps you didn't notice the post from Pastor Larry to which I was responding, where the word "we" was used.

I certainly thought that your reference to the male bovine was a nice touch though..............

As for Ritter, he certainly has made it clear how he feels with respect to the WMD issue, and I would dare imagine that he is someone who would know.

Now that this has been addressed, perhaps you could elaborate on an "exit strategy" for me.

[ October 13, 2004, 04:02 PM: Message edited by: Gina L ]