T1B

Mr. B-Smack's cheerleaders. There ya go Mr. Stuckinia.

Tom In VA wrote:Hair down of course...

What's the matter with you, dude. It's hair up in Marty's schoolteacher fantasy...

mvscal wrote: Saddam's public utterances were completely at odds with that not to mention the fact that he was firing on our aircraft almost every day.

This idea of poor old Saddam just sitting there minding his own business when we clobbered him is one of the most profoundly idiotic memes in recent history.

Public utterances? ---- That's a reach. So let's go ahead and load up for Venezuala, Iran and Russia. I'm sure I'm missing a few sabre rattlers.
And firing at our aircraft? You mean the ones he couldn't hit flying over the Kurd and Shite sections of Iraq?

That's not exactly pre-emptive stike in accordance with bush doctrine is it?

Your purposely omitting Yellow Cake, Chems and all the other non-existent WMDs that were The reason used for imposition of the Bush Doctrine.

-------------------------------

In hindsight - I'll admit I was all for bombing the Iraqis back to the stone age based on the bullshit we were fed by the administration. But it was bullshit. Pure and simple they invented a reason to start a war the administration was itching to start.

Diogenes wrote:Props to GWB for the fact there have been no attacks on American soil in 7 years.

Well, if it wasn't for the fact it was just over eight years before the first bombing and the 9-11 attack, I'd be touting that too.

Frankly, the disconcerting thing to me, is that "they're" plan's success are based on us destroying ourselves as much as it is based on launching successful terrorist attacks here.

They, unlike us, take the "longview". To them, they are on "Allah's time" - which is infinite. Culturally, most people in America, can't even begin to comprehend the loyalty, dedication, and fanatical mind of the terrorists.

Let's hope the Great Owl bestows upon our leaders this knowledge.


Who ?
Who ?

We notice that the pundits attacking Gibson's interpretation of "Bush Doctrine" are in fact Krautzenhammer and Podertz, two rabid Ziocons. Okay...we see who's got her back. And she has theirs. When asked about American influence upon potential Israeli plans to attack Iran, Brood Mare just went ROBOTIC: "We cannot second guess Israel's plans to defend itself"...again and again and again, verbatim.

Her "analysis" of government is basically imbecilic. When pressed as to what she and McBush would "change" from the Chimp years (since she appeared to agree with every basic platitude that unelected cabal ever trotted out), she said...what?...some twisted gibberish about "accountability"?

When caught in a dead lie about earmarks, she just twisted and squirmed like a Northern Pike, and said, "and the bridge didn't get built, bottom line!" This bizarre behavior is typical of a child, perhaps, but the notion of a world leader acting like an actual interview before the world is some game of "gotcha" is reflective of how depraved and deluded are the politics of Karl Rove, et al.

As for The Interview itself, it may as well have been scripted by the McBush campaign.

mvscal wrote:

I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation

That is the doctrine (or strategy) simply stated right there.

That is neither a doctrine nor a strategy, but simply an unachievable goal.

As far as doctrines go, depends on when in this administration (and before) you're talkin' about to determine what the Bush Doctrine is, at least according to some:

Jacob Weisberg, in his book "The Bush Tragedy," actually identified six Bush Doctrines: Bush Doctrine 1.0 was Unipolar Realism (3/7/99--9/10/01); Bush Doctrine 2.0 was With Us or Against Us (9/11/01--5/31/02); Bush Doctrine 3.0 was Preemption (6/1/02--11/5/03); Bush Doctrine 4.0 was Democracy in the Middle East (11/6/03--1/19/05); Bush Doctrine 5.0 was Freedom Everywhere (1/20/05-- 11/7/06); and Bush Doctrine 6.0 (11/8/06 to date) is the "absence of any functioning doctrine at all."

Smackie Chan wrote:

mvscal wrote:

I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation

That is the doctrine (or strategy) simply stated right there.

That is neither a doctrine nor a strategy, but simply an unachievable goal.

As far as doctrines go, depends on when in this administration (and before) you're talkin' about to determine what the Bush Doctrine is, at least according to some:

Jacob Weisberg is a fucking moron.

FTFY.

You're welcome.

And the Palin quote is much closer than any of your nonsensical moveon disseminations.

Dildogenes wrote:And the Palin quote is much closer than any of your nonsensical moveon disseminations.

Palin's quote is as much a statement of doctrine as is "I wanna win the lottery" or "I want Dildogenes to post something enlightening or entertaining." The chances of either occurring are remote, to say the least, and neither promote any set of teachings nor address how the desires are to be achieved. But take another slurp of the Kool-Aid. It appears goofy grape is your new flavor du jour.

Suckie Chan wrote:

Diogenes wrote:And the Palin quote is much closer than any of your nonsensical moveon disseminations.

Yawwwwwwn.


I'm sorry. Did you say something?

Dildogenes wrote:I'm sorry.

Concur.

Did you say something?[/color]

Nothing your feeble excuse for a mind would be able to grasp. Not surprised.

Smackie Chan wrote:

Did you say something?

Nothing your feeble excuse for a mind would be able to grasp. Not surprised.

That's cool. trying to grasp vacuum is an exercise in futility anyway.

Mr. Schwump wrote:Mr. B-Smack's cheerleaders. There ya go Mr. Stuckinia.

Your Cheeto shit is almost as bad as your "Sith Happens" foolishness.

Talk about cut and paste.

Transcript here.

mvscal wrote: If it was all bullshit from the start, WMDs would have been found and no one the wiser to it.

The only thing we actually knew is that Saddam was not cooperating with our attempts to verify his weapon programs. What conclusion would you draw from that behavior if the safety of 300 million Americans was your responsibility?

If I'm president, then I guess I draw from history using the cold war as my example.
The Soiviets never attacked - as they knew mutual annihilation awaited.
That ended up being a pretty strong detterent.

Regarding Saddam's Iraq - are you honestly telling me you don't think with total domination over the airspace of Iraq we could not have taken out any site even remotely suspected of harboring or manufacturing or even thinking about creating WMDs?

Damn Bro - quit defending bad decisions. Even a sustained air assault, combined with the ongoing economic blockade would have eventually toppled the regime from within at a much lower cost in $$$ and lives to the US.

I don't think that point can be debated in hindsight.

Scott, hindsight isn't always 20/20 then, because here's the hindsight Bush had available at the time when protecting the United States was it's responsibility and something he would be held accountable for.

"Iraq is a long way from Ohio, 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."

Madeleine Albright, President Clinton's Secretary of State
Town Hall Meeting on Iraq at Ohio State University
February 18, 1998

"Imagine the consequences if Saddam fails to comply and we fail to act. Saddam will be emboldened, believing the international community has lost its will. He will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. And some day, some way, I am certain, he will use that arsenal again, as he has ten times since 1983."

Sandy Berger, President Clinton's National Security Advisor
Town Hall Meeting on Iraq at Ohio State University
February 18, 1998


The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, signed into law by President Clinton, states:

"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
105th Congress, 2nd Session
September 29, 1998



"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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."

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
Statement on US Led Military Strike Against Iraq
December 16, 1998


"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed.

We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

Senator Edward Kennedy (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Speech at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies
September 27, 2002


CNN: How did Hussein intend to use the weapon, once it was completed?

HAMZA: Saddam has a whole range of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, biological and chemical. According to German intelligence estimates, we expect him to have three nuclear weapons by 2005. So, the window will close by 2005, and we expect him then to be a lot more aggressive with his neighbors and encouraging terrorism, and using biological weapons. Now he's using them through surrogates like al Qaeda, but we expect he'll use them more aggressively then.

Dr. Khidhir Hamza, former Iraqi Nuclear Scientist for 20 years
Interviewed on CNN
October 22, 2001


"Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them."

President Clinton
National Address from the Oval Office
December 16, 1998

US State Department
November 4, 1998

Bin Laden, Atef Indicted in U.S. Federal Court for African Bombings

New York -- Usama bin Laden and Muhammad Atef were indicted November 4 in Manhattan federal court for the August 7 bombings of the US embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and for conspiring to kill Americans outside the United States.

Bin Laden's "al Qaeda" organization functioned both on its own and through other terrorist organizations, including the Al Jihad group based in Egypt, the Islamic Group also known as el Gamaa Islamia led at one time by Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, and a number of other jihad groups in countries such as Sudan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Somalia.

Bin Laden, the US Attorney charged, engaged in business transactions on behalf of Al Qaeda, including purchasing warehouses for storage of explosives, transporting weapons, and establishing a series of companies in Sudan to provide income to al Qaeda and as a cover for the procurement of explosives, weapons, and chemicals, and for the travel of operatives.

According to the indictment, bin Laden and al Qaeda forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in Sudan and with representatives of the Government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezballah with the goal of working together against their common enemies in the West, particularly the United States.

"In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the Government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq," the indictment said.

Beginning in 1992, bin Laden allegedly issued through his "fatwah" committees a series of escalating "fatwahs" against the United States, certain military personnel, and, eventually in February 1998, a "fatwah" stating that Muslims should kill Americans -- including civilians -- anywhere in the world they can be found.

mvscal wrote:How did that "sustained air assault and economic blockade" approach work out for the Clinton administration?

It kept Saddam in a box. Certainly, it worked out much better than the "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" approach the Bush Administration took.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:the "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" approach the Bush Administration took.

You've obviously had your head stuck up your ass the past 6 years.

Sirfindafold wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:the "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" approach the Bush Administration took.

You've obviously had your head stuck up your ass the past 6 years.

Dude, he's in his forties. You are not normally that compassionate.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

mvscal wrote:How did that "sustained air assault and economic blockade" approach work out for the Clinton administration?

It kept Saddam in a box. Certainly, it worked out much better than the "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" approach the Bush Administration took.

Of course, no it didn't. Saddam was not kept in a box and "keeping him in a box" was not official policy since 1998.

Getting rid of him was official policy since 1998 because

"Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them."

President Clinton
National Address from the Oval Office
December 16, 1998


That objective was not achieved until 2003.