By deliberately repeating inaccurate or misleading information...

[preservanation]

http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/
December 16, 1998

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq.

The president said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.

"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.

Operation Desert Fox, a strong, sustained series of attacks, will be carried out over several days by U.S. and British forces, Clinton said.

"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said.

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.

Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors.


'Without delay, diplomacy or warning'

The Iraqi leader was given a final warning six weeks ago, Clinton said, when Baghdad promised to cooperate with U.N. inspectors at the last minute just as U.S. warplanes were headed its way.

"Along with Prime Minister (Tony) Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning," Clinton said.

The president said the report handed in Tuesday by Richard Butler, head of the United Nations Special Commission in charge of finding and destroying Iraqi weapons, was stark and sobering.

Iraq failed to cooperate with the inspectors and placed new restrictions on them, Clinton said. He said Iraqi officials also destroyed records and moved everything, even the furniture, out of suspected sites before inspectors were allowed in.

"Instead of inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors," Clinton said.

"In halting our airstrikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance -- not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed," the president explained.


Strikes necessary to stunt weapons programs

Clinton said he made the decision to strike Wednesday with the unanimous agreement of his security advisors.

Timing was important, said the president, because without a strong inspection system in place, Iraq could rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear programs in a matter of months, not years.

"If Saddam can cripple the weapons inspections system and get away with it, he would conclude the international community, led by the United States, has simply lost its will," said Clinton. "He would surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction."

Clinton also called Hussein a threat to his people and to the security of the world.

"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people," Clinton said.

Such a change in Baghdad would take time and effort, Clinton said, adding that his administration would work with Iraqi opposition forces.

Clinton also addressed the ongoing impeachment crisis in the White House.

"Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down," he said.

"But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so."

[Alonzo]

Yes pres. The words of a president who didn't invade Iraq and topple Saddam clearly indicates that he thought it was a good idea to invade Iraq and topple Saddam.

[preservanation]

Yes pres. The words of a president who didn't invade Iraq and topple Saddam clearly indicates that he thought it was a good idea to invade Iraq and topple Saddam.

Thank you for that, Zo.
You do understand.
Now maybe the drum beat that Bush is the liar and acted alone in his assesment of the Iraq situation will be put to rest.

Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of
United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
As Delivered

Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program.

I am honored to represent nearly 19 million New Yorkers, a thoughtful democracy of voices and opinions who make themselves heard on the great issues of our day especially this one. Many have contacted my office about this resolution, both in support of and in opposition to it, and I am grateful to all who have expressed an opinion.

I also greatly respect the differing opinions within this body. The debate they engender will aid our search for a wise, effective policy. Therefore, on no account should dissent be discouraged or disparaged. It is central to our freedom and to our progress, for on more than one occasion, history has proven our great dissenters to be right.

Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people. Unfortunately, during the 1980's, while he engaged in such horrific activity, he enjoyed the support of the American government, because he had oil and was seen as a counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran.

In 1991, Saddam Hussein invaded and occupied Kuwait, losing the support of the United States. The first President Bush assembled a global coalition, including many Arab states, and threw Saddam out after forty-three days of bombing and a hundred hours of ground operations. The U.S.-led coalition then withdrew, leaving the Kurds and the Shiites, who had risen against Saddam Hussein at our urging, to Saddam's revenge.

As a condition for ending the conflict, the United Nations imposed a number of requirements on Iraq, among them disarmament of all weapons of mass destruction, stocks used to make such weapons, and laboratories necessary to do the work. Saddam Hussein agreed, and an inspection system was set up to ensure compliance. And though he repeatedly lied, delayed, and obstructed the inspections work, the inspectors found and destroyed far more weapons of mass destruction capability than were destroyed in the Gulf War, including thousands of chemical weapons, large volumes of chemical and biological stocks, a number of missiles and warheads, a major lab equipped to produce anthrax and other bio-weapons, as well as substantial nuclear facilities.

In 1998, Saddam Hussein pressured the United Nations to lift the sanctions by threatening to stop all cooperation with the inspectors. In an attempt to resolve the situation, the UN, unwisely in my view, agreed to put limits on inspections of designated "sovereign sites" including the so-called presidential palaces, which in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left. As a result, President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets.

In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?

Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.

This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom. She voted "Yes".

[Elrathin]

Funny that Clinton, whom you say supported invading Iraq, didn't. Wonder why that is if he believed in it soo much like you said? Maybe because he didn't?

[BoogyMan]

Preservanation, I have made this point so many times and am sorry to have to tell you that the drumbeat will not stop. I keep getting told "of course they thought that, Bush told them and they believed it." Then I went back and posted the comments of the left about Saddam BEFORE the Bush presidency and that gets pish-toshed as well.

You have a very valid point, I wish you luck in finding someone with an ameliorative spirit to listen to it.

[preservanation]

Funny that Clinton, whom you say supported invading Iraq, didn't. Wonder why that is if he believed in it soo much like you said? Maybe because he didn't?
Are you suggesting that he was lying???
I don't get it.
Clinton never did anything without consulting polls.
That is a well known fact.
This prevented him from addressing real, important or controversial issues, Iraq is just one example of this.

It has been documented that Clinton's bombing of that aspirin factory in Iraq did grave harm to our Muslim relations around the world. Not to mention the tens of thousand innocent Muslim men women and children who were killed by our 10,000 ft bombing campaign in Bosnia. He knew it would be unpopular, or so the polls told him, to put US troops on the ground thus put them in harms way. He sacrificed innocent lives to keep his poll numbers high.Bill Clinton is finding this out the hard way. His ill-conceived decision to prod NATO into bombing Yugoslavia in March has wreaked havoc. The hundreds of thousands of refugees, the civilians killed by NATO bombs, the U.S. soldiers captured, the solidification of domestic support for Serbian strongman Slobodan Milosevic, the dangerous chill in U.S.-Russian relations-all these have come to pass since Clinton made his fateful decision.
Granted, the decision was not an easy one. Milosevic is a brutal leader. His troops in Bosnia committed acts of genocide, and, as he has demonstrated since the bombing, his ferocity in Kosovo knows few bounds. The international community must find a way to prevent or resolve human rights crises like this one. The Rwandan example, where more than 5()0,00() people died in a matter of weeks in 1994, demonstrates the need for some kind of action.
But launching a NATO air war against Milosevic was the triumph of threat over thought. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright had blustered so much about bombing that when Milosevic refused to budge, she and the United States and NATO were left with the option of losing face or carrying out the threat-even though the consequences of carrying out that threat had not yet been calculated.
That was just one in a series of blunders and blusters that led to this fiasco. First, at the Dayton Accords in 1995, the United States kept Kosovo off the table and whisked the problem under the rug. But the problem did not go away.
After the settlement, NATO troops should have arrested the butchers of Bosnia, Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic, and tried them for crimes against humanity. They've been under indictment by the world court at the Hague, but for years have been living in Bosnia, which is under the protection of NATO troops. What signal did this send to Milosevic or other thugs under his command?
For almost ten years, Kosovo had one of the most active nonviolent resistance movements since Gandhi's time. But the United States and NATO did not do enough to support this effort. Only when some Kosovars took up arms did Washington pay serious attention. Albright could barely exert influence over the Kosovo Liberation Army, and she used every bit of leverage to get the KLA to sign the agreement at Rambouillet. She did so not to assure a peace agreement (Milosevic was already on record rejecting Rambouillet), but to justify war. She needed the KLA's signature as the start-your-engines sign for NATO bombers. Within days, NATO ordered its unarmed observers to leave Kosovo. And as soon as they left, the Serbs marched in.
It would have been far better, instead, to have flooded Kosovo with international peacekeepers- from the United Nations, from countries like India, Ireland, Sweden, and Finland, which had no stake in the battle-to buy time and act as a buffer between Milosevic's forces and the Kosovars. It may even have been better to let Russian troops join in the peacekeeping; that way Milosevic would have had to overrun his friends to get to the Kosovars, and the international community would have united against him.
But instead of trying a myriad of peaceful options, Clinton, Albright, and NATO reached for the old, unreliable one: Send in the bombers. They didn't bother themselves with international law. They flouted it. International law clearly states that one country can attack another one only when it is itself under attack, about to be attacked, or when the U.N. Security Council grants permission. Belgrade was not attacking the United States or any of the NATO countries involved in the bombings. And the United States intentionally avoided the Security Council because Russia and China were likely to veto any military action.
Nor, for that matter, was the bombing in accordance with U.S. Iaw: Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the sole power to declare war, and there was no formal declaration of war in this case. Congress shirked its responsibilities by approving a measure that fell short of a war declaration but supported the President's decision to send in the bombers.
And liberals vanished. Only four Democrats in all of Congress bothered to protest. In the House, there was only one, Barbara Lee of California. In the Senate, just three: Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Fritz Hollings of South Carolina, and Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico.
Bill Clinton's justifications for the bombing were filled with distortions and omissions. In his March 24 speech to the nation on the subject, he said that World War I started in the Balkans, which is true, but it became a global war only after the biggest powers foolishly entered it. Somehow, he neglected to mention that fine point.
Clinton talked about the "moral imperative" the United States has to prevent gross human rights abuses. He neglected to mention that current U.S. allies are carrying out some of those same abuses. Turkey, a leading recipient of U.S. aid and a NATO member, has been waging a war against the Kurds over the last fifteen years. That war has cost 35,000 lives and left three million as refugees. Clinton said Serbia won't let the Kosovars "speak their language, run their schools, shape their daily lives." Neither will Turkey allow the Kurds such freedoms.http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Yugoslavia/BillClintonsWar_Yugo.html
Preservanation, I have made this point so many times and am sorry to have to tell you that the drumbeat will not stop. I keep getting told "of course they thought that, Bush told them and they believed it." Then I went back and posted the comments of the left about Saddam BEFORE the Bush presidency and that gets pish-toshed as well.

You have a very valid point, I wish you luck in finding someone with an ameliorative spirit to listen to it.
Thank you Boogy...I know, but I'm a bit bored today and I want to avoid all the yard work I have to do.
Trust me my patience will wear thin soon and it will force me to get out there and start raking.
See, I thought this through!

[Wndrtch]

Funny that Clinton, whom you say supported invading Iraq, didn't. Wonder why that is if he believed in it soo much like you said? Maybe because he didn't?


Alright, how about this...

Senator Harry Reid (Democrat, Nevada)
Addressing the US Senate
October 9, 2002
Congressional Record, p. S10145
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/
cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=S10145&dbname=2002_record

"We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict."

With "normal" people, violation of a cease-fire justifies a re-engagement of hostilities. Even your fearless leader, Harry Reid believed that at one point.

[Elrathin]

My fearless leader? I think you need to get your facts straight before saying something like that I plan on voting the guy out so what's your point?

I am also not a registered democrat so how is he my leader?

[PatrickHenry]

What a waste of time this thread is.

Can't get over Bush's Big BooBoo in Iraq?

Try to hand it to Clinton, LOL!

[Elrathin]

Yes the bumbling in Iraq is now OK because the conservatives pulled out the schoolyard:

"CLINTON WAS GOING TO DO IT !!!!!! CLINTON WAS GOING TO DO IT!!!!!"

How childish.

Bottomline, no matter what conservatives say, Clinton didn't go into Iraq, because he wasn't willing to risk lives without knowing more. Bush on the other hand........well we've seen that one and no STOCKPILE OF WMDs were ever found.

[BoogyMan]

What a waste of time this thread is.

Can't get over Bush's Big BooBoo in Iraq?

Try to hand it to Clinton, LOL!


Were you to read preservanation's premise, it isn't trying to hand it to Clinton at all. What it IS trying to do is to show that there were folks in both parties who thought Saddam was a serious threat, and to point out the folly of the "Bush lied us into war" assertions.

[Elrathin]

Were you to read preservanation's premise, it isn't trying to hand it to Clinton at all. What it IS trying to do is to show that there were folks in both parties who thought Saddam was a serious threat, and to point out the folly of the "Bush lied us into war" assertions.


Boogy, there is a difference in thinking something is a threat and acting on it. Bush acted it on it, Bush owns this one. NO amount of "Well so and so thought...." is going to change that.

[BoogyMan]

Were you to read preservanation's premise, it isn't trying to hand it to Clinton at all. What it IS trying to do is to show that there were folks in both parties who thought Saddam was a serious threat, and to point out the folly of the "Bush lied us into war" assertions.


Boogy, there is a difference in thinking something is a threat and acting on it. Bush acted it on it, Bush owns this one. NO amount of "Well so and so thought...." is going to change that.


That was not even part of my commentary El, but go ahead and build that strawman. So you are admitting that many of your leaders on the left also thought Saddam was a serious threat? Even prior to Bush's presidency? As I see it the thread is simply addressing the fallacy of the "Bush lied us into war" assertions.

[PatrickHenry]

Bush lied us into war. But all the pols are in the War Machine's pockets...

Does that make you feel better, Boogyman?

It's only the public that wants the troops home and the economic drain to end...

[BoogyMan]

Bush lied us into war. But all the pols are in the War Machine's pockets...

Does that make you feel better, Boogyman?

It's only the public that wants the troops home and the economic drain to end...


I know that you hold a "unique perspective" on 9/11 and the government which tends to color your views PH.

[PatrickHenry]

Uniqueness is a solitary phenomenon, Boogyman...there are millions of us... (http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/13469)

[Deadshot]

Didn't Clinton say that North Korea was a threat too? And Iran?

Why is it that the Right will bend over backwards to crucify Clinton at the drop of a condom, :nana:, yet continue to bring this factoid to the forefront?

Bush acted after the first major terrorist attack on the USA! Don't you think that having learned that the attack came from Afghanistan that POTUS Clinton might have made a different judgement about Iraq then Bush?

Bush went with his gut, like he usually does, and got the USA in trouble. Was Iraq a threat, yup. Just like North Korea and Iran are right now. But, believe it or don't, most of America does not want to invade either of those two countries right now!

As was said above, and obviously I concur, Bush owns Iraq, because unlike Clinton, his father or Reagan and Carter with Iran, he was the POTUS that ACTED on his gut reaction and marginal intelligence. Each POTUS since Carter has had a "threat against America" to attack and invade, all have stopped short of doing so. Bush, because of 9/11, made an error in judgement that will damn his Presidency for all time and hurt the GOP for years to come.

[I Like Beer]

Hey Boogy,

I see you like Buckley quotes. I have some words of wisdom from the man who fought so diligently against civil rights. I guess it's true what they say about age bringing wisdom....

You know what they say about rats and sinking ships? ;)

"It’s important that we acknowledge in the inner counsels of state that [the war in Iraq] has failed so that we should look for opportunities to cope with that failure."

"Mr. Bush is in the hands of a fortune that will be unremitting on the point of Iraq.… If he’d invented the Bill of Rights it wouldn’t get him out of this jam."
"The neoconservative hubris, which sort of assigns to America some kind of geo-strategic responsibility for maximizing democracy, overstretches the resources of a free country."

...Buckley is among a handful of prominent conservatives who are criticizing the war. Asked who is to blame for what he deems a failure, Buckley said, ``the president,'' adding that ``he doesn't hesitate to accept responsibility.''

Buckley called Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, a longtime friend, ``a failed executor'' of the war. And Vice President Dick Cheney ``was flatly misled,'' Buckley said. ``He believed the business about the weapons of mass destruction.''

He lays the blame directly on Bush, no pussy footing around about what some democrats thought or said. If the democrats are as culpable as Bush, why doesn't this prominent conservative call them out? Could it be that he recognizes that this is Bush's War? That, ultimately, Bush is the Commender In Chief and where he leads, the country follows?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=anN._IfoJo1M&refer=us

[BoogyMan]

Uniqueness is a solitary phenomenon, Boogyman...there are millions of us... (http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/13469)


Millions of us? The poll that was done only contacted 983 people PH.

I doubt your assertion based on such a poll.

[Deadshot]

Uniqueness is a solitary phenomenon, Boogyman...there are millions of us... (http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/13469)


Millions of us? The poll that was done only contacted 983 people PH.

I doubt your assertion based on such a poll.


Considering that the '06 elections were won, as both sides admit, by the Dems running on a anti-War/Bush platform and that the scientific polls of today and the last few months show that the country wants an end to the war, I'd say, that while maybe his link wasn't the best, his assertion is correct.

Millions do want out of Iraq and the war. Of course it would be quite easy to point out that with 300 million Americans, "millions" is a dubious term.

[BoogyMan]

Uniqueness is a solitary phenomenon, Boogyman...there are millions of us... (http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/13469)


Millions of us? The poll that was done only contacted 983 people PH.

I doubt your assertion based on such a poll.


Considering that the '06 elections were won, as both sides admit, by the Dems running on a anti-War/Bush platform and that the scientific polls of today and the last few months show that the country wants an end to the war, I'd say, that while maybe his link wasn't the best, his assertion is correct.

Millions do want out of Iraq and the war. Of course it would be quite easy to point out that with 300 million Americans, "millions" is a dubious term.


I think you might have missed his point DS, if I understand him correctly, PH is espousing what has come to be known as the "truther" view of 9/11. He could also have been talking about the war, but I don't think so.

[Truth_and_Power]

Preservanation, I have made this point so many times and am sorry to have to tell you that the drumbeat will not stop. I keep getting told "of course they thought that, Bush told them and they believed it." Then I went back and posted the comments of the left about Saddam BEFORE the Bush presidency and that gets pish-toshed as well.

You have a very valid point, I wish you luck in finding someone with an ameliorative spirit to listen to it.


Amazing how much smarter I am than everyone in the american establishment. I mean.. how could I have known this would be a giant boondoggle based on b.s. intelligence at the start? I'm a friggen geniouse!!!!11!1!!

[Alonzo]

I know what you mean Truth, I remember getting laughed at (literally) when I said that I don't think Saddam has any WMD. This was either late 2002 or early 2003.

[PatrickHenry]

There are millions who know that the US establishment had a lot to do with 9/11, then was totally bound up in the whitewash and coverup.


It's not a "unique" view... (http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll)

[Alonzo]

There are many people who think the u.s. screwed up. That's in the millions.

I agree the millions figure is probably accurate worldwide, but in the u.s. I'd say it's only thousands who think the U.S. actually had a desire to have it happen, or played a conscious role in it.

[preservanation]

Preservanation, I have made this point so many times and am sorry to have to tell you that the drumbeat will not stop. I keep getting told "of course they thought that, Bush told them and they believed it." Then I went back and posted the comments of the left about Saddam BEFORE the Bush presidency and that gets pish-toshed as well.

You have a very valid point, I wish you luck in finding someone with an ameliorative spirit to listen to it.


Amazing how much smarter I am than everyone in the american establishment. I mean.. how could I have known this would be a giant boondoggle based on b.s. intelligence at the start? I'm a friggen geniouse!!!!11!1!!
Doesn't a geniouse live in a lamp?
------------------------------------------------------------------
Boog is right, the left is so invested in their erroneous belief that Bush lied us into war that all the previous Congressional votes, proclamations by previous administrations, political/military analysts as well as those of world leaders and the UN will not change their drum beat.
I hope the left won't take that same attitude as we start to show marked progress toward our oft stated goals in Iraq. That would be disappointing and really quite telling about how they feel about the US actually stabilizing the region. To remind them...the quicker we do that, the quicker we can start bringing our troops home. That is something we all want.

[I Like Beer]

Boog is right, the left is so invested in their erroneous belief that Bush lied us into war that all the previous Congressional votes, proclamations by previous administrations, political/military analysts as well as those of world leaders and the UN will not change their drum beat.

So, William F Buckley Jr, is also on the left? Or, did you conveniently skip all that?

...Buckley is among a handful of prominent conservatives who are criticizing the war. Asked who is to blame for what he deems a failure, Buckley said, ``the president,''[hr]
There are many people who think the u.s. screwed up. That's in the millions.

I agree the millions figure is probably accurate worldwide, but in the u.s. I'd say it's only thousands who think the U.S. actually had a desire to have it happen, or played a conscious role in it.

A few thousand? Try up to 100 million Americans believe that Bush was, if not culpable, intentionally did nothing to stop it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14723997/

A recent Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll of 1,010 Americans found that 36 percent suspect the U.S. government promoted the attacks or intentionally sat on its hands. Sixteen percent believe explosives brought down the towers. Twelve percent believe a cruise missile hit the Pentagon.

Let me restate that... 36 million Americans believe that cruise missiles struck the WTC. 36 million....

[PatrickHenry]

...in the u.s. I'd say it's only thousands...
You'd be wrong. A few thousand don't get mainstream attention: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14723997/

There are millions of us and we are never going to give this up. (http://www.thinkandask.com/news/911polls.html)

It is about the US government's hatred for its own citizens and justification for deliberately killing thousands to start lucrative wars in the MidEast.

[BoogyMan]

A few thousand? Try up to 100 million Americans believe that Bush was, if not culpable, intentionally did nothing to stop it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14723997/

A recent Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll of 1,010 Americans found that 36 percent suspect the U.S. government promoted the attacks or intentionally sat on its hands. Sixteen percent believe explosives brought down the towers. Twelve percent believe a cruise missile hit the Pentagon.

Let me restate that... 36 million Americans believe that cruise missiles struck the WTC. 36 million....


You conspicuously left out that only 1,010 Americans were surveyed by Scripps/Howard. I don't know that you can accurately extrapolate those results to the rest of the country as you have done here.

[Alonzo]

At the same time:

The results of the 2007 August poll indicate that 51% of Americans want Congress to probe Bush/Cheney regarding the 9/11 attacks and over 30% of those polled seek immediate impeachment. While only 32% seek immediate Bush and/or Cheney impeachment based on their personal knowledge, many citizens appear eager for clear exposure of the facts.

In addition, the poll also found that two-thirds (67%) of Americans say the 9/11 Commission should have investigated the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7. Only 5 percent of the respondents agreed that members of the United States government "actively planned or assisted some aspects of the attack."

Still a ridiculously high amount in my mind, but not 30+ percent.

You conspicuously left out that only 1,010 Americans were surveyed by Scripps/Howard. I don't know that you can accurately extrapolate those results to the rest of the country as you have done here.

It's a small sample, but if well done can be accurate. The discrepancy between that and zogby polls calls it into question, as a number as high as 30% isn't reflected anywhere in American society.

[preservanation]

Boog is right, the left is so invested in their erroneous belief that Bush lied us into war that all the previous Congressional votes, proclamations by previous administrations, political/military analysts as well as those of world leaders and the UN will not change their drum beat.

So, William F Buckley Jr, is also on the left? Or, did you conveniently skip all that?
I know about Buckley's view on the war. I disagree with him.
I'm sure you disagree with some libs as well such as Lieberman, or more notably JFK and his philosophy concerning tax cuts.

However, you conveniently lump WFB in with those who would deny history. To my knowledge he has never denied or ignored the fact that if Bush had the intelligence wrong, so did many others.

The main difference with WFB, is that he never stated (now, this is key) that Bush purposely lied us into war to enrich his oil buddies and Halliburton or to avenge his father or any of the other cacophonous nonsense coming from some on the left.
This is what I think is incorrect and ignores what too many already believed and stated previously.

[PatrickHenry]

Oh, excuse me, Boogyman. I didn't know you were unfamiliar with the accuracy of sample polls.

May I assume you won't be referring to poll data in the future?

Here's a Gallup:

http://media.gallup.com/GPTB/trendsTopics/Trust_In_Gov_1.gif

See, right after 9/11 a lot of folks were caught up in the drama...then we looked around and realized that the September 11 attacks were a road to tyranny.

[Alonzo]

That gallup poll is an entirely different issue and you're trying to force it into this conversation. The issue is not the honesty of the government, it's whether or not they'd actually intentionally kill innocent Americans on such an obvious and massive scale.

[BoogyMan]

Oh, excuse me, Boogyman. I didn't know you were unfamiliar with the accuracy of sample polls.

May I assume you won't be referring to poll data in the future?

Here's a Gallup:

http://media.gallup.com/GPTB/trendsTopics/Trust_In_Gov_1.gif

See, right after 9/11 a lot of folks were caught up in the drama...then we looked around and realized that the September 11 attacks were a road to tyranny.


Negative PH, I said "I don't know that you can accurately extrapolate the results to the rest of the country." By that I am pointing to the fact that I have not yet studied the polling methodology and the question base. Have you never been unsure of something? Egads.

[PatrickHenry]

That gallup poll is an entirely different issue and you're trying to force it into this conversation. The issue is not the honesty of the government, it's whether or not they'd actually intentionally kill innocent Americans on such an obvious and massive scale.
Well, well, little alonzo...The conversation morphs...

I was having a discussion with Boogyman about polls and their accuracy. He says you can't trust them because of a small sample. I say that all of the big boys like polls because they are accurate, and you chime in with a comment about "forcing." Mh-mh-mh...

Why do you think that Americans lives would stand in the way of profit?

Do you have any understanding of sociopathy? The lack of a conscience?

Do you know the size of the US "Black Budget?"

Do you know how it is spent? Of course not...you're not an insider.

It is spent for "black ops" that have killed foreigners for years. Why would you think Americans are immune when trillions of dollars are to be made?

[Wndrtch]

My fearless leader? I think you need to get your facts straight before saying something like that I plan on voting the guy out so what's your point?

I am also not a registered democrat so how is he my leader?


You are part of the "get out of Iraq now" contingent, aren't you?

You are also of the "Bush Lied" fan-club too, right? Even though the Intel WE had was corraborated with England, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Russia, etc. It was common knowledge to the War Hero, Clinton the Almighty, his cohorts in Congress, and yes, even to Saddam himself, never mind the FACT that he USED THEM!!!

I guess some of you out there need to have a crystal ball like Hillary, before you make a discision about something. Too bad the job of President, doesn't come with one.

Now for a couple of easy questions:

1. Do you want America to "win" in Iraq? Yes/no
2. Do you want America to "win" against Global Jihad? Yes/no

In the off-chance you answer "yes" to those questions, then where the Hell do you think we need to be to fight them and win? Maybe, say, um, the Middle East seeing how that is where Jihad was birthed and is supported from? What is the most central country in the Middle East from a strategic standpoint? Say, um Iraq? You think maybe, there are other reason we are there, like occupying the most advantagious and most centralized land so we can move without being fettered? Nah, that would require complex thinking.

Wake-up please, for the sake of your children who like to go to bomb-free malls. Start cheering for the good guys to win for a change.

[PatrickHenry]

Start cheering for the good guys to win for a change.
And that would be who?

Ever watch a movie and think to yourself, "I don't like any of these people..."

I would like Iraqi patriots to kick foreigners out of their land, just like I would not want Chinese overrunning America...

[preservanation]

See, right after 9/11 a lot of folks were caught up in the drama...then we looked around and realized that the September 11 attacks were a road to tyranny. This is interesting, I guess...
But what does that sample prove, except that the restructuring was difficult and onerous? Also the dems and media immediately started to denigrate the war after the stunning success of the initial invasion of Iraq.
To me that's neither here nor there...The most interesting numbers are during the 90's
92-2000, Average not trusting Washington,=72.8
2001-2006, = 60.4.
What does that prove...?
Nothing much either.

BTW with the new dem congress I bet the numbers in the same poll would be even higher.
What would that prove...?
Nothing much either.
Polls, Bah

[Alonzo]

I was having a discussion with Boogyman about polls and their accuracy. He says you can't trust them because of a small sample. I say that all o the big boys like polls because they are accurate, and you chime in with a comment about "forcing." Mh-mh-mh...

You're having a conversation with two in one thread, as that was the issue you were discussing with me. It's not unusual for others to get confused.

Why do you think that Americans lives would stand in the way of profit?

Why do you think that the government would destroy the WTC to invade Afghanistan instead of Iraq first? Iraq would hold potential for significant profity, Afghanistan lacks the oil fields of Iraq. And considering the costs of the both wars, the government isn't exactly profiting from that. Other cooperations yes, but they're not the ones you accuse of causing it.


Do you have any understanding of sociopathy? The lack of a conscience?

Do you realize that anti-social personality disorder wouldn't apply to the likes of Bush? He's extremely loyal, his "stay the course" mantra is anything but impulsive. He also has changed significantly from his hard partying days, indicating he learned from his experience. That's not characteristic of someone with anti-social personality disorder.

Do you know the size of the US "Black Budget?"

Do you know what this has to do with why the government would attack its own citizens?

Do you know how it is spent? Of course not...you're not an insider.[/quote]

So either you're an insider, and know, or the dismissal of my opinion applies to yourself as well.

It is spent for "black ops" that have killed foreigners for years. Why would you think Americans are immune when trillions of dollars are to be made?


You already stated you don't know what you're talking about in the previous quote. But, either way, I'm not sure what security benefit could possibly be gained by killing 3,000 Americans.

[Elrathin]

You are part of the "get out of Iraq now" contingent, aren't you?

Ummm that still doesn't mean he is my leader because my reasons are not the same as his. So again, your ASSumption is incorrect.


You are also of the "Bush Lied" fan-club too, right?

Nope, read my positions on this they are quite clear. Your accusations prove you don't read the posts here and just go off of assumption.


I guess some of you out there need to have a crystal ball like Hillary, before you make a discision about something. Too bad the job of President, doesn't come with one.

And I see that there are many conservatives that like to paint people with a broad brush.


Now for a couple of easy questions:

1. Do you want America to "win" in Iraq? Yes/no

Yep I've said time and time again I believe we are a hinderence to that victory in Iraq and I think we need to get out of IRaq so the Iraqi people can band together and kik out Al-Q. You may not like what I think but it is not defeatism. It's called sacrificing our ego so that the greeater good can be done.


2. Do you want America to "win" against Global Jihad? Yes/no

In the off-chance you answer "yes" to those questions, then where the Hell do you think we need to be to fight them and win?

We don't shit in someone elses back yard and expect them to support us for it. We fight them in countries that are protecting them like Pakistan (you know the dictatorship you trust yet Al-Q is operating out of) and if Intelligence is proven right, Iran.

If I go to your house to chase a murderer and blow up half your house, chances are you won't thank me for it, so why do you expect the Iraqis too?


Wake-up please, for the sake of your children who like to go to bomb-free malls. Start cheering for the good guys to win for a change.


Wait a minute you are FOR supporting dictatorships (like the one in Pakistan) and you are telling ME to wake up? Our hypocritical foreign policies are what has been CREATING terrorists. Why don't YOU wake up!

We support dictators and then decades later say "Bad dictator" when we supported them for the longest time. You don't think people get a little bit upset over that one? In the past few years we have CREATED more terrorists. How is that winning the war on terror?

[BoogyMan]

That gallup poll is an entirely different issue and you're trying to force it into this conversation. The issue is not the honesty of the government, it's whether or not they'd actually intentionally kill innocent Americans on such an obvious and massive scale.
Well, well, little alonzo...The conversation morphs...

I was having a discussion with Boogyman about polls and their accuracy. He says you can't trust them because of a small sample. I say that all of the big boys like polls because they are accurate, and you chime in with a comment about "forcing." Mh-mh-mh...

Hmm, first you should afford Zo more respect than your comment above does PH as he simply injected a comment into a public thread, and a valid one at that.

Secondly you have misrepresented my commentary PH, the small sample size of such polls makes it extremely important that the poll be performed in accord with scientific polling practice. That means careful scrutiny of the sample set, questions, AND poll administration.

[PatrickHenry]

Do you know the size of the US "Black Budget?"

Do you know what this has to do with why the government would attack its own citizens?

Do you know how it is spent? Of course not...you're not an insider.

So either you're an insider, and know, or the dismissal of my opinion applies to yourself as well.

It is spent for "black ops" that have killed foreigners for years. Why would you think Americans are immune when trillions of dollars are to be made?


You already stated you don't know what you're talking about in the previous quote. But, either way, I'm not sure what security benefit could possibly be gained by killing 3,000 Americans.
I didn't dismiss your opinion. I asked if you knew the size of the BB. Last I heard it was something like $40 billion a year.

When asking if you knew how it was spent..of course that was a rhetorical question! I indicated so immediately! We don't know the totality, only the iceberg's tip.

And I don't think state security had anything to do with the attacks. There was a profit motive and a geostrategic motive and possibly a few other minor matters. But the question remains unanswered. "Why would the US Black Ops groups kill foreigners and leave Americans alone?" Do you think they are loyal to "the People?" Or is their loyalty a different item altogether?

My cynicism says they will murder anyone if paid enough. And compartmentalization means that only a select few are aware of the totality of the plot.

As to sociopathy, I recognize that many may disagree, but I think there is a significant portion of our population that are under its spell. Not all sociopaths are violent criminals. Many are instead, con-artists. They have no conscience about fraud, even if they won't knee-cap someone. But arranging deaths of strangers for money wouldn't bother them. They aren't bothered by the consequences of their crimes, just too squeamish to wade in.

I think many politicians are conscienceless sociopaths. They will say anything to be elected then proceed to betray their trust and loot the treasury. It is quite a familiar phenomenon worldwide. Did you think that America is immune?

Hence we have the insiders who made the arrangements on 9/11. Then there are the killers, and the coverup specialists...What could be more natural than to kill for your own advancement, especially when you can be assured of zero-consequences?

It has been extremely lucrative.

And in case you were wondering, the planning for an invasion of Afghanistan was complete and the forces were moving into position BEFORE 9/11. It is the site of an important pipeline, one that moves Caspian oil.

Simple minds like we encounter on this forum will keep the US mired in BOTH Afghanistan AND Iraq for decades. :ponder:

[I Like Beer]

A few thousand? Try up to 100 million Americans believe that Bush was, if not culpable, intentionally did nothing to stop it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14723997/

A recent Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll of 1,010 Americans found that 36 percent suspect the U.S. government promoted the attacks or intentionally sat on its hands. Sixteen percent believe explosives brought down the towers. Twelve percent believe a cruise missile hit the Pentagon.

Let me restate that... 36 million Americans believe that cruise missiles struck the WTC. 36 million....


You conspicuously left out that only 1,010 Americans were surveyed by Scripps/Howard. I don't know that you can accurately extrapolate those results to the rest of the country as you have done here.


I didn't leave it out. I just didn't bold it. 1000 respondents is quite good actually and usually lands in that +/-3%, 19 times out of 20 range.

Here's a link to more on this poll. I posted a part I found revealing...
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_1475.cfm

Thirty-six percent of respondents overall said it is "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them "because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East."

"One out of three sounds high, but that may very well be right," said Lee Hamilton, former vice chairman of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also called the 9/11 Commission.) His congressionally appointed investigation concluded that federal officials bungled their attempts to prevent, but did not participate in, the attacks by al Qaeda five years ago.

"A lot of people I've encountered believe the U.S. government was involved," Hamilton said. "Many say the government planned the whole thing. Of course, we don't think the evidence leads that way at all."

Hey Zo - the wording of the questions probably has to do with the wide differing in the numbers.[hr]
It's a small sample, but if well done can be accurate. The discrepancy between that and zogby polls calls it into question, as a number as high as 30% isn't reflected anywhere in American society.


1000 isn't a small sample size.

A poll with a random sample of 1,000 people has margin of sampling error of 3% for the estimated percentage of the whole population

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_poll

The differences probably lie in the question asked.
[hr]I know about Buckley's view on the war. I disagree with him.
I'm sure you disagree with some libs as well such as Lieberman, or more notably JFK and his philosophy concerning tax cuts.

Lieberman, a liberal? Surely, you jest. How you can label Lieberman or Dodd (the folks who shoved through Tort reform) as liberals is beyond me. I don't know about America, but in Canada, actual liberals don't endorse legislation that sticks it to people in favour of corporations.

To answer your general question, of course I sometimes disagree with liberals. How exactly does your disagreement with Buckley diminish his attack on Bush?

However, you conveniently lump WFB in with those who would deny history. To my knowledge he has never denied or ignored the fact that if Bush had the intelligence wrong, so did many others.

No, all I'm saying is that, here is THE man who inspired Reagan. Almost a father figure of the right, and WHO does he blame for the war? The congress? The senate? Past presidents? No. He blames Bush alone.

The main difference with WFB, is that he never stated (now, this is key) that Bush purposely lied us into war to enrich his oil buddies and Halliburton or to avenge his father or any of the other cacophonous nonsense coming from some on the left.
This is what I think is incorrect and ignores what too many already believed and stated previously.

I will grant you that. I didn't even search but I"m sure he never said any of that. Now, this is shocking the WFB is not supporting the left :)

However, I fail to see how this is relevant? In this thread, you stated that you hoped this would put to rest the notion that "Bush acted alone". The implication being that many Democrats (and so-called 'liberal' media) were also responsible. Yes?

However, one of the most influential conservatives of the past 100 years lays the blame on ONE man - Bush. He also called Rumsfled, "a failed executor" and didn't have kind words for Cheney either.

You may disagree with WFB's assessment of things but don't you think that when such a respected conservative calls this the Presidents fault - there's value in that opinion?

[preservanation]

7/11/2004
." "I did what I did based upon a belief that Saddam Hussein's potential for getting nuclear capability was what created the threat," Edwards said. "So did I get misled? No. I didn't get misled."

John Edwards accused the Bush administration yesterday of misleading the nation and of manipulating intelligence analysts to win support for the invasion of Iraq, though both senators stood by their votes authorizing the war.http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/07/11/kerry_campaign_says_bush_misled_us_on_iraq/?page=1[hr]Lieberman, a liberal? Surely, you jest.No, I don't and stop calling me Shirley.
You have to realize Old Joe has been considered left of the left for decades. Or maybe you haven't been paying attention to US politics for that long. I don't blame you, Canadian politics is much more interesting.There is plenty more that can be said about Lieberman’s liberal voting record. It is indeed odd though that Lieberman could be considered a moderate when he holds single digit ratings amongst tax reform groups yet only three years ago received an 83% rating from the ACLU, and this year consistently ranks near the top of just about every established liberal interest group’s listOn some issues, Lieberman is even further to the left of the mainstream Democratic Party. For instance, while polls suggest that the vast majority of Americans, including most Democrats, oppose partial-birth abortion, Lieberman has repeatedly voted against efforts to ban the practice. He has also traditionally received strong support from the pro-abortion lobby. In fact, for the better part of this decade he has received a 100% ranking from NARAL Pro-Choice America. In 2006, Lieberman received a 100% ranking of Planned Parenthood and 0% from the National Right to Life.Across the board elsewhere, Lieberman’s record is anything but conservative. Whether the issue is taxes, affirmative action, gay rights, abortion rights, radical environmentalism, etc., Lieberman has long toted the liberal party line. Lieberman has repeatedly voted in favor of issues that are completely anathema to both conservative and moderate Republicans. Indeed, Lieberman’s voting record is in line with the likes of such liberal stalwarts as Dianne Feinstein, Hillary Clinton, and Ted Kennedy.
(Feinstein’s voting record was actually slightly more conservative than Lieberman’s in 2004 and 2005 according to the ACU). http://www.lewrockwell.com/barnwell/barnwell63.html

The Americans for Democratic Action, a well-respected liberal group, gives Lieberman a 76 lifetime rating, hardly the most “conservative” of Democrats, and more liberal than any Republican. He has voted Democratic on most, if not all, the major issues, including stem-cell research, women’s privacy issues. He also voted against Republican grandstanding issues like flag desecration and the same-sex marriage amendment. Similarly, he was against Alito for Supreme Court Justice, and is a longtime veteran of civil rights campaigns. Lastly, in 2003 and 2004 he earned a sterling 0% from the Christian Coalition. http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2006/9/29/aLiberalsDefenseOfJoeLieberman
I hope this helps you.
skol

[I Like Beer]

About five years ago, I had a great idea about something I wanted to do at work.

So, I put together the proposal and presented it at a meeting (by the way, I'm the boss). The reaction was mixed. Some really like the idea, some didn't, and some were luke warm. In the end, there was enough support and my idea went ahead.

Well, it was a huge success. Everyone at work, even the people who supported my idea originally, came up and congratulated me and took no credit for the success. It was my idea, I pushed for it, I was key in implementing it. The glory was mine (if it had failed, I would've taken all the blame, too).

Isn't that what a boss does?

Shirley... Canadian politics is deathly boring, but I consider that a good thing. I do miss out on most of the minutiae of American politics. I can't stand to watch tv when people are just yelling at each other all the time.

I guess Lieberman in an American liberal, which is very different from a Canadian liberal (this is why I chortle at your inferences that Hillary is somehow a socialist). Many of the things he's liberal on - gay rights, affirmative action, abortion, same-sex marriage - aren't even issues in Canada (they've all gone to the left and society has completely fallen apart ;) ).

Our more conservative party is just as likely to raise taxes as our more liberal ones, or grow and shrink the gov't (just like America), so those don't really define 'right' vs 'left' here.

His environmental stand MAY make him liberal in Canada, I'd have to know more about it. To me, his involvement on Tort reform alone, speaks volumes about his real principles.

Can you explain this quote by Ann Coulter?
"I think he should come all the way and become a Republican," argues Coulter, who says of Lieberman and the GOP: "at least he'd fit in with the party."

High praise for such a loony liberal.

[preservanation]

Beer:
So, I put together the proposal and presented it at a meeting (by the way, I'm the boss). The reaction was mixed. Some really like the idea, some didn't, and some were luke warm. In the end, there was enough support and my idea went ahead.I'm shocked.
Socialism at work.
Your freedom definitely outweighs theirs.
Oh please...sign me up!

[I Like Beer]

Beer:
So, I put together the proposal and presented it at a meeting (by the way, I'm the boss). The reaction was mixed. Some really like the idea, some didn't, and some were luke warm. In the end, there was enough support and my idea went ahead.I'm shocked.
Socialism at work.
Your freedom definitely outweighs theirs.
Oh please...sign me up!


I'm sorry, I'm not very bright. I missed your point.

[preservanation]

Can you explain this quote by Ann Coulter?



"I think he should come all the way and become a Republican," argues Coulter, who says of Lieberman and the GOP: "at least he'd fit in with the party."
National security is of the utmost importance for US Conservatives,
This is the ONLY issue on which Joe parts way with the Dems.
For this reason alone, the left has chucked him under the bus.
Not much room for descent in the dem party.
Rather rude, IMO.