BF2S Forums Democrat Hypocrisy

Pug wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Which goals, the goals they told you or the real ones?  Let's get honest here, I don't think they went to Iraq coz of the WMD's or to establish a democracy.  GWB went for oil, so his own goals were accomplished.

How much oil does the US get from Iraq? 
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petr … mport.html

US imports 13.1 million barrels per day (2004).  558,000/13,100,000 = 4.5%.

I don't think that's the reason.  Plus there's the argument that it would raise the price of oil and therefore hurt the economy.  Plus there's the argument that there is no way the US could "keep" Iraq.

If you'll recall the reason the purchase was so low was because of the UN sanctions.

Pug wrote:

GATOR591957 wrote:

Pug wrote:

I don't think that the Dems or anyone would falsify information aka treason.  You mean it was bad information, not doctored...right?

No, most accounts report GW and company were ready to go to war in Iraq prior to his swearing in ceremony.  I believe there is also proof the Brits found that indicate the information on WMD's were doctored.  Tony Blair took a real beating for this.

Ahh, who doctored the info, what was the source?  CIA & Brit intel, right?

No it was the US intelligence (oxymoron) that was uncovered by the British press indicating the lack of proof of wmd's.  The British press lambasted Blair for going along with the US in the invasion of Iraq after uncovering this information.  I believe it was called the Downey street papers.  Not sure though.

Bubbalo wrote:

Big problems:  The Clinton people were all saying that the threat should be taken seriously, not that Iraq should be invaded.  The others all had to base their opinions on information which was given to them by the US government, which was trying to convince people they were there.

So let me get this straight... 

Are you saying that they were just like, "That is a dangerous country."  And then not do anything about it?  Does this sound stupid to anyone else?  WELLLLL, they were ONLY talking about it.  They didn't do anything.  That is a SUPER intelligent move there!  Lets say someone is a threat to the US and then sit on our asses and have tea...

And your second point also doesn't help much either.  The reason that groups like the CIA are in existence is to gain intelligence reguarding other countries and things within the US.  Simply saying that they were decieved by the information give be the "US government" is rediculous.  If I'm not mistaken, aren't the democrats part of this "government" you speak of?  OH WAIT, they aren't because they can't come up with any good ideas to fight terror.  Well, your partially right in that aspect.  But you can't blame the intelligence, Presidents have been getting intelligence from the CIA and other groups for a long time.  Both Democrat and Republican.

Maybe you should organize a democrat CIA...

Bertster7 wrote:

It is pretty much common knowledge that a lot of the inteligence in the build up to the Iraq war, at least in the UK, was fabricated. The Hutton inquiry exonerated the government, but that's what those sort of inquiries are there for, to absolve responsibility. There were ludicrous claims made and evidence that inteligence was made up to support the case for war. There was some evidence of similar stuff happening in the US as well, but it was never so well publicised as in the UK with the 45 minute bullshit.

There was evidence suggesting Saddam may have had WMDs, probably invoices from when the UK and US sold them to him, there wasn't ever any conclusive evidence.

I don't want to get to far into this because there isn't much evidence to support my claims (certainly not on the US side of things). It does seem very much that WMDs were not the reason for the war but an excuse for it.

I don't know what the real reason for the war was, I doubt it was oil. It probably had more to do with establishing US friendly footholds in the middle east.

Common knowledge?  Can your PROVE your "common knowledge"?  No, you can't.  So its pretty much common knowledge that your common knowledge is crap...

GATOR591957 wrote:

Again the house and senate were briefed by the Whitehouse.  So the only thing they knew was what the Whitehouse told them.  Ergo you make your decision on the information you have at hand.  Even if it is lies.  .

The video starts in 1998. Who was in the Whitehouse then?

GATOR591957 wrote:

Pug wrote:

GATOR591957 wrote:

No, most accounts report GW and company were ready to go to war in Iraq prior to his swearing in ceremony.  I believe there is also proof the Brits found that indicate the information on WMD's were doctored.  Tony Blair took a real beating for this.

Ahh, who doctored the info, what was the source?  CIA & Brit intel, right?

No it was the US intelligence (oxymoron) that was uncovered by the British press indicating the lack of proof of wmd's.  The British press lambasted Blair for going along with the US in the invasion of Iraq after uncovering this information.  I believe it was called the Downey street papers.  Not sure though.

Ok, thanks for clarification.

Pug wrote:

Russia.  If your going to believe some crackpot conspiracy theory, go ahead - but defend it with facts every once in a while.

Ps. If this thread you've gone from it's WMDs to it's not really WMDs.

I'll stop now.

Good luck pinning this on something.  I don't think we will ever know.  BTW post #45 above was a major reason for precipitating the invasion - the last straw.

It comes down to many reasons ... but an objective of the invasion was to remove Saddam and bring in a new gov't (not necessarily democracy).  No one said it would be easy.

Frankly instead of trying to understand why it is not right, and why it wasn't justified...try looking at what was accomplished and what HAS to be done.  The situation has to get stable and then the troops come home.  I'm hoping the definition of stable isn't going to extend the desert vacation much longer.

What's done is done.  We can't do anything about the past...

If they went to do all you say then some goals were accomplished.  I'll give you that.  You are right what is done is done.

Im not gonna waste my time on the video because your post is bullshit. Why dont you ask the republicans why they are as sheisty as the dems? I could point out how both of them are equally retarded and even more so when they have a majority in the govt. What you are doing is essentially nothing more than a broke ass Karl Rove manuever. Lay off. As Americans we need to stand together to wade through the BS sent @ us by both parties. Anyone one with an undying allegiance to either obviously has no concept of free will...much less a brain.

In the future, think before you post really dumbass one sided shit.
Oh yeah, and Clintons hypocracy didnt involve 2700 dead servicemen & women, nor did it involve trashing the American name around the world, nor did it involve misguided adventures into the desert. Dont get me wrong, Clinton did plenty wrong. Im just sick of the republican lapdags acting like they have none of the responsiblity.

I call shennanigans...ken melman is that you on BF2s?

Mr.Pieeater wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

It is pretty much common knowledge that a lot of the inteligence in the build up to the Iraq war, at least in the UK, was fabricated. The Hutton inquiry exonerated the government, but that's what those sort of inquiries are there for, to absolve responsibility. There were ludicrous claims made and evidence that inteligence was made up to support the case for war. There was some evidence of similar stuff happening in the US as well, but it was never so well publicised as in the UK with the 45 minute bullshit.

There was evidence suggesting Saddam may have had WMDs, probably invoices from when the UK and US sold them to him, there wasn't ever any conclusive evidence.

I don't want to get to far into this because there isn't much evidence to support my claims (certainly not on the US side of things). It does seem very much that WMDs were not the reason for the war but an excuse for it.

I don't know what the real reason for the war was, I doubt it was oil. It probably had more to do with establishing US friendly footholds in the middle east.

Common knowledge?  Can your PROVE your "common knowledge"?  No, you can't.  So its pretty much common knowledge that your common knowledge is crap...

PR isn't your strong side, is it?

fadedsteve wrote:

BOTTOM LINE. . . .

Saddam is an asshole, so were his dead sons!! The world is a better place with out those 3 TERRORISTS living and causing more death and destruction! The Democrats had no balls to take him on, Bush did, now they want to crucify him for making the decision they SHOULD HAVE made years ago(Which was to take Saddam out)!!

We are winning the war by the way! Iraq WILL eventually become a thriving country when all the violence stops, and Bush will be thought of as a man of decisive action in face of opposition and adversity! The democrats are still too scared to waver public opinion, and thats their downfall! They continue to play the polls which ever the wind blows, and thats bad policy! Thats why the republicans continue to win based on national security and the democrats keep losing cause they have no winning strategy to beat our enemies.  All they do is bash Bush, they have NO PLAN whatsoever to combat terrorism, or have a coehesive plan for the future!

That video is proof that its not just the republicans who noted that Saddam is a threat! For christs sake Madeline NOTSObright said it was our greatest threat to national security!!

Now we have to take on Iran in the same fashion! Granted it wont be for a few years, but mark my words, WE WILL have to go to war with Iran to stop them from making nuclear weapons. . . .

I dont know where to start..so i will start from the top

'Saddam is an asshole'...yes, so is bush for getting 2700 American Soliders killed for 1/2 assed evidence. Next?

'The world is a better place because they are gone.' Well lets see...Latest de-classified NIE report states contradictory info...Iraq was formerly ruled with an iron fist by saddam, now its a training ground for terrorists. UN observers state the torture of Iraqis is above saddam level... So how is the world or iraq better?

'We are winning the war' Are we, because its well know we now make no attempt to enter / police Anbar provice which is rougly 1/3 of the country if im not mistake. And there is a civil war going on. At least 3,000 iraqis were killed in and around Bahgdad last month. Shit, this whole operation has been going downhill since the BS 'Mission Accomplished' speech. So how they hell do you define a win?

'Bush will be thought of as a man of decisive action in face of opposition and adversity!' Um, actually no. When the leader of the free world sits on his ass for 7min looking confused while the country is under attack, I dont think thats what he will be remembered for. But only history can judge i suppose...

'The democrats are still too scared to waver public opinion, and thats their downfall! They continue to play the polls which ever the wind blows, and thats bad policy!' Agreed, the dems are all over the place. But what could be so bad about moving from the existing non-plan of Bush & Rummy? Greeted as liberators? The war will pay for itself? Or all of you apologists short of memory?

'That video is proof that its not just the republicans who noted that Saddam is a threat! For christs sake Madeline NOTSObright said it was our greatest threat to national security!!' Do you have anything besides the lame abc movie with made up scenes to determine your opinion on allbright? And if she was a security threat WTF is with the National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice NOT taking definitive action on the PDB entitled 'Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US' ? What about the same national security advisor who is surprised @ the type of attack even though this method had been discussed for years...

'Now we have to take on Iran in the same fashion! Granted it wont be for a few years, but mark my words, WE WILL have to go to war with Iran to stop them from making nuclear weapons. . . .' Lucky for us, your words are obviously  a waste of time spent typing because they mean nothing. It nice to get inside the mind of an apologist.

This guys lame post is another in the string of dumbass-im scared of terrorists-reactions. If you are all so scared into supporting a BS war under false pretenses then quite honestly you are traitors to your country. The govt derives its power from the people and to be honest, its people like you that make it the other way around. Try using your brain in the future and not parrot other peoples talking points.

I'm sorry but WMD's were found, the NIE report was declassified to dispel the rumors which you have just reiterated, and enforcing a peace treaty that was broken for more than a decade is not a BS war, people too often whine about the few months in which Bush was actively trying to piece the intel community back together, and point to the PDB's which, thanks to Jamie Garelick's own policy of buillding walls between itel divisions, could not make a definitive case as to what the threat was as failure to take pre-emptive action while calling the pre-emptive action in Afghanistan and Iraq a wrong move. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.
9-11: Intel community flub, right hand didn't know (or wasn't allowed to rather) what the left was doing, a result of clinton era policy making and to some degree political correctness, after all we can't look for muslims when looking for muslim terrorists, now can we
Afghanistan: Breeding ground, supply house, and financial support for terrorists of all stripes
Iraq: enforcement of the terms of surrender agreed after the first gulf war, and had to some degree provided terrorist groups with equipment and training, as Saddam's regiment 99 trained the warlord soldiers of somalia in explosives and the more complex weapon systems

too many people are confusing too many issues, even if you do remove the long range missiles, the warheads and artillery shells capable of carrying nuke/bio/chem payloads, and the several tons of uranium still sitting a few miles south of Baghdad from the equation, WMD's were only one of several reasons for going in

Last edited by kr@cker (2006-09-27 09:38:38)

Democrats have no message no balls and no brains PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!

sergeriver wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

GATOR591957 wrote:

Again the house and senate were briefed by the Whitehouse.  So the only thing they knew was what the Whitehouse told them.  Ergo you make your decision on the information you have at hand.  Even if it is lies.  .

The video starts in 1998. Who was in the Whitehouse then?

Who did not invade Iraq based on that information and who did?

Here comes the big circle again. It's ok to go out and tell everyone that Iraq is a threat to our National security but to sit by and watch? Can't you see how that whole ideology hurts your argument more? When you acknowledge the fact we are in danger but do nothing it seems to be there is a huge problem there. At some point you're going to have to realize that based on what they thought whether it was right or wrong at the time they told everyone openly that Saddam was threatening.

This argument isn't even really based on what actions were or were not taken. That is a separate topic. This one takes on the whole argument that "it's the Bush administration that lied." If you choose to remain stern to that opinion then you are turning your head to the fact that not only did Bush believe he was dangerous, the majority of the Democratic party did as well. They believed it so much that the felt secure enough to openly share it with the Pentagon ,Security council, and the rest of the world.(At least until we went in). That is the Hypocrisy.You can't have it both ways
Concede the fact he lied because if he did then so did many other democrats. Flawed intelligence, maybe. Did he act when he shouldn't have? Feel free to discuss in the 30 other topics floating around on that matter.

If we both thought that I had a dangerous dog. We both walked around talking about how dangerous my dog is. After watching my dog attack a smaller dog I decided it's time for that dog to be put down. Whether the dog should have been put down or not does not change the fact we both believed the dog was dangerous. Although our responses are different and debatable it does not change the fact that we both believed the dog was dangerous. The difference is I decided to do something with my beliefs. It doesn't mean I lied because after the fact we realize the dog was not dangerous and we had different opinions on the actions that should be taken.