Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

What did the Democrats say about Iraq's WMD?? [merged]

Old 11-05-05, 04:45 PM
  #1  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,032
What did the Democrats say about Iraq's WMD??

http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004.shtml

How come they all say that NOW Bush is lying??

My 2 favorite/dumbest bumper stickers I've seen as of late

"When Clinton Lied No One Died"
"Screw Your Intern, Not Your Country"
MartinBlank is offline  
Old 11-05-05, 04:48 PM
  #2  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,032
Sweet site for all you "Evil Conservatives"...

http://www.evilconservatives.com/
MartinBlank is offline  
Old 11-05-05, 04:48 PM
  #3  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
I don't believe they're all saying Bush is lying.

I do believe they're saying that there was an intelligence evaulation that proved to be incorrect.

I also believe they're saying that Bush exaggerated the threat. I belive the evidence is clear that he did.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 11-05-05, 04:56 PM
  #4  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Working for Gizmonic Institute
Posts: 10,430
Did you just recently discover Glenn Beck?
crazyronin is offline  
Old 11-05-05, 04:59 PM
  #5  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,032
Originally Posted by crazyronin
Did you just recently discover Glenn Beck?

No, just sharin' the love. And, this site rules!!!!
MartinBlank is offline  
Old 11-05-05, 05:14 PM
  #6  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: waiting for forum.dvdtalk.com ...
Posts: 2,755
Originally Posted by classicman2
I don't believe they're all saying Bush is lying.

I do believe they're saying that there was an intelligence evaulation that proved to be incorrect.

I also believe they're saying that Bush exaggerated the threat. I belive the evidence is clear that he did.
but the democrats who voted to support the war made the same conclusions with the same intelligence.
kms_md is offline  
Old 11-05-05, 05:24 PM
  #7  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Granted the Senators and House Members (a few of them) see some intelligence reports. No senator or house member, including the members of the Senate & House Intelligence Committees see the entirety of the evidence. The White House does. Therefore, they're somewhat dependent on the intelligence that the White House decides to feed them. Intelligence, in this, case I would argue was an exaggerated case made by Bush and his team.

You're on somewhat firmer ground with your argument when Clinton made many of the same statements that Bush made. Clinton was in possession of all the intelligence. However, Clinton didn't decide to invade Iraq. Bush did. One wonders why?
classicman2 is offline  
Old 11-05-05, 06:01 PM
  #8  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: waiting for forum.dvdtalk.com ...
Posts: 2,755
Originally Posted by classicman2
Granted the Senators and House Members (a few of them) see some intelligence reports. No senator or house member, including the members of the Senate & House Intelligence Committees see the entirety of the evidence. The White House does. Therefore, they're somewhat dependent on the intelligence that the White House decides to feed them. Intelligence, in this, case I would argue was an exaggerated case made by Bush and his team.
however, IIRC, the intelligence is available for their review. notwithstanding, they stood on the floors of their respective chambers, and made very declarative statements about the danger posed by iraq.

You're on somewhat firmer ground with your argument when Clinton made many of the same statements that Bush made. Clinton was in possession of all the intelligence. However, Clinton didn't decide to invade Iraq. Bush did. One wonders why?
lewinsky. and pre-9/11.

edited to add 9/11

Last edited by kms_md; 11-05-05 at 06:03 PM.
kms_md is offline  
Old 11-05-05, 06:07 PM
  #9  
Moderator
 
nemein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: 1bit away from total disaster
Posts: 34,126
However, Clinton didn't decide to invade Iraq. Bush did. One wonders why?
He was too busy trying to be the world's president and letting polls dictate his actions no matter what the long term consequences.
nemein is offline  
Old 11-05-05, 06:12 PM
  #10  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
DVD Polizei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 51,896
I wonder which is worse. Letting the polls dictate your actions, or letting God dictate your actions.
DVD Polizei is online now  
Old 11-05-05, 06:13 PM
  #11  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Why didn't Clinton decide to invade Iraq?

Despite his problems, he had a very good job approval rating. Besides, a invasion of Iraq would have switched the subject from his problems to the war.

What was the big change that occurred to spur Bush to action against Iraq? Certainly not 9/11.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 11-05-05, 07:15 PM
  #12  
Moderator
 
nemein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: 1bit away from total disaster
Posts: 34,126
What was the big change that occurred to spur Bush to action against Iraq? Certainly not 9/11.
Why don't you just tell us your opinion instead of playing all these silly games all the time?
nemein is offline  
Old 11-05-05, 07:34 PM
  #13  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Originally Posted by nemein
Why don't you just tell us your opinion instead of playing all these silly games all the time?
I assumed you knew the point. Nothing changed. With the same evidence that Bush had - Clinton didn't invade Iraq. Bush did.

The answer, I suppose, is that Clinton didn't over-react, and Bush did.

Does anyone actually believe that Bush would have gotten the votes in Congress to give him the authority to use military action if the reason that Bush and the Bush supporters now (rather belatedly, wouldn't you say) give - to liberate Iraq, instead of the one he gave - Iraq posed an immediate threat to the United States with their WMDs?
classicman2 is offline  
Old 11-05-05, 07:37 PM
  #14  
Moderator
 
nemein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: 1bit away from total disaster
Posts: 34,126
Nothing changed.
Except for a little incident one Tues morning that you may have heard something about. Whether legit or not, whethere explicitly used or not 9/11 changed everything.
nemein is offline  
Old 11-05-05, 07:41 PM
  #15  
X
Administrator
 
X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1987
Location: AA-
Posts: 10,676
Originally Posted by classicman2
I assumed you knew the point. Nothing changed. With the same evidence that Bush had - Clinton didn't invade Iraq. Bush did.
In 1998 Clinton had no political capital to go to war. Even after he called for regime change in Iraq and both houses of Congress agreed by unanamous vote by passing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. Not to mention he "abhored" the military and the feeling was mutual.

Bush had the political capital to do it.
X is offline  
Old 11-05-05, 07:42 PM
  #16  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Carrollton, Ga
Posts: 4,809
but the democrats who voted to support the war made the same conclusions with the same intelligence.
Well it was obvious the Republicans had the votes, and Bush was adamant about going to war. Nothing they did would have stopped it.

Clinton didn't invade Iraq. Bush did.
Despite Clinton's ridiculous personal behavior, he was probably smart enough to know we'd end up in a clusterf*ck like we are now, bogged down fighting every terrorist in the middle east. This was just a dumb war, period. They had no clue what to do with Iraq once the fighting was done, and they obviously thought everyone would lay down their arms and rejoice "WE LOVE AMERICA!!!" We get involved in too many dumb wars like this. It's high time we stop sticking our nose in other countries business, unless it's a necessity like Gulf War I, WWI, and WWII. We've created more terrorists than we've killed or captured.
Terrell is offline  
Old 11-05-05, 07:55 PM
  #17  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Originally Posted by nemein
Except for a little incident one Tues morning that you may have heard something about. Whether legit or not, whethere explicitly used or not 9/11 changed everything.
Why didn't we invade Iran then?

Iran is/was a far greater threat to the security of the Persian Gulf than Iraq.

We know/knew that Iran has WMDs.

We know that Iran is a supporter of terrorists.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 11-05-05, 08:08 PM
  #18  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Working for Gizmonic Institute
Posts: 10,430
Originally Posted by classicman2
Why didn't we invade Iran then?

Iran is/was a far greater threat to the security of the Persian Gulf than Iraq.
How many of their neighbors did they invade?

We know/knew that Iran has WMDs.
For the same reason we knew SH had them, they were using them on each other


We know that Iran is a supporter of terrorists.
I guess that since Zarqawi got into Iraq and treated at one of SH's private hospitals after he was injured in Afghanistan means nothing? I could go on with such pieces of trash, such as Abu Nidal and others...

Needless to say after you gave your three examples, I would like to say you just agreed to invade Iraq/
crazyronin is offline  
Old 11-05-05, 08:09 PM
  #19  
Moderator
 
nemein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: 1bit away from total disaster
Posts: 34,126
Why didn't we invade Iran then?
Because the history w/ Iraq made it the more sensible target. Plus having just gone into Afghanistan and then going into Iraq would put pressure on Iran. Which it is doing, unfortunately things aren't going better in Iraq so we can't capitalize on that to help direct the pressure in Iran the right way. That was one of the larger gambles in this whole affair that didn't payoff as expected.
nemein is offline  
Old 11-05-05, 08:36 PM
  #20  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
If you want to go back in years (as you're are with the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait - somewhat justified, IMO), why not return a decade and 1/2 before that when U. S. ships and planes were attacked by Iran in the Persian Gulf. Why not return to the time of the taking of the Americans in the embassy in Teheran? If you don't believe Iran poses a great threat than Iraq, you're simply deluding yourself.

If you believe that Iraq was involved (terrorist link) in the 9/11 attack, you're argument is with the 9/11 Commission, not me; because they found no such link.

Because the history w/ Iraq made it the more sensible target. Plus having just gone into Afghanistan and then going into Iraq would put pressure on Iran. Which it is doing, unfortunately things aren't going better in Iraq so we can't capitalize on that to help direct the pressure in Iran the right way. That was one of the larger gambles in this whole affair that didn't payoff as expected.
I know you don't really believe that. The reason we attacked Iraq instead of Iran is rather simple. We felt we would have a far easeir time by invading Iraq than we would have invading Iran. Let's at least be honest about it. We surmised that Iran would have been a much more formidable foe.

I know. Iran wasn't violating the U.N. sanctions. Iraq was. I hope that's going to be a reason given for our invading Iraq.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 11-05-05, 08:52 PM
  #21  
Moderator
 
nemein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: 1bit away from total disaster
Posts: 34,126

I know you don't really believe that. The reason we attacked Iraq instead of Iran is rather simple. We felt we would have a far easeir time by invading Iraq than we would have invading Iran. Let's at least be honest about it. We surmised that Iran would have been a much more formidable foe.

I know. Iran wasn't violating the U.N. sanctions. Iraq was. I hope that's going to be a reason given for our invading Iraq.
That might be part of it (the "far easier time") but not the whole story. The UN sanctions were not the entire reason, but they certainly were a the "way in the door". Also at the time weren't things looking a little more hopeful for internal reform in Iran? That's certainly changed w/ the current admin though...
nemein is offline  
Old 11-05-05, 08:55 PM
  #22  
DVD Talk Hero
 
CRM114's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 42,726
Originally Posted by nemein
Except for a little incident one Tues morning that you may have heard something about. Whether legit or not, whethere explicitly used or not 9/11 changed everything.
If a single 9.11 hijacker or conspirator was Iraqi, I might agree with you.
CRM114 is offline  
Old 11-05-05, 09:01 PM
  #23  
DVD Talk Hero
 
CRM114's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 42,726
Originally Posted by nemein
Because the history w/ Iraq made it the more sensible target.
Why? There was no Muslim fundamentalist element to fight in Iraq. Iraq was contained. Why Iraq? Because they were an easy mark, an easy sell, have LOTS of oil and sit smack dab in the middle of the region.
CRM114 is offline  
Old 11-05-05, 09:02 PM
  #24  
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: In mourning
Posts: 26,215
Originally Posted by CRM114
If a single 9.11 hijacker or conspirator was Iraqi, I might agree with you.




Why do so many continue to be so shortsighted?


Iraq had/has everything to do with 9/11 and the War on islamist terrorism.
Pharoh is offline  
Old 11-05-05, 09:04 PM
  #25  
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: In mourning
Posts: 26,215
Originally Posted by CRM114
Why? There was no Muslim fundamentalist element to fight in Iraq. Iraq was contained. Why Iraq? Because they were an easy mark, an easy sell, have LOTS of oil and sit smack dab in the middle of the region.

Well of course there was. There is only some debate, (wrong in my opinion), as to whether they were connected to the very non-secular saddam.
Pharoh is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.