So now that we have had the worst losses in a month since the war started could someone please explain the Obama mission and exit strategy? Please.
If you say to get Bin Ladin then tell me what Obama will do with him once we get him.

I won't even mention how well things have changed for the better for our men and women in Iraq.

This situation scares me. To me it is NO WIN.

This situation scares me. To me it is NO WIN.


Think you might be right on that but all I hear are the crickets chirping.

that country has been at war longer than the crusades

The "Obama mission and exit strategy"? He's pretty much continued the Bush policy on Afghanistan, with slightly more strategic focus than Iraq.

Strategy seems to have been flawed from the start, but people want to jump on Obama now that he's in charge. Too bad none of those neocons bothered to pick up a history book.

My opinion is that we should leave and park an aircraft carrier offshore who's responsibility is to punish anyone who gets out of line.

-spence

Naw, just a bunch of UAV's ready to rock

However, the issue is to know who is the one's to be punished

they have caves and tunnels that UAV's cannot even touch

so until those are discovered it's a continuing shell game
hiding in civilian homes pretending to be non taliban.

what pissed me off was hearing about them cutting off the fingers of those they caught voting.... :hs:

how's that for democracy?

He's pretty much continued the Bush policy on Afghanistan . . . Strategy seems to have been flawed from the start . . .Too bad none of those neocons bothered to pick up a history book.-spence

Why on earth is Obama following the flawed Bush plan? Surely, Obama has read a history book?

they have caves and tunnels that UAV's cannot even touch

so until those are discovered it's a continuing shell game
hiding in civilian homes pretending to be non taliban.

what pissed me off was hearing about them cutting off the fingers of those they caught voting.... :hs:

how's that for democracy?

That unfortunately is the way the non-democratic world works, you vote we do bad things to you. Never going to stop that everywhere.

while i don't subscribe to the idea of internment camps like we did with the Japanese in the United States.....

it would seem like we need to separate the chaff from the wheat..... (better)
so we know who to kill.... but that is a difficult situation @ best
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2Quote CNN : "To the Taliban, winning is, in fact, not losing," he said. "They feel that over time, they will ultimately outlast the international community's attempt to stabilize Afghanistan. It's really a game of will to them."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

so based on that idea.... it's a game of breaking their will.
Others have tried and FAILED over many years so unless we use completely different tactics it's not a very effective strategy.

an interesting point the article also made was how the taliban are watering the ground around their mortar positions so as to not create a dust cloud and give themselves away. :doh:

that technology the aliens used in the movie:" predator" that triangulated the trajectory of a missile in reverse is closer to what we need to be doing it would seem. Unfortunately we are not that advanced technologically yet but we are close.

I'm not sure why we are not bombing the crap out of those mountains .... which gives them too much of an advantage...

so it's a war of foot soldiers Vs IED's . :confused:

Why on earth is Obama following the flawed Bush plan? Surely, Obama has read a history book?

Not always easy to undo what's been done.

-spence

Maybe we could ship over a couple hundred thousand blankets that are infected with small pox. It worked once... Why not agian. ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Obama's not as interested in reading History as he is in making History.

Well, Nebe that was done long before there were so called ethics in fighting a war and would not fly .

how ever something that could make them hallucinate
is ok by me.

Spence

It is not the Bush plan any more. It is the OBAMA PLAN.

Obama has escalated the war by sending in more troops. It was his responsibility to pull the troops instead he sent more. And his words was that Afghanistan is where the war should be fought.

The Russians couldn't win and we are just losing a mothers child.

Pull the Troops out.

We do not win wars. The American people and the politicians will not let us win. We learned that in Vietnam.

BULLSH1T ...... :fury:

Spence

It is not the Bush plan any more. It is the OBAMA PLAN.

Obama has escalated the war by sending in more troops. It was his responsibility to pull the troops instead he sent more. And his words was that Afghanistan is where the war should be fought.

The Russians couldn't win and we are just losing a mothers child.

Pull the Troops out.

We do not win wars. The American people and the politicians will not let us win. We learned that in Vietnam.

It was President Obama's plan to widen United States involvement in Afghanistan and send in 4000 more troops, It was his plan to shift the focus from Iraq to Afghanastan. Both fronts are now a mess. His administration is a mess. You can't run a war on campaign promises and retoric. Lifes are being lost and I would like to know why. The war was why the Dems won, now tell me what they are doing.

Not always easy to undo what's been done.

-spence


But Obama made it all sound so easy when he was campaigning.:confused: Are you telling me he can't deliver on everything he promised?

Oh, and Spence, could you throw "neocon" into any more of your responses? Let me guess. It was the word of the day on your Doublespeak calendar last week and you're trying to use it as much as possible.

Spence

It is not the Bush plan any more. It is the OBAMA PLAN.

Obama has escalated the war by sending in more troops. It was his responsibility to pull the troops instead he sent more. And his words was that Afghanistan is where the war should be fought.

The Russians couldn't win and we are just losing a mothers child.

Pull the Troops out.

We do not win wars. The American people and the politicians will not let us win. We learned that in Vietnam.

We win when we committ 100% which we didn't do in 'Nam and don't appear to be doing in Afghanistan. Once we are out of Iraq completely it will be interesting to see if the gov't folds. That will seal the deal with "occupying" these countries as a waste of $$$ and lives

I thought Obama was going to have a beer with he "good" Taliban and straighten this all out right after he had tea with Amadinajad?....so easy to pontificate when you have no accountability, just soaring rhetoric for the entranced... now the shoes is on the other foot for Obama, it's his RESPONSIBILITY and he's tripping all over his untied laces....what a fraud...just keeps blaming someone else as he continues to display utter incompetence...maybe he'll GROW into the job...we can all HOPE...

could someone please explain the Obama mission and exit strategy? Please.


I would like to know that too. The silence is deafening.

I thought the original mission was to destroy
the terrorist's training camps and get Bin Laden, who according to reports, is
somewhere in Pakistan now.

Now is the time to use special ops and the new weapons of war, not introduce more troops.

Obama's campaign talk sounded oh so promising.

NPR had a good discussion of this today.

Check it out

It was President Obama's plan to widen United States involvement in Afghanistan and send in 4000 more troops, It was his plan to shift the focus from Iraq to Afghanastan.

The focus never should have been on Iraq, a country with moderate stability, no WMDs (remember, that's why we went there) and with no more Al Qaeda presence than the US - all before Bush decided to take a personal vendetta against a man that supposedly "tried to kill my daddy" as Bush so eloquently put it. The country was a mess before Obama became president. Let's also not forget that US military involvement is now significantly reduced with the Iraqi "military" running most operations in that countries cities and towns.

The focus should be Afghanastan. The country used as the base for Bin Ladin and his terrorist training camps. There's a reason they're called "Al Qaeda in Iraq" - because they weren't there before Bush decided to oust Saddam.

I know the Spin Train has been running full steam since Obama took office (in some cases rightfully so), but let's not become deluded to who (Bush) was the one that started this entire mess.

We win when we committ 100% which we didn't do in 'Nam and don't appear to be doing in Afghanistan. Once we are out of Iraq completely it will be interesting to see if the gov't folds. That will seal the deal with "occupying" these countries as a waste of $$$ and lives
The USSR was 100% committed and look where it got them.

Afghanistan is a very tribal and nationalistic country where war is seen as just a habit.

As for the Obama strategy, it's not that complicated. Raise troop levels to provide added security in the hopes of shifting responsibility onto Afghan and Pakistani troops. I believe the expectation is that there will be a NATO presence in the region for a decade or more to come.

Remember that a big reason for the recent increase in violence was the national election.

-spence

The focus never should have been on Iraq, a country with moderate stability, no WMDs (remember, that's why we went there) and with no more Al Qaeda presence than the US - all before Bush decided to take a personal vendetta against a man that supposedly "tried to kill my daddy" as Bush so eloquently put it. The country was a mess before Obama became president. Let's also not forget that US military involvement is now significantly reduced with the Iraqi "military" running most operations in that countries cities and towns. this is so riddled with lame drivel, but i still love ya JD...

The focus should be Afghanastan. The country used as the base for Bin Ladin and his terrorist training camps. There's a reason they're called "Al Qaeda in Iraq" - because they weren't there before Bush decided to oust Saddam.so, all of the "Al Qaeda in Iraq" poured into the country after we invaded..all of their leadership and memebership just showed up so that we could kill them, they aren't very smart are they?

I know the Spin Train has been running full steam since Obama took office (in some cases rightfully so), but let's not become deluded to who (Bush) was the one that started this entire mess.I would suggest that Saddam, Al Qaeda and radical Islam started this mess

I would suggest that Saddam, Al Qaeda and radical Islam started this mess
You didn't get the updated talking points did you?

-spence

The USSR was 100% committed and look where it got them. weren't they just a "paper tiger" or something, going to collapse anyway?

Afghanistan is a very tribal and nationalistic country where war is seen as just a habit. right, there's probably noone there that actually wants a peaceful existence...those animals..can you similarly apply those beliefs to Oh, I don't know...certain areas of Detriot, Chicago, LA, NY...just wondering

As for the Obama strategy, it's not that complicated. because there is none Raise troop levels to provide added security in the hopes of shifting responsibility onto Afghan and Pakistani troops. I believe the expectation is that there will be a NATO presence in the region for a decade or more to come.

Remember that a big reason for the recent increase in violence was the national election.
that's how they do elections in tribal, nationalistic countries
-spence

:uhuh:

I'd offer up a counter argument, but I don't really see one to counter.

Could you please try to actually make a point?

-spence

You didn't get the updated talking points did you?

-spence

I fished all night, haven't gotten to the RADICAL RIGHT WING TALKING POINTS website yet this morning :rotf2:

The focus never should have been on Iraq, a country with moderate stability, no WMDs (remember, that's why we went there) and with no more Al Qaeda presence than the US - all before Bush decided to take a personal vendetta against a man that supposedly "tried to kill my daddy" as Bush so eloquently put it. The country was a mess before Obama became president. Let's also not forget that US military involvement is now significantly reduced with the Iraqi "military" running most operations in that countries cities and towns.

The focus should be Afghanastan. The country used as the base for Bin Ladin and his terrorist training camps. There's a reason they're called "Al Qaeda in Iraq" - because they weren't there before Bush decided to oust Saddam.

I know the Spin Train has been running full steam since Obama took office (in some cases rightfully so), but let's not become deluded to who (Bush) was the one that started this entire mess.

For someone who so obstinately insists that we shouldn't conjecture what motives lay behind the health care bill but only speak about what's actually in its exact language, you certainly take a conjectural leap by postulating that Bush invaded Iraq as a personal vendetta. Other than his remark that Saddam tried to kill his father, there is NO EVIDENCE of a vendetta. And the WMDs were just one of the stated reasons for the invasion, and they certainly did exist prior to the invasion, and there is CONJECTURE that they were transferred to Syria and possibly Libia, and Iraq was the easier target on war on terror, and it is now a model for possible "populist power" (as Spence likes to say) in the Middle East, and Bush was not "the one who started this entire mess." I suppose you could could go back a long, long way before Bush, but a convenient stop might be Jimmy Carter's intervention on behalf of the Mujahadin against the Soviets.

I would suggest that Saddam, Al Qaeda and radical Islam started this mess

Yes i agree. A little history here.

Saddam attacked Kuwait and we were drawn into the Gulf War.
Why Bush #1 didn't take Iraq at that time i don't know unless there
was not enough anti Saddam sentiment within Irag to take over the government.

That aside i believe we should have taken Iraq at that time as it would have avoided a lot of problems with that crazy back on his heels. Just my opinion.

Then there was the first attack on the WTC by Islamic radicals and also attacks in England if i remember right.

Enter Bin Laden with the bombing of the USS Cole along with some other
terrorist actions in the world.

Then Bin Laden with the 9/11 attack on the WTC.

Bush #2 went into Afghanistan to get Bin Laden and destroy the Al Qaeda
training camps. When Bin Laden was pushed out and the camps destroyed
i believe we should have gotten out of there.

Saddam had more then ample time to re-allow the UN inspectors to
come in for inspection for WMD. He refused and was given an ultimatum
backed by our allies and most of the Congress.
He didn't comply and we went in.
When we found nothing we should have left imho.

So i would say yes, Saddam, radical Islamics and Bin Laden started it.

[QUOTE=spence;709431]The USSR was 100% committed and look where it got them.

I believe what stcroixman meant by 100% commitment was, not only a government policy, but the full backing of the people. The USSR NEVER had that. It was a militarily enforced federation of irredentist minded citizens, most of whom didn't see Afghanistan as an important matter. We failed in Vietnam because our populace was persuaded that it was not worth American life. The war against the Iraqi "insurgents" was made difficult because they saw the left's portrayal of the war as another Vietnam and so hoped that continued resistance would, similarly, break the American populist will to fight.

Afghanistan is a very tribal and nationalistic country where war is seen as just a habit.

"Nationalistic country" is redundant. All nations are nationalistic. And, if war is resisted change, war is not only a "habit", but a necessity for those entities who wish to maintain their integrity.

As for the Obama strategy, it's not that complicated. Raise troop levels to provide added security in the hopes of shifting responsibility onto Afghan and Pakistani troops. I believe the expectation is that there will be a NATO presence in the region for a decade or more to come.-spence[QUOTE]

Sounds similar to the Bush strategy. As for NATO, without a US, Afghani, and Pakistani defeat of the Taliban, NATO, as already demonstrated, can do nothing.

:bshake:see Spence...I had some points

For someone who so obstinately insists that we shouldn't conjecture what motives lay behind the health care bill but only speak about what's actually in its exact language, you certainly take a conjectural leap by postulating that Bush invaded Iraq as a personal vendetta. Other than his remark that Saddam tried to kill his father, there is NO EVIDENCE of a vendetta.
Bush doesn't appear to have been that close to his father, so I doubt he would have provoked Saddam out of a sense of revenge.

I'd wager the line was a more calculated tactic to invoke emotion among the common folk. All part of the war marketing plan.

And the WMDs were just one of the stated reasons for the invasion, and they certainly did exist prior to the invasion, and there is CONJECTURE that they were transferred to Syria and possibly Libia, and Iraq was the easier target on war on terror, and it is now a model for possible "populist power" (as Spence likes to say) in the Middle East, and Bush was not "the one who started this entire mess." I suppose you could could go back a long, long way before bush, but a convenient stop might be Jimmy Carter's intervention on behalf of the Mujahadin against the Soviets.
I don't believe we've found evidence that Saddam had any threatening WMD for years before the invasion. The Syria link is equally without substance. The story, as has been pretty much confirmed by multiple investigations is that Saddam gave up his WMD after 1998, and yet pretended to still have them with the possible intent of starting up programs after sanctions were lifted.

While I appreciate your use of "populist power" (an obvious attempt to build a bridge) I'm not sure I'd use it in the same context. Bush wasn't really looking for an Iraq of the people (i.e. their interests), but rather a western model we could use to influence the region. Bush wasn't trying to spread democracy because it was the right thing to do, but believed it was in our own long-term interest. Unfortunately he forgot to read up on Iraq and let some really misguided assumptions direct his policy.

-spence

[QUOTE=detbuch;709445]


[COLOR="darkgreen"] All nations are nationalistic.

I would say that is one of our country's problems, we are not nationalistic anymore.
We are a nation split on what we stand for. Where immigrants used to come here, take pride in their citizenship and be grateful for the opportunities,
they left their countries behind and became Americans and believed in our country and what it stood for.

We are becoming more divided everyday. Way to many ideas of who we are and
what we believe to be nationalistic anymore, imho.

Bush wasn't really looking for an Iraq of the people (i.e. their interests), but rather a western model we could use to influence the region. Bush wasn't trying to spread democracy because it was the right thing to do, but believed it was in our own long-term interest.

-spence

I believe his short term interest was to stop the WOMD and secondly, after we had been there, make it worthwhile to provide a base for long term interests in the region with the Iranian threats.

I don't believe we've found evidence that Saddam had any threatening WMD for years before the invasion. The Syria link is equally without substance. The story, as has been pretty much confirmed by multiple investigations is that Saddam gave up his WMD after 1998, and yet pretended to still have them with the possible intent of starting up programs after sanctions were lifted.


I "believe" that bits and pieces of evidence have been found that he had some such weapons and that he had plans, as you say, to restart WMD programs. Of course, "belief" and "substance" are different animals. To say that something is "equally without substance" as comparison to something you "don't believe" is a bit shifty. Nonetheless, I did say, in caps, that there is CONJECTURE that the WMDs were moved to Syria. And those conjectures have not been absolutely disproved. Certainly, no one has an answer to General Sada's claim, in his book "Saddam's Secrets" that the WMDs were moved to Syria.

While I appreciate your use of "populist power" (an obvious attempt to build a bridge) I'm not sure I'd use it in the same context. Bush wasn't really looking for an Iraq of the people (i.e. their interests), but rather a western model we could use to influence the region. Bush wasn't trying to spread democracy because it was the right thing to do, but believed it was in our own long-term interest. Unfortunately he forgot to read up on Iraq and let some really misguided assumptions direct his policy.

-spence

A western model WOULD be an "Iraq of the people." Spreading democracy, in our own long-term interest, IS the right thing to do.

Bush doesn't appear to have been that close to his father really, have you asked them about their relationship?, so I doubt he would have provoked Saddam out of a sense of revenge.

I'd wager the line was a more calculated tactic to invoke emotion among the common folk. All part of the war marketing plan. is this similar to the stimulus marketing plan and the commie care marketing plan?


I don't believe we've found evidence that Saddam had any threatening WMD for years before the invasion. didn't stop a whole bunch of democrats from claiming that he did and also had evil nuclear intentions "prior to the invasion"...just gets forgotten like the Carter years and Woodrow Wilson...The Syria link is equally without substance prove it. The story, as has been pretty much confirmed by everyone?/most people? multiple investigations is that Saddam gave up his WMD after 1998, and yet pretended he was such a kidder to still have them with the possible probable? intent of starting up programs after sanctions were lifted. he seemed pretty much undaunted be sanctions or resolutions, managed to bribe his way around quite well...

While I appreciate your use of "populist power" (an obvious attempt to build a bridge) I'm not sure I'd use it in the same context. Bush wasn't really looking for an Iraq of the people (i.e. their interests), but rather a western model we could use to influence the region. Bush wasn't trying to spread democracy because it was the right thing to do, but believed it was in our own long-term interest OR BOTH!?. Unfortunately he forgot to read up on Iraq and let some really misguided assumptions direct his policy.

-spence

you should do seances, you have the ability to magically conjur up the intimate thoughts and dreams of so many people that you've never even met ....

I "believe" that bits and pieces of evidence have been found that he had some such weapons and that he had plans, as you say, to restart WMD programs.
I don't agree. I've read a ton on the subject and aside from a few random and useless artillery shells we really haven't found squat. The conclusion of the Duelfer Report was that Saddam destroyed his WMD in 1991.

Of course, "belief" and "substance" are different animals. To say that something is "equally without substance" as comparison to something you "don't believe" is a bit shifty. Nonetheless, I did say, in caps, that there is CONJECTURE that the WMDs were moved to Syria. And those conjectures have not been absolutely disproved. Certainly, no one has an answer to General Sada's claim, in his book "Saddam's Secrets" that the WMDs were moved to Syria.
This is the same game Cheney played with the Atta meeting in Prague. That because it hasn't been disproved it could have happened. This logic runs quite contrary to our own legal system.

To be quite matter of fact, there's really no evidence that supports the assertion. There was evidence of movement of something to Syria, but that we don't know if WMD were not there isn't evidence that there could have been.

I love how you quote an ex-General - who's trying to sell books to Americans - about a claim for which there's no evidence...oh quite to the contrary...the evidence gathered indicates there were no WMD to smuggle!

A western model WOULD be an "Iraq of the people." Spreading democracy, in our own long-term interest, IS the right thing to do.
You don't "spread" democracy, it has to be grown from within.

-spence

Saddam attacked Kuwait and we were drawn into the Gulf War. Why Bush #1 didn't take Iraq at that time i don't know unless there was not enough anti Saddam sentiment within Irag to take over the government.
It's worth noting that we were "drawn" into the Gulf war to protect US oil interests in Saudi Arabia, and that Saudi Arabia paid for about 2/3's the cost of the war!

The reason we didn't take out Saddam was simple. The administration understood it would have been a cluster%$%$%$%$. Even #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney didn't support the assertion. Colin Powell coined his famous "Pottery Barn" anecdote about Iraq - you break it, you own it.

Bush 41 took a lot of heat for egging on the Shiite's in the south to stand up to Saddam, then doing nothing to help while Saddam's gunships went to work.

Then there was the first attack on the WTC by Islamic radicals and also attacks in England if i remember right.

Enter Bin Laden with the bombing of the USS Cole along with some other
terrorist actions in the world.

Then Bin Laden with the 9/11 attack on the WTC.

Bush #2 went into Afghanistan to get Bin Laden and destroy the Al Qaeda training camps. When Bin Laden was pushed out and the camps destroyed i believe we should have gotten out of there.
All having nothing to do with Saddam.

Saddam had more then ample time to re-allow the UN inspectors to come in for inspection for WMD. He refused and was given an ultimatum backed by our allies and most of the Congress.
He didn't comply and we went in.
This isn't really how it happened though.

Saddam DID let the inspectors in, and the UN inspectors found nothing. Saddam was absolutely hampering the inspection process at first, and more pressure was put on the regime to cooperate.

Before the UN, Hans Blix testified that even though Saddam was not cooperating, it was not compromising the inspection on WMD.

Blix wanted time to finish the report, which was going to state that Saddam had no WMD (the same conclusion that Duelfer came to a few years later) and this obviously conflicted with Bush's war plans which were already in motion.

-spence

Spence, you must not have read the quote of ScottW that i agreed with:

Scottw Quote:
"I would suggest that Saddam, Al Qaeda and radical Islam started this mess. "

I never said Saddam had anything to do with the first WTC bombing, the Cole, or the 2nd WTC bombing.
My post was a quick chronological list from my memory of how Saddam,
Al Qaeda and radical Islam started and got us into this mess.

All Saddam had to do, if he didn't have any WMD, was allow another inspection
by the UN. He wouldn't, which added more doubt as to him having them or not.

So he chose to be invaded instead, being the crazy loon he was, and he did
start the Gulf War.

You must have a great memory, remembering Colin Powell's "Pottery Barn"
antidote about Iraq. ;)

I don't agree. I've read a ton on the subject and aside from a few random and useless artillery shells we really haven't found squat. The conclusion of the Duelfer Report was that Saddam destroyed his WMD in 1991.


This is the same game Cheney played with the Atta meeting in Prague. That because it hasn't been disproved it could have happened. This logic runs quite contrary to our own legal system.

To be quite matter of fact, there's really no evidence that supports the assertion. There was evidence of movement of something to Syria, but that we don't know if WMD were not there isn't evidence that there could have been.

Obviously, if the evidence has been removed, you will not be able to find it. That is the purpose of removing the evidence, which Saddam had 14 months to do. A report about not finding something (that has been removed) is inconclusively worthless, unless you want to use it as fodder for argument.

I love how you quote an ex-General - who's trying to sell books to Americans - about a claim for which there's no evidence...oh quite to the contrary...the evidence gathered indicates there were no WMD to smuggle!

I love how you can so cavalierly smear someone, who was ACTUALLY IN SADDAMS ADMINISTRATION and would have insights no UN inspector, searching with blinders for something that has been removed, could ever have, and who risks deadly reprisal for publishing his book. Where is your EVIDENCE that he is lying? If you say "the evidence gathered indicates there were no WMD", the VERY POINT OF HIS BOOK IS THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS MOVED!!! And . . . oh, the ton that you've read on the subject, were the purveyors of that ton PAID? Or did they publish for free? You seem to question the motives of those who make a living from what they say (Rush et. al.) when you don't like what they say, but if what they say is OK with you, then money does not seem to be an object.

You don't "spread" democracy, it has to be grown from within.
-spence

"Spread democracy"--I was using your words. I wouldn't have put it that way. Certainly, democracy cannot be "grown from within" a dictatorship. The dictatorship must first be overthrown. Furthermore, Bush never argued that Saddam had produced new stockpiles of WMDs, he argued for stopping him before he acquired them. Saddam never verified that he had destroyed what the UN presumed remained from his previous weapons program. Even the Duelfer report believed there was evidence that he wanted to restart his previous WMD programs after the war. Certainly, all the major NATO countries and many others in the UN believed Saddam had restarted the programs and thought he was farther along than he may have been. And Bush has enumerated several reasons for the invasion other than stopping Saddam from acquiring or producing, AGAIN, WMDs. The lie, told over and over, is that Bush lied about WMDs.

All Saddam had to do, if he didn't have any WMD, was allow another inspection by the UN. He wouldn't, which added more doubt as to him having them or not.
Again, this isn't really true. Reread your history...

And as for Saddam "starting this". He was but a player in a very large production. Had Saddam not invaded Kuwait we'd still be having the exact same issues today.

-spence

Again, this isn't really true. Reread your history...

And as for Saddam "starting this". He was but a player in a very large production. Had Saddam not invaded Kuwait we'd still be having the exact same issues today.

-spence

uh oh...Spence's Sunday morning tinfoil hat conspiracy talk...:rotf2:

he was actually the chief instigator of an awful lot of bad that was going on in his own country as well as many others....and, you have absolutely no idea what issues we'd be having today had Saddam not invaded Kuwait...are you holding seances again?

[COLOR="darkgreen"]Obviously, if the evidence has been removed, you will not be able to find it. That is the purpose of removing the evidence, which Saddam had 14 months to do. A report about not finding something (that has been removed) is inconclusively worthless, unless you want to use it as fodder for argument.
So you really want me to believe that an incompetent and corrupted organization could eliminate all traces of an active WMD program and stockpiles of weapons while under US/UN scrutiny?

That simply defies reason.

I love how you can so cavalierly smear someone, who was ACTUALLY IN SADDAMS ADMINISTRATION and would have insights no UN inspector, searching with blinders for something that has been removed, could ever have, and who risks deadly reprisal for publishing his book. Where is your EVIDENCE that he is lying? If you say "the evidence gathered indicates there were no WMD", the VERY POINT OF HIS BOOK IS THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS MOVED!!! And . . . oh, the ton that you've read on the subject, were the purveyors of that ton PAID? Or did they publish for free? You seem to question the motives of those who make a living from what they say (Rush et. al.) when you don't like what they say, but if what they say is OK with you, then money does not seem to be an object.
Read the Duelfer report. I believe they were payed a government paycheck and nothing more.

As for evidence Sada is lying, you're just playing the old game argumentum ad ignorantiam!


Furthermore, Bush never argued that Saddam had produced new stockpiles of WMDs, he argued for stopping him before he acquired them.
Not true, the entire basis for urgency was that Saddam had existing WMD and a relationship with alQaeda.

Saddam never verified that he had destroyed what the UN presumed remained from his previous weapons program. Even the Duelfer report believed there was evidence that he wanted to restart his previous WMD programs after the war. Certainly, all the major NATO countries and many others in the UN believed Saddam had restarted the programs and thought he was farther along than he may have been. And Bush has enumerated several reasons for the invasion other than stopping Saddam from acquiring or producing, AGAIN, WMDs. The lie, told over and over, is that Bush lied about WMDs.
Going into the war there was certainly much that was unknown, and why the International community was behind Bush with a new inspection regime.

Where it all turned was with the Powell speech.

The inspections were not providing the evidence to justify the war his foreign policy team so dearly wanted. Rather than let Blix finish his report, they "shot the messenger" and pressed forward breaking up the International coalition in the process.

I'm not one that believes Bush personally lied about WMD. Frankly I think he was just following the lead of those entrusted to guide him. Did his closest advisors misrepresent the case to the American people and "market" a war of choice? All evidence seems to indicate they certainly did...

-spence

I'm not one that believes Bush personally lied about WMD. Frankly I think he was just following the lead of those entrusted to guide him. Did his closest advisors misrepresent the case to the American people and "market" a war of choice? All evidence seems to indicate they certainly did...

-spence

And the ground work was put in place by Clinton and the urgency caused by the 9/11 attacks.
And now your hero is following the Bush plan. Your words not mine. Why the free pass?

Spreading democracy, in our own long-term interest, IS the right thing to do.

This whole "Spreading Democracy" mantra through war is a bs statement. Our dealings with Taiwan, that's how you spread democracy. Bush used the full force of the US military to essentially assassinate a dictator.

You're comment about "Spreading democracy ... IS the right thing to do" is nothing more than modern day Imperialism.

And now your hero is following the Bush plan. Your words not mine. Why the free pass?

He's not. I'm pissed at that tract.

I was hoping by now we'd be phasing out of Iraq... Spence hit on a lot of the reasons, but basically, we took SH out, we should have been phasing out then, letting them figure their future out, not us trying to dictate it to them. I've spent the entire war saying 'support the troops, not the war' and that has not changed for me.

A few months-year ago, I was pro-focusing on Afghanistan, but now I fear it is slipping into 'Nam style unwinnable war short of Nuking it, which I am not advocating.. monitor it closely, keep an eye out for Bin laden and Al Queda and get our boys home.

Again, this isn't really true. Reread your history...

And as for Saddam "starting this". He was but a player in a very large production. Had Saddam not invaded Kuwait we'd still be having the exact same issues today.

-spence

No need for me to read my history and read others opinions,
i lived through it and followed it very closely at the time.

And the ground work was put in place by Clinton and the urgency caused by the 9/11 attacks.
And now your hero is following the Bush plan. Your words not mine. Why the free pass?
Clinton policy was driven by actions during his second term. Saddam was increasingly flaunting the UN. This led to many calls for increased action, even by Democrats...but nobody (aside from the the neocons) was looking for an invasion.

In 2001 Saddam wasn't even being seen as much of a threat.

Both Powell and Rice made strong statements in the months before 9/11 that sanctions were working and Saddam was contained.

Then, suddenly, Saddam was the trigger for a nuke attack in the USA.

So I don't see how Clinton laid the groundwork for anything.

-spence

Clinton policy was driven by actions during his second term. Saddam was increasingly flaunting the UN. This led to many calls for increased action, even by Democrats...but nobody (aside from the the neocons) was looking for an invasion.

In 2001 Saddam wasn't even being seen as much of a threat.

Both Powell and Rice made strong statements in the months before 9/11 that sanctions were working and Saddam was contained.

Then, suddenly, Saddam was the trigger for a nuke attack in the USA.

So I don't see how Clinton laid the groundwork for anything.

-spence

probably all taken out of context


"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) 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 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"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." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- #^&#^&#^&#^& Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"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." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"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." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

probably all taken out of context


"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) 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 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"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." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- #^&#^&#^&#^& Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"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." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"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." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002


Use the search function and you'll probably see my explaining exactly why. We've been down this road before...

-spence

U R right Spence. :uhuh:

Clinton policy was driven by actions during his second term. Saddam was increasingly flaunting the UN. This led to many calls for increased action, even by Democrats...but nobody (aside from the the neocons) was looking for an invasion.

In 2001 Saddam wasn't even being seen as much of a threat.

Both Powell and Rice made strong statements in the months before 9/11 that sanctions were working and Saddam was contained.

Then, suddenly, Saddam was the trigger for a nuke attack in the USA.

So I don't see how Clinton laid the groundwork for anything.

-spence

Go back and google Clinton's words about Saddam. Sounds like the speach given by Powell prior to Bush removing Saddam from power. His inaction is what led to Saddam laughing at the UN and by the way,IMO, the attack on the Trade Centers.
Bombing an asprin factory during the Lewinsky "crisis" doesn't count as a foreign policy.

Use the search function and you'll probably see my explaining exactly why. We've been down this road before...

-spence

why would I bother to search for your "old spin" ?

Go back and google Clinton's words about Saddam. Sounds like the speach given by Powell prior to Bush removing Saddam from power. His inaction is what led to Saddam laughing at the UN and by the way,IMO, the attack on the Trade Centers.
Bombing an asprin factory during the Lewinsky "crisis" doesn't count as a foreign policy.

the dems were pretty consistent on Saddam right up until the point that they realized that they could politicize the war....Spence is finally right about one thing though...we've been around and around on this before, he seems to enjoy revising history....and we have a clown in the White House that could actually create another Vietnam....a QUAGMAYAAAA! as TED would say...

Go back and google Clinton's words about Saddam. Sounds like the speach given by Powell prior to Bush removing Saddam from power. His inaction is what led to Saddam laughing at the UN and by the way,IMO, the attack on the Trade Centers.
Bombing an asprin factory during the Lewinsky "crisis" doesn't count as a foreign policy.
I've probably read most of them already. You simply can't take a speech from one year and blankly apply it to a situation years into the future. If the intent is to justify war, that's downright reckless and unethical. We all know Clinton thought Iraq was a threat...and that he didn't go to war over it.

As to the bombing of the WTC in 1993, to think that this was triggered by Clinton's Iraq policy is laughable. Please cite some references...

-spence

why would I bother to search for your "old spin" ?
So you can read and learn.

-spence

This whole "Spreading Democracy" mantra through war is a bs statement. Our dealings with Taiwan, that's how you spread democracy. Bush used the full force of the US military to essentially assassinate a dictator.

You're comment about "Spreading democracy ... IS the right thing to do" is nothing more than modern day Imperialism.

I was using Spence's phrase "spreading democracy" which is a bit disdainful--I wouldn't have thought of such a phrase. Even he admitted that you can't "spread democracy." Perhaps you didn't read that banter back and forth and thought I had made up the phrase. Even so, you kind of made my head spin by equating "spreading democracy" to Imperialism. Almost like saying charity is the work of the devil.

As for our dealings with Taiwan as an example of "how you spread democracy", do you mean our military power being a deterrent to Mainland China's takeover of Taiwan? Do you mean providing Taiwan a market for its goods? I am intrigued, please explain. And, WOW, "assassinate"? This is a new method of assassination--warn someone for several months of your intentions, give him opportunities to avoid the "assassination", and after getting him, letting someone else finish the job, then, improving the lot of what and who he owned.

BTW, I wasn't chanting a "spreading democracy" THROUGH WAR mantra. Again, it was a response to Spence. There is, also BTW, a general misconception about the importance of war. So many of us like to quote Santayana's phrase that those who don't learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. But we shun, or even more likely, aren't aware of another phrase by him--"there is eternal war in nature." He also said that war is merely resistance to change. So long as the invaded has the will and power to resist the invader, there will be war. And his dictum can be applied, not only to the "human condition" but to all of life, to all of existence. When you are enjoying a "moment of peace", be aware that all around you, and within you, countless wars are taking place. All are wars of survival. And, as Santayana also said, to live well, you must be victorious. Everything you have is a result of some war. Your very life will end when you are to weak to defeat what attacks you every minute of your existence. We are products of war, war informs everything we do. We have learned, through lessons of history, by evolution, to cooperate when it is to our benefit, when it enhances our survival, not when it is for acquiesence to some platonic ideal

As for our dealings with Taiwan as an example of "how you spread democracy", do you mean our military power being a deterrent to Mainland China's takeover of Taiwan? Do you mean providing Taiwan a market for its goods? I am intrigued, please explain.

I mean by supporting the people's choice to have a democratic government, instead of forcing it upon them. The Taiwanese people want a democratic state. The US supports them in that measure - be it with a military backing (just as we support our other allies with our military), economic support (like we give to the Europeans) and diplomatic support.

My correlation of the US "Spreading Democracy" (a term which is Bush chanted quite frequently) and Imperialism is through the methods in which democracy was 'given' to the Iraqi people - through the military ousting of the previous government. My relationship to imperialism lies within your statement "Spreading democracy ... IS the right thing to do."

Overthrowing a government with our military to install a democratic one is what I am calling modern day Imperialism.

So you really want me to believe that an incompetent and corrupted organization could eliminate all traces of an active WMD program and stockpiles of weapons while under US/UN scrutiny?

That simply defies reason.

Saddam's organization was not incompetent, nor were his scientists. They certainly weren't under UN/US scrutiny much of the time. What are the differences between the traces of an "active" or a recently become "inactive" WMD program? If no traces were found, that STRONGLY, suggests elimination of traces.

Read the Duelfer report. I believe they were payed a government paycheck and nothing more.

So we've established that Duelfer WAS paid. So, then, his whole report is tainted. Is his report the total of the "tons" that you've read? Were the other sources also paid? Were any of the sources BOOKS published for public PURCHASE? If so, then those, must also, by your disdain, be tarnished.

As for what's in this tainted Duelfer Report--the key findings summary states that Saddam"wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his WMD when sanctions were lifted." Further, the summary states "Saddam's primary goal from 1991 to 2003 was to have UN sanctions lifted, while maintaining the security of the regime . . ." by balancing "the need to cooperate with the UN inspections . . . gain support for lifting the sanctions . . . to preserve Iraq's intellectual capital for WMD." Further, Saddam saw that the Oil for Food Program "could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development." The report further states that Saddam focused on three permanent members of the security council, France, Russia, and China, bribing Government officials and business executives with billions skimmed from Oil for Food. "AT A MINIMUM" the report says, "Saddam wanted to divide the 5 permanent members [of the security council] and foment international public support . . . by 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to . . . undermine international support for the sanctions." Before Duelfer succeded Kay as head of the ISG, Kay's team found evidence of "WMD-related program activities" but no actual weapons. They also found WMD programs BANNED by the UN and CONCEALED during the IAEA and UNMOVIC inspections. David Kay said that "what we learned during the inspection made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially than, in fact, we thought it was even before the war." His team established that the Iraqi regime had the production capacity and know-how to produce WMDs if sanctions were lifted. Kay BELIEVED some of Saddams WMD program components had been moved to Syria before 2003. Duelfer later reported there was no EVIDENCE of this. A lot of evidence was interviews with various Iraqis--He evidently didn't interview General Saya.

As for evidence Sada is lying, you're just playing the old game argumentum ad ignorantiam!-spence

You don't have evidence that Saya is lying, you're only depending on so called LACK OF EVIDENCE to support the argument for no WMD, which turns your "argumentum ad ignorantiam" right--back--at--YOU!!

As for an interesting argument for WMD, google "Kenneth Timmerman Saddam's WMD have been found."

Sorry Buckman, we seem to have highjacked your thread by rehashing old WMD stuff. There is no PROOF in any of this, just EVIDENCE or lack thereof. Again, I apologize, we should be discussing Obama's clear exit strategy. I guess, since no one has opined what that strategy is, no one thinks he has one.

I mean by supporting the people's choice to have a democratic government, instead of forcing it upon them.

Before we handed Saddam over to the IRAQI authorities to "assassinate," the Iraqis forged a democratic government of their choice.

The Taiwanese people want a democratic state. The US supports them in that measure - be it with a military backing (just as we support our other allies with our military), economic support (like we give to the Europeans) and diplomatic support.

The Iraqi people want a democratic state. The US suports them in that measure-be it with a military backing . . .economic support . . .and diplomatic support.

My correlation of the US "Spreading Democracy" (a term which is Bush chanted quite frequently) and Imperialism is through the methods in which democracy was 'given' to the Iraqi people - through the military ousting of the previous government. My relationship to imperialism lies within your statement "Spreading democracy ... IS the right thing to do."

My head still spins at Imperialism being the method of giving democracy. So, then, I would guess by your relation to imperialism, imperialistically spreading democracy to a people by militarily ousting the previous government, our founding fathers were imperialists.

Overthrowing a government with our military to install a democratic one is what I am calling modern day Imperialism.

Oh---I see now, your talking about MODERN DAY imperialism.

Oh---I see now, your talking about MODERN DAY imperialism.

Correct. I'm inserting a concept into the conversation that I didn't hear on the radio or read on some website. It's an observation/opinion that I have formed on my own. I understand that is a novel concept for many of the conservatives in here.

Correct. I'm inserting a concept into the conversation that I didn't hear on the radio or read on some website. It's an observation/opinion that I have formed on my own. I understand that is a novel concept for many of the conservatives in here.

Very novel, indeed! I can see that you don't drink the Kool-Aid. At least not until you mix it with something more potent, something to truly stir the imagination--well beyond the musty, boring, pedestrian mind of some conservatives. Happy dreams, my boy, your creativity will take you far.

PS--it's amazing how much the meaning of words can change when they get "progressively" politicized.

Very novel, indeed! I can see that you don't drink the Kool-Aid. At least not until you mix it with something more potent, something to truly stir the imagination--well beyond the musty, boring, pedestrian mind of some conservatives. Happy dreams, my boy, your creativity will take you far.

PS--it's amazing how much the meaning of words can change when they get "progressively" politicized.

Drinking the Kool-Aid huh? When exactly has any comment referencing a phrase like modern day Imperialism ever been mentioned?

Drinking the Kool-Aid huh? When exactly has any comment referencing a phrase like modern day Imperialism ever been mentioned?

Naom Chonsky, left wing mags and blogs, even "centrist" ones. Even our relationship with Taiwan would be considered modern day imperialism. Our whole history would be considered modern day imperialism. Now that the US exists, it should not mix, meddle, suggest, or in any way influence a lesser state lest it become a modern day imperialist. Not to mention that we SHOULDN'T exist because so much, if not all, our past actions could be construed as modern day imperialism. Of course that would be re-writing history to suit the "modern" mind. But re-writing history seems to be the leftist mode, so, for the "modern" mind it's ok to do so.

Naom Chonsky, left wing mags and blogs, even "centrist" ones. Even our relationship with Taiwan would be considered modern day imperialism. Our whole history would be considered modern day imperialism. Now that the US exists, it should not mix, meddle, suggest, or in any way influence a lesser state lest it become a modern day imperialist. Not to mention that we SHOULDN'T exist because so much, if not all, our past actions could be construed as modern day imperialism. Of course that would be re-writing history to suit the "modern" mind. But re-writing history seems to be the leftist mode, so, for the "modern" mind it's ok to do so.

Your argument is about as valid as people that state I can't complain about illegal immigrants because we were all immigrants at one point.

Also, modern is a relative term meaning "characteristic of present-day". As such, the english, french and spanish coming to the new world and taking it from the indians was imperialistic, but certainly not modern-day imperialism since it happened three hundred years ago. I would also mention that expanding imperialistic government policies are not internationally acceptable any longer.

pretty funny... this was included in the definition of imperialism at Answers.com

Policy of systematic domination and exploitation of a country by another country or an empire. Marxists assert that the United States engages in imperialism because powerful U.S. Businesses need to protect their foreign markets.

pretty funny... this was included in the definition of imperialism at Answers.com

Policy of systematic domination and exploitation of a country by another country or an empire. Marxists assert that the United States engages in imperialism because powerful U.S. Businesses need to protect their foreign markets.

Marxists. :smash:

Next you'll start quoting PETA with regards to animal rights.

Marxists. :smash:

Next you'll start quoting PETA with regards to animal rights.




JD, maybe you are a "Modern-Day" Marxist

Your argument is about as valid as people that state I can't complain about illegal immigrants because we were all immigrants at one point.

Also, modern is a relative term meaning "characteristic of present-day". As such, the english, french and spanish coming to the new world and taking it from the indians was imperialistic, but certainly not modern-day imperialism since it happened three hundred years ago. I would also mention that expanding imperialistic government policies are not internationally acceptable any longer.

But, Johnny, I was merely answering your question "when exactly has any comment referencing a phrase like modern day imperialism ever been mentioned?" If you google "modern day imperialism" you'll find that you are not the first to ust the phrase, and the use of it (fairly wide spread in leftist talk) pretty much corresponds to my response to your question--which, BTW, shows how you contradict yourself when you say "our dealings with Taiwan, that's how you spread democracy." Our dealings with Taiwan would be considered, by those using the phrase before you, as modern day imperialism.

But, Johnny, I was merely answering your question "when exactly has any comment referencing a phrase like modern day imperialism ever been mentioned?" If you google "modern day imperialism" you'll find that you are not the first to ust the phrase, and the use of it (fairly wide spread in leftist talk) pretty much corresponds to my response to your question--which, BTW, shows how you contradict yourself when you say "our dealings with Taiwan, that's how you spread democracy." Our dealings with Taiwan would be considered, by those using the phrase before you, as modern day imperialism.

It would be ignorant for me to try to say I coined the term "modern-day imperialism". Now-a-days, you can google almost any collection of random words and find some response. My intention was, when have you heard anyone reference the term modern-day imperialism when talking about Iraq. I have not heard it referenced that way before.

But, if you want to nit-pick three words to spin away from what the actual point is, I commend you on trying to think it would work.

Regardless of your poor attempt to take a fine-toothed comb to my words and pick them apart, I still stand that Bush's approach to Iraq and all his "Spreading Democracy" references are Imperialistic.

Saddam's organization was not incompetent, nor were his scientists. They certainly weren't under UN/US scrutiny much of the time. What are the differences between the traces of an "active" or a recently become "inactive" WMD program? If no traces were found, that STRONGLY, suggests elimination of traces.
No, it strongly suggests the threat was not as characterized and that sanctions appeared to be working. He didn't just shut things down, the WMD appear to have been destroyed a decade earlier.

Would you expect a tyrant like Saddam to stop everything cold turkey? Of course not, but this is a looooonnnngggg way from having a functional weapons programs, or more importantly, the vast stockpiles the Administration argued were there.

So we've established that Duelfer WAS paid. So, then, his whole report is tainted. Is his report the total of the "tons" that you've read? Were the other sources also paid? Were any of the sources BOOKS published for public PURCHASE? If so, then those, must also, by your disdain, be tarnished.
Weak...

As for what's in this tainted Duelfer Report--the key findings summary states that Saddam"wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his WMD when sanctions were lifted." Further, the summary states "Saddam's primary goal from 1991 to 2003 was to have UN sanctions lifted, while maintaining the security of the regime . . ." by balancing "the need to cooperate with the UN inspections . . . gain support for lifting the sanctions . . . to preserve Iraq's intellectual capital for WMD." Further, Saddam saw that the Oil for Food Program "could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development." The report further states that Saddam focused on three permanent members of the security council, France, Russia, and China, bribing Government officials and business executives with billions skimmed from Oil for Food. "AT A MINIMUM" the report says, "Saddam wanted to divide the 5 permanent members [of the security council] and foment international public support . . . by 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to . . . undermine international support for the sanctions." Before Duelfer succeded Kay as head of the ISG, Kay's team found evidence of "WMD-related program activities" but no actual weapons. They also found WMD programs BANNED by the UN and CONCEALED during the IAEA and UNMOVIC inspections. David Kay said that "what we learned during the inspection made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially than, in fact, we thought it was even before the war." His team established that the Iraqi regime had the production capacity and know-how to produce WMDs if sanctions were lifted. Kay BELIEVED some of Saddams WMD program components had been moved to Syria before 2003. Duelfer later reported there was no EVIDENCE of this. A lot of evidence was interviews with various Iraqis--He evidently didn't interview General Saya.

Kay was referring to WMD parts rather than stockpiles of weapons.

But all this "Saddam was a sneaky bad guy" stuff is really moot. At what point does it justify war? Remember the war? Remember the Saddam -> stockpiles of WMD -> Bin Laden connection that was the justification for a massive and urgent action?

The intent or ability to restart programs if sanctions are lifted doesn't provide the justification for urgency, in fact it blows a rather large hole in the Administrations argument.

Remember, the Blix team before the war was essentially turning up the exact same information.

You don't have evidence that Saya is lying, you're only depending on so called LACK OF EVIDENCE to support the argument for no WMD, which turns your "argumentum ad ignorantiam" right--back--at--YOU!!
If you read the Duelfer report it's clear the "evidence" indicated Saddam destroyed his WMD in 1991, the last biological weapons facility in 1996 and that his production capacity had eroded dramatically since then.

I guess, since no one has opined what that strategy is, no one thinks he has one.
You don't actually read my posts do you?

-spence

Fuel to the fire.
Saddam did have WMD'S

Some like to over look the fact that Saddam ordered the killing of thousands of Kurds in the north. And how did he do this? In 1989 or there abouts take or give a year he ordered his air force to bomb a kurd village knowing that the kurds would go to their bomb shelters dug in the earth. He was correct and the air force dropped mustard and other nerve gases that lays on or finds its way into low ground levels. Over 60,000 Kurds mostly women and children were killed. Killing 60,000 people is mass destruction and he used bombs filled with these gases, therefore becomes weapons of mass destruction.

You will always have the dis-believers as you have people who believe that there was no holocaust.

Fuel to the fire.
Saddam did have WMD'S

Some like to over look the fact that Saddam ordered the killing of thousands of Kurds in the north. And how did he do this? In 1989 or there abouts take or give a year he ordered his air force to bomb a kurd village knowing that the kurds would go to their bomb shelters dug in the earth. He was correct and the air force dropped mustard and other nerve gases that lays on or finds its way into low ground levels. Over 60,000 Kurds mostly women and children were killed. Killing 60,000 people is mass destruction and he used bombs filled with these gases, therefore becomes weapons of mass destruction.

What fuel? Those events took place two years before the Gulf War. At the completion of which the WMDs were destroyed.

No one is arguing that Saddam possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction at one point in time, but that supposed concrete proof (with pictures) of WMD manufacturing facilities and pictures of the actual weapons was horribly incorrect and possibly fabricated.

You will always have the dis-believers as you have people who believe that there was no holocaust.
It's one thing to agree with substantial proof of Saddam not possessing any weapons. It's another for a quack job to turn a blind eye to the massacre of millions because he thinks everyone of a certain religion should be vaporized. Your relationship of the two situations is appalling.



As a note, the Wikipedia page on the Gulf War has a quote from #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney, United States Secretary of Defense during the conflict, at the end of the war in 1992 (my emphasis added):
I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home. And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties, and while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war. And the question in my mind is, how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is, not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the President made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.

Oh how the times have changed. If he had only taken his own advice, we wouldn't be in this mess, over 4,250 supremely honorable service members would still be alive, 30,000+ wouldn't be injured and the US wouldn't have spent almost $700billion dollars.

Naom Chonsky, left wing mags and blogs, even "centrist" ones. Even our relationship with Taiwan would be considered modern day imperialism. Our whole history would be considered modern day imperialism. Now that the US exists, it should not mix, meddle, suggest, or in any way influence a lesser state lest it become a modern day imperialist. Not to mention that we SHOULDN'T exist because so much, if not all, our past actions could be construed as modern day imperialism. Of course that would be re-writing history to suit the "modern" mind. But re-writing history seems to be the leftist mode, so, for the "modern" mind it's ok to do so.
Why is it that some people find it so revolting to think critically about the USA, or worse yet, actually apply our own standards to our own behavior?

God forbid we admit that at times our own %$%$%$%$ doesn't stink.

Of course to do so much be a sign of weakness, or a viral based bout of Liberalism. Those who's minds are so polluted have their DNA firmly rooted in the finest Marxist traditions, and ScottW has the quotes to prove it.

One of my favorite critics of the US was my first cousin (once removed) Terry Spencer. He was quite Liberal and vehemently against the Iraq war on the basis that it was not a "preemptive" war as advertised, but rather a "preventive" war. How we could think that such influence in the region, primarily to secure our vital interests, couldn't be seen as somewhat imperialistic was beyond him. Look at the US military footprint across the planet...Instead of denying this perhaps the proponents should embrace the notion.

I'm sure if Terry were here to post his own thoughts he'd be quickly painted with the same pathetic and worn out talking points born from a talk radio inspired neo-McCarthyistic spasm.

Sadly, Terry passed away last year. Probably a better "American" than I, or any of us will every be.

Spencer, Terence J.

Pultneyville: Died April 1, 2008 after a long illness. Terence James Spencer, 79, was born October 10, 1928 in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, the only child of James Allen Spencer and Kathryn (Duffey) Spencer.

Terry graduated from Loras College in Dubuque, Iowa in 1950 with a BA in English. He earned his master's degree in speech and drama from Catholic University in Washinton, D.C. in 1954, and a PhD in English from Stanford University in Palo Alto, CA. in 1957.

His academic appointments included the University of Wisconsin (Madison), University of Notre Dame, Catholic University of America, Rochester Institute of Technology, National University of Zaire, and King Saud University.

A World War II and Korean War Army Veteran, he also served the government as an independent consultant for Project Upward Bound, as a Peace Corps. volunteer, and as a Foreign Service Officer. He had a life-long interest in theatre and the arts, and served in 1970 as the Executive Producer of Saint Albans Repertory Company in Washington, D.C. His own play, "Jonah" was produced off-Broadway in 1967.

Terry traveled the entire world, living and working in Zaire, Saudi Arabia, Australia, Papua New Guinea and Korea. He visited China, Antarctica, and the Galapagos Islands. He traveled extensively in Europe, Canada and the United States.

After retirement, Terry served terms as Trustees/Executive Director of the Wayne County Historical Society and Trustee/President of the Pultneyville Historical Society.

He contributed social-political, drama and travel columns to the Wayne Weekly, Newark Courier-Gazette and the Williamson Sun and Record. Most recently, he served as a Trustee for the Williamson Public Library. He was active in local politics and a member of the Williamson American Legion Post 394 and the Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 6778 in Palmyra.

Terry was predeceased by his first wife, Elois (Wiren) Spencer in 1971. He is survived by his son, Geoffrey Spencer of Manchester, New Hampshire; daughter, Katherine (Dell) Hodges of Webster, New York and granddaughter, Sarah Hodges of Buffalo, New York.

-spence

[QUOTE=spence;709842]Why is it that some people find it so revolting to think critically about the USA, or worse yet, actually apply our own standards to our own behavior?

I'm not sure why you chose my response to JohnnyD referring to use of the phrase "modern day imperialism." What is in that response that implies I'm revolted by criticism of USA or that I don't apply my own standards to my own behavior? I think critically of OUR country almost daily. My posts in these threads are replies to fellow citizens of the USA. We all have a personal point of view, mine is no less important or less American than yours. Are you revolted by MY opinions?

God forbid we admit that at times our own %$%$%$%$ doesn't stink.

I often think my verbal feces stink. Do you ever feel the same about yours?

Of course to do so much be a sign of weakness, or a viral based bout of Liberalism. Those who's minds are so polluted have their DNA firmly rooted in the finest Marxist traditions, and ScottW has the quotes to prove it.

Historically, we are rooted in classical liberalism/conservatism, naturalism, evolutionary capitalism. It is natural for those still rooted such to reject Marxism. But the resistance to Marxism/socialism/progressivism is weakening, and the tide may turn. Can you blame old line Americans for defending their beliefs? Quite contrary to "a sign of weakness", it is seen as a sign of growing strength to view the growing numbers of youth, especially those educated in what conservatives feel are bastions of Marxism, along with the combined numbers of immigrants, minorities, laborites, gays, feminists, etc., who, for various reasons, sometimes in opposition to "conservatism," are swelling the "progressive" ranks,

One of my favorite critics of the US was my first cousin (once removed) Terry Spencer. He was quite Liberal and vehemently against the Iraq war on the basis that it was not a "preemptive" war as advertised, but rather a "preventive" war. How we could think that such influence in the region, primarily to secure our vital interests, couldn't be seen as somewhat imperialistic was beyond him. Look at the US military footprint across the planet...Instead of denying this perhaps the proponents should embrace the notion.

He is, by your account, an accomplished, intelligent, patriotic, wonderful man who has led a full, satisfying life. If I were prone to jealousy, I would be jealous. I truly mean that as a compliment.

I'm sure if Terry were here to post his own thoughts he'd be quickly painted with the same pathetic and worn out talking points born from a talk radio inspired neo-McCarthyistic spasm.-spence[QUOTE]

It sounds like he would make, as you do, some strong points. I don't know how quickly he would be painted, but you have quickly turned from reflection to revolting, nasty remarks. Are those an application of your own standards?

I sense a true loss in the passing of Terry. I apologize if anything I've said here is in any way offensive, that is not intended. Much as I may have disagreed with some of his opinions, I would that he were still here.

It would be ignorant for me to try to say I coined the term "modern-day imperialism". Now-a-days, you can google almost any collection of random words and find some response. My intention was, when have you heard anyone reference the term modern-day imperialism when talking about Iraq. I have not heard it referenced that way before.

But, in replying to your "intention", I was pointing out that your exact phrase HAS been used in the EXACT way that you use it in talking about Iraq.

But, if you want to nit-pick three words to spin away from what the actual point is, I commend you on trying to think it would work.

But your EXACT point (question) to which I replied was "when exactly has any comment referencing a phrase like modern day imperialism ever been mentioned?"

Regardless of your poor attempt to take a fine-toothed comb to my words and pick them apart, I still stand that Bush's approach to Iraq and all his "Spreading Democracy" references are Imperialistic.

Good for you! And you have a host of leftists, some FAR left (which is OK--just mentioning it for clarity) who agree with you, using the EXACT phrase "modern day imperialism" to express their views on Bush's Iraq policy. And, unless there is some fine distinction between their definition and yours, you are still contradicting yourself when you say our relation with Taiwan is the way to spread democracy, since the predominent, current use of the phrase "modern day imperialism" defines our relation to Taiwan. Of course, you may have invented a specific, special use of the phrase that only applies to special instances of your choice. That, of course, by definition, is unarguable.

No, it strongly suggests the threat was not as characterized and that sanctions appeared to be working. He didn't just shut things down, the WMD appear to have been destroyed a decade earlier.

"suggests . . .appeared . . . appear"--As I apologized to Buckman, we have hijacked his thread with an old rehash consisting of no proofs, but suggestions, appearances, agendas.

Weak...

Exactly as weak as your disregard of Saya's book.

Kay was referring to WMD parts rather than stockpiles of weapons.


So?

But all this "Saddam was a sneaky bad guy" stuff is really moot. At what point does it justify war? Remember the war? Remember the Saddam -> stockpiles of WMD -> Bin Laden connection that was the justification for a massive and urgent action?
The intent or ability to restart programs if sanctions are lifted Doesn't provide the justification for urgency, in fact it blows a rather large hole in the administrations argument.

Among other "justifications" for war:
Failure to cooperate with arms inspecters
Threat to our security
Had pursued and used WMD
Sponsored terrorists
Ordered his military to shoot at Brit & US pilots patrolling no-fly zone
Had invaded his neighbors
Declared the US an enemy
Refused to comply with more than a dozen UN resolutions including demands that he respect the rights of the Iraqi people, disclose his weapons, abide by cease fire.
The action was not urgent, it took 14 months to start the war. In that time as the Duelfer report states, Saddam was working, EFFECTIVELY, to create an international environment to lift the sanctions. If he had been allowed to succeed, then he would produce the WMDs, and the war would have to take place later with a stronger Saddam with weapons to do immensely worse damage than our troops and Iraquis suffered. Waiting to take Saddam out could only WORSEN the final outcome. Some have argued that we should have gone in SOONER, even immediately, rather than wait the 14 months "diplomacy", which, as it was occurring, some were exactly saying that the diplomatic gap WAS GIVING SADDAM TIME TO HIDE OR REMOVE HIS WMDs. As for evidence that there are traces of an existing program, google the Kenneth Timmerman reference that I mentioned above. And, of course, there is the Saya book.



You don't actually read my posts do you?
-spence

Your posts stated that Obama has pretty much continued Bushes flawed policy then depends on NATO for 10 years. Is that a clear objective and an exit strategy?

As this thread is winding down, I would like to more clearly reply to JohnnyD and Spence re: "modern day imperialsm" and "somewhat imperialistic" describing our invasion of Iraq.

Classical empires, though brutal (what wasn't in their time), hastened the uniting of people and created good as well as ill. The 400 years of Pax Romana was beneficial. The British Empire brought progress and union, and the U.S. is a direct result. In the 1960s the radical left saw opportunity to influence the counter-cultural revolution and anti-Vietnam war sentiments in its direction. Its only real power to influence a generation of youth was through words, especially by the politicization of words. One of the most influential words was IMPERIALIST. The nasty trick of slick, politicized language is to slide a word away from its original meaning and use it to describe a loosely similar entity--sometimes positively, sometimes negatively. The dictionary definition of imperialism (the policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other natioins) didn't quite fit but was close enough, so America was described by the hard left as an imperialist, capitalist running dog pig. This also had the effect of erasing any positive connotation. Imperialism was now thoroughly bad. The radical view could not survive but politicized words did. And imperialism evolved into the many modern day imperialisms--economic imperialism, cultural imperialism, military imperialism, religious imperialism, political imperialism, ACTUAL imperialism, or, now any new imperialisms we wish to create. How about new ones like, say, family imperialism, relational imperialism, baseball imperialism, gender imperialism, sexual imperialism, racial imperialism, insurance imperialism, and on and on. Obviously, this destroys any connectioin to the original definitions of imperialism except for a shadowy similarity. The word, essentialy, loses any intrinsic meaning, This is similar to what George Orwell says in his essay "Politics and the English Language" about the word "fascism" no longer having any meaning other than signifying "something not desirable."

Certainly, it is good to criticize us when we do bad. But can we think of a better word than imperialism or imperialistic? We are not an empire. We don't have an emperor. We haven't territorially acquired Iraq nor established economic or political hegemony over it. Saying that our action in Iraq is modern day imperialism is using a politicized word that has lost all meaning and retained only some vague inflamatory connotation. It sounds authoritative to say that invading Iraq is modern day imperialism, but what does that mean? It is convenient to use the phrase because it excuses you from saying what that "something not desirable" actually is. And when one cannot find words to describe a supposed concept, that often implies that the concept does not actually exist--at least not in some well thought-out thesis. Unmuddle your thinking, then you can give us the hell we deserve. And saying that the invasion was "somewhat" imperialistic is not only hedging on whether it was or not, but it is qualifying a meaningless dead metaphor. What really does "somewhat imperialistic" mean? The hard left, on the other hand, is happy to throw a politicized metaphor that means "something not desirable" at America to influence the uninformed masses who are easily persuaded by the sound of words regardless of their lack of substance. For those with some historical insight, however, such phrases are an insult to our intellilgence.

So I'll ask again....Why are we here and what's the end game? Same questions I heard over and over about Bush. What are we trying to accomplish? The same thing Bush was accomplishing in Iraq? Nation building?

So I'll ask again....Why are we here and what's the end game? Same questions I heard over and over about Bush. What are we trying to accomplish? The same thing Bush was accomplishing in Iraq? Nation building?

Yes, and I'll repeat my first post too:

"I would like to know that too. The silence is deafening."

Yes, and I'll repeat my first post too:

"I would like to know that too. The silence is deafening."

I thought the war was the reason he won the election. I guess thereal agenda here was socialism. I'll have to hand it to him, he really knows how to play on a persons emotions. At least the people that make decisions based on them.

I thought the war was the reason he won the election. I guess thereal agenda here was socialism. I'll have to hand it to him, he really knows how to play on a persons emotions. At least the people that make decisions based on them.

The reason he won the election is because people were scared of McCain continuing the Bush agenda, everything about Palin, and the Republicans buried themselves deep in the muck. Now the Democrats are doing the same thing.

As for the Obama strategy, it's not that complicated. Raise troop levels to provide added security in the hopes of shifting responsibility onto Afghan and Pakistani troops. I believe the expectation is that there will be a NATO presence in the region for a decade or more to come.

Remember that a big reason for the recent increase in violence was the national election.
Didn't you guys read the thread? I think this dude outlined the high-level strategy pretty well.

-spence

Didn't you guys read the thread? I think this dude outlined the high-level strategy pretty well.

-spence

:rotf2: You also said he was following along with the Bush plan. Is it Bush's high-level strategy?

The "Obama mission and exit strategy"? He's pretty much continued the Bush policy on Afghanistan, with slightly more strategic focus than Iraq.

Strategy seems to have been flawed from the start, but people want to jump on Obama now that he's in charge. Too bad none of those neocons bothered to pick up a history book.

My opinion is that we should leave and park an aircraft carrier offshore who's responsibility is to punish anyone who gets out of line.

-spence


????

:rotf2: You also said he was following along with the Bush plan. Is it Bush's high-level strategy?
Some overlap, but Obama certainly wants to shift focus from Iraq and more importantly treat Afghanistan and Pakistan as a joint problem. This is different from Bush who simply wanted NATO to carry the water so he could focus on Iraq.

-spence

Some overlap, but Obama certainly wants to shift focus from Iraq and more importantly treat Afghanistan and Pakistan as a joint problem. This is different from Bush who simply wanted NATO to carry the water so he could focus on Iraq.

-spence

Are you saying that Bush was forever going to focus on Iraq and that he was never going to turn defence over to the Iraqi military, and that he would not return his focus to Afghanistan?

He said on Letterman last night that he won't commit anymore troops until he comes up with a plan. If I'm not mistaken, I thought he had a plan and already had more troops over there. WTF

He said on Letterman last night that he won't commit anymore troops until he comes up with a plan. If I'm not mistaken, I thought he had a plan and already had more troops over there. WTF

When you head to the tuna grounds, and there isn't a sniff of life for miles, do you continue on with your plan because you "had a plan" already?

Situations change, and as such, so does the response. I'm sure the Generals of WWII had plans that needed re-adjusting after they got in the rough of it.

When you head to the tuna grounds, and there isn't a sniff of life for miles, do you continue on with your plan because you "had a plan" already?

Situations change, and as such, so does the response. I'm sure the Generals of WWII had plans that needed re-adjusting after they got in the rough of it.

Sounds like the same thing you would say about Bush:rotf2::wall:

The Generals have recommended a change and a plan. It's been sitting on his desk. While real men are losing there lives. He's too busy hitting the road selling Shamwow Health Care. Where is that outrage from the left???????

Johnny, he's right.

The Generals have recommended a change and a plan. It's been sitting on his desk.
I don't think this is accurate. To my knowledge there's been no formal proposal made to the President, rather an unclassified status report which says we need more troops was publish that caught the media's attention.

This doesn't mean the plan is sitting on Obama's desk and American's are dying because of it.

-spence

I don't think this is accurate. To my knowledge there's been no formal proposal made to the President, rather an unclassified status report which says we need more troops was publish that caught the media's attention.

This doesn't mean the plan is sitting on Obama's desk and American's are dying because of it.

-spence

Remember the last time you called me out for not telling the truth:uhuh:

Remember the last time you called me out for not telling the truth:uhuh:

Yes, and you were wrong then as well.

-spence

Yes, and you were wrong then as well.

-spence

??? I was? Hmmm. I don't think so.

Bloodiest year already for our troops in 8 years. What's the change?... not for better thats for sure.

Bloodiest year already for our troops in 8 years. What's the change?... not for better thats for sure.
I think you just crossed the line.

-spence

Bloodiest year already for our troops in 8 years. What's the change?... not for better thats for sure.

A shift in focus from Bush's war in Iraq, where we never should have been to Afghanistan, where the real problem has always existed.

In one post, you complain that Obama doesn't heed the advice of the Generals in Afghanistan (the increase of troops, temporary outposts, moving into rural areas and establishing a longer-term presence all contradict your comment though), then, you complain that nothing has changed.

We all understand that you will seize even the slightest opportunity to make vague criticisms about any topic referring to Obama - you'd probably even criticize the way he takes a sh!t - but at least be consistent.

The fact is we are now engaged further in Afganastan with no clear objective from our leader. I saw him stumble and bumble through this same question at the G20. It's a shame. I'm disappointed with the left. They assured us Obama had all the answers. At least his knew direction of dialog would make everyone love us again.
Here's a fact, in Iraq, Afganastan, Iran, North Korea and even here on our own soil we are less safe today then 1yr. ago. It's amature hour at the Whitehouse.

Here's a fact, in Iraq, Afganastan, Iran, North Korea and even here on our own soil we are less safe today then 1yr. ago. It's amature hour at the Whitehouse.
If it's a "fact" then you should have no problem producing some statistics to back up your claim.

Have at it.

-spence

Regardless of our differences, the fact is that more of our armed services are dying in Afghanistan now, then anywhere else during this action.
iCasualties | Operation Enduring Freedom | Afghanistan (http://icasualties.org/oef/)

The Afghanistan people have been at war for centuries. How can we change the fundamental way of life. When the Taliban pay men to fight, kill those who are found or suspected to be against them, how, can anyone from outside change the way of life.

To many American men are dying for a war we will never win.

"Obama's War."

To many American men are dying for a war we will never win.

"Obama's War."

Afghanistan is America's War.

Iraq (where more troops have died and has cost twice as much as Afghanistan) is Bush's War.

Here's a fact, in Iraq, Afganastan, Iran, North Korea and even here on our own soil we are less safe today then 1yr. ago. It's amature hour at the Whitehouse.

As a fact, I am anxious to see evidence that backs it up.

Regardless of our differences, the fact is that more of our armed services are dying in Afghanistan now, then anywhere else during this action.

The Afghanistan people have been at war for centuries. How can we change the fundamental way of life. When the Taliban pay men to fight, kill those who are found or suspected to be against them, how, can anyone from outside change the way of life.

I agree, they are a tribal people and not prone to want to answer to a National government let alone a Western style government.
There has to be a desire on their part to want it and defend it. That doesn't seem to be the case.
Sending more troops will not change that, no way, no how.

Meantime they are waiting for the post election results with a NATO mandate to support the legitimate government of Afghanistan.
So if they are illegitimate what does that mean for the NATO mission??? Politicians don't seem to want to speculate on that.

As a fact, I am anxious to see evidence that backs it up.

What did you stop reading the news? Open your eyes. You and Spence are friggen joking right?

What did you stop reading the news? Open your eyes. You and Spence are friggen joking right?

For the last week? Yes.

Even still, aside from the terrorists that have been arrested over the last week, there have been no events to articulate any change in how safe we are compared to a year ago.

I was no more nervous flying home from California on Thursday with the substantially increased airport security (due to the elevated number of FBI advisories) than I was last year.

As a fact, I am anxious to see evidence that backs it up.

Go through TSA in Dulles, I feel like I am in a third world country.

What did you stop reading the news? Open your eyes. You and Spence are friggen joking right?

Please be more specific.

-spence

Even Muammar has grown a set of what I would refer to as "Obama balls". Reality is, the animals that want to hurt us and kill your kids, won one for their team when you guys put Obama in office.

plenty of time for Letterman...but...


By Amanda Carpenter on Sept. 28, 2009

The military general credited for capturing Saddam Hussein and killing the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq says he has only spoken to President Obama once since taking command of Afghanistan.

“I’ve talked to the president, since I’ve been here, once on a VTC [video teleconferece],” General Stanley McChrystal told CBS reporter David Martin in a television interview that aired Sunday.

“You’ve talked to him once in 70 days?” Mr. Martin followed up.

“That is correct,” the general replied.

This revelation comes amid the explosive publication of an classified report written by the general that said the war in Afghanistan “will likely result in failure” of more troops are not added next year. Yet, the debate over health care reform continues to dominate Washington’s political discussions.

they'll probably try to destroy him now like General "Betray-Us" right?

Even Muammar has grown a set of what I would refer to as "Obama balls". Reality is, the animals that want to hurt us and kill your kids, won one for their team when you guys put Obama in office.
Nice, so the free and fair democratic process is a win for terrorists?

How patriotic of you.

Acording to Obama's National Security Advisor - a retired US Marine General no less - we're actually killing more terrorists these days.

-spence

The Israelis all but said they we're going to destroy Iran's capacity to produce nukes last week in front of the U.N. General Assembly.
The Israelis don't bluff - they are not going to sit around and wait to be rubbed off the map.

The Israelis all but said they we're going to destroy Iran's capacity to produce nukes last week in front of the U.N. General Assembly.
The Israelis don't bluff - they are not going to sit around and wait to be rubbed off the map.
I think striking Iran would be a lot harder than Iraq or Syria. Iran actually has the ability to retaliate via Hezbollah.

That's not to say they wouldn't do it if they really felt threatened. Israel does have a reputation to maintain.

-spence

The Israelis all but said they we're going to destroy Iran's capacity to produce nukes last week in front of the U.N. General Assembly.
The Israelis don't bluff - they are not going to sit around and wait to be rubbed off the map.

I'm surprised they've had as much restraint as they have shown.
I would have thought they would have done it a year ago before the US elections, not knowing how a new US administration would react.

US and World opinion or not, I have a feeling they are very close to the end of their restraint.

Go through TSA in Dulles, I feel like I am in a third world country.

Just went through SFO in California on Thursday. Multiple checkpoints and random searches of people waiting at their gate - at least 1/3 people were having their bags checked after going through the scanners and seemed like at least 50% of people were being patted down. Security was pretty tight.

Just went through SFO in California on Thursday. Multiple checkpoints and random searches of people waiting at their gate - at least 1/3 people were having their bags checked after going through the scanners and seemed like at least 50% of people were being patted down. Security was pretty tight.

Dulles has everyone domestic and international go through the same security checkpoints, so many many languages being spoken.
Also alot of the people working TSA there are immigrants, women with face shrouds, men with turbans. I feel really weird going through security there.

Dulles has everyone domestic and international go through the same security checkpoints, so many many languages being spoken.
Also alot of the people working TSA there are immigrants, women with face shrouds, men with turbans. I feel really weird going through security there.

It's been a while since I've been through. If I'm going to DC, the Acella trains are for me. When I have connections, Dulles is a last resort. That airport is a mess.

It's been a while since I've been through. If I'm going to DC, the Acella trains are for me. When I have connections, Dulles is a last resort. That airport is a mess.

Doing Reagan from now on. It's just about equi-distant from there or dulles to my clients and office and the USAIR shuttle makes it much easier. Although in and out of any DC area airport is painful even BWI or Richmond.

So The Commander in Chief, during a war, has only talked to his Field Commander
once over 70 days ago! That is absurd. We are supposed to have confidence in
our leader when he doesn't even communicate with his field commander during a war?????

They say the responsibility is with Gates as that is the chain of command while
Obama is on campaign tours campaigning for his EMERGENCY HC Bill, going on Talk Shows
and traveling to Europe to get the Olympics in Chicago.

We are on the precipice of maybe losing a war and entering another and he
is out of touch, even putting off a decision to send more troops for at least another few weeks.
Where and what are his priorities????

Where and what are his priorities????

the Olympics apparently :rotf2:

the Olympics apparently :rotf2:

damn straight! and Michelle says " The gloves are %$%$%$%$! She's "Taking no prisoners"

Michelle Obama vows to strike Olympic gold for Chicago - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/29/michelle.obama.olympics/index.html)

You GO GIRL. F that silly Afghan war, you got to get busy and pay back all those corrupt Chicago politicians and businessmen that made Barak who he is today.

damn straight! and Michelle says " The gloves are %$%$%$%$! She's "Taking no prisoners"

Michelle Obama vows to strike Olympic gold for Chicago - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/29/michelle.obama.olympics/index.html)

You GO GIRL. F that silly Afghan war, you got to get busy and pay back all those corrupt Chicago politicians and businessmen that made Barak who he is today.

Don't forget about the gangs in Chicago. They're some of the best in the entire country! Who wouldn't want to travel thousands of miles to a city where innocent people get murdered in gang warfare? :rumble:

for anyone who hasn't seen it, #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^& posted a video and article in the Scuppers this morning. Crazy stuff happening in Chi-town

the Olympics apparently :rotf2:

Well he has to take care of the crooks that put him in office. Not to mention a little $$$ for the Obama pension fund.

the Olympics apparently :rotf2:

Only for a day, and time on the plane wid da wide body wife