RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


I guess the search for WMD isn't so important after all.(44 posts)

I guess the search for WMD isn't so important after all.MR_GRUMPY
Oct 29, 2003 1:19 PM
I thought that we were "hot on the trail" of the WMD. I can't see, that if this is so important, why we would put off this "hot pursuit."

http://www.msnbc.com/news/986524.asp?vts=102920031255

Please explain this too me. HELP !!!
You're right,TJeanloz
Oct 29, 2003 1:27 PM
You're definitely right, searching for WMD's to help sooth the Administration's bruised egos is much more important that protecting the lives of Americans and Iraqis alike.

Just think how loudly you'd be whining if money was being taken from security to be put towards the WMD search. I can see the accusations now.

Finding WMD is only important to justify the war, which really isn't necessary at this point, is it?
The "powers that be" have to be very careful......MR_GRUMPY
Oct 29, 2003 1:52 PM
I doubt if this "Iraq problem" will ever escalate into a Vietnam debacle, but even if it ends up as 1/8 as intense, the American people will never stand for it. Bush said that the war on terrorism would take a long time, but I think we are looking in the wrong place.
Maybe Bush has a plan to get all the terrorists in the world to come to Iraq, and then Nuke the country. (Just kidding).
Well that's one,TJeanloz
Oct 29, 2003 2:02 PM
Most of the anti-war crowd has been screaming that Iraq will be the "next Vietnam" - the fact that you've conceded it won't shows that you've at least looked critically at the situation.

I just don't see a scenario where Iraq degenerates beyond where it is now, which means the anti-war protesters need to get America angry about losing 2 soldiers/day, and I don't really think that's enough to rile the general public. Not that the media isn't trying.
If we are still losing 2 or 3 a day a year from now.....MR_GRUMPY
Oct 29, 2003 2:18 PM
Bush will be a "dead duck". Even if things improve, he is still going to be very iffy. Dean is very good at talking, so I think that people will listen to what he says. (whether it's sound or not.)
Democrats better morbidly hope so,TJeanloz
Oct 29, 2003 3:23 PM
Because if the economy keeps on the track it's on, that bullet will be out of the arsenal.

Thing that amuses me most about Dr. Dean is his reliance on claiming to represent the 99% of people who didn't benefit (as much) from the Bush tax cut, when, in reality, he's in the 1% who did.
Remember, he's just another politician.MR_GRUMPY
Oct 29, 2003 6:42 PM
He says what he has to say. Any person who is running for office, and who doesn't believe the tax cut was good for Americans, will say that they represent the "average Joe" who doesn't benefit from the cut. Doesn't matter if he's worth 100 million, he'll still say it.
About the economy. The "Span" man says that we are still in trouble. If the economy picks up in 13 months, the Democrats can say, after the election, that they caused it.
It's alllllllllll BS.
i do.rufus
Oct 29, 2003 2:55 PM
a few well placed missiles into american troop barracks or military compounds, more and more average iraqis get pissed off at their treatment at the hands of american soldiers and come to see them as occupiers and not liberators, and i see the situation getting much worse.
Maybe, maybe not.MR_GRUMPY
Oct 29, 2003 6:52 PM
I get the feeling that the Iraqis are getting tired of Saddam's followers killing their own people. Sure, the 1%-2% of Iraqis that hate Americans can kill 2 or 3 Americans every day, but sooner or later this number will drop to a few a week. If the American Troops over there, start doing dumb things, things could get a lot worse.
Where are the Iraqi protests against terrorists?Hot Carl
Oct 30, 2003 8:21 AM
I haven't watched the news lately, but I haven't seen coverage of any actions or opinions of average Iraqis to the car bombings etc. I'm sure there is a large percentage of population that would do whatever they can to help stop the attacks.
BUT, if it turns out that they are willing to just passively sit by or they're too scared to help, they don't deserve to live free.
The Russian people basically overthrew their own government to move toward democracy. They worked for it. It doesn't look like Afghanis for Iraqi population are willing to work for it.
Huh?Live Steam
Oct 30, 2003 10:41 AM
Fist of all, who would the Iraqi people protest to? I think they are trying to help themselves. They have manned their own police force and are cooperating with coalition forces. I read reports that they are unhappy the curfew was lifted. I don't agree that the Iraqis or Afghanis are not willing to work for it. That isn't what I see. I see reports of people who have been oppressed for a long time by a brutal regime, trying to overcome the fear that is still within them. I see reports of new schools and new news outlets springing up in Iraq. Where there was once only two or three newspapers, there are now over 150. You need to look at more than main stream media sources. They want to paint a picture of despair, not a picture of hope.

The Russian people fought for their own freedom? When was that? I think the US basically forced it upon them by bankrupting their war machine. When was that last Russian Revolution?
total crapMJ
Oct 30, 2003 3:44 AM
if they'd said we're invading because there are dangerous extraterristerials in Iraq and then - guess what - there aren't any danerous ET's do you think abybody is going ot forget it?

it's pretty obvious we wouldn't be worried about the body count if we were never there

the point is that the reason we are there is because of a lie told by the Bushies to justify a war - even if Iraq is never as bad as Vietnam - the fact that it happened like it did - against international opinion, without the UN (neither of whom are in a hurry to help out after they were disparaged by the Bushies) should be reason enough to generate a huge turn of opinion against him

of course the media is asking questions - the thing I wonder is why not more questions - Bushies lies never stacked up and have resulted in a huge financial and operational nightmare with an attendant body count (and casualty rate) - there's no end in sight - there's no exit plan - and perhaps you could explain to the 2-3 per day dead soldiers families that there deaths were acceptable - especially when sent in on the basis of a lie

anyways - the death rate isn't the thing to worry about - the thing to worry about is the number of casualties - I read somewhere that for every one death there are a significant number of seriously injured - maybe you coudl have that conversation with them too

it's not acceptable - it's not justifiable - it was a lie - Bush should be impeached and run out of town
Could you squeeze the word "lie" in one more time?TJeanloz
Oct 30, 2003 5:04 AM
If you say it enough, people might start to believe you. If you say it more, they might start to care.
l!eMJ
Oct 30, 2003 5:20 AM
and the more you ignore it the more it looks like the Bushies are covering something up

it's very simple it was a lie - we went to Iraq under a lie - we invaded under a lie - now US/UK troopes are dying because of a lie

the world is not a safer place today - Bush has a large share of that responsbility - the August White House reports will be interesting when tey get handed over to the commission - is it possible there's evidence that Bush could have done something to prevent 9/11? - the more you try and hold on to docs the more it appears you are covering up

TJ - what about this administration has been effective?
Bush isn't handing the report papers over .....Live Steam
Oct 30, 2003 5:49 AM
because of separation of powers issues, not because he is covering up something. The White House has granted permission to the investigating sub-committee to view them, but they cannot remove them, copy them or take notes. Congress cannot grant rights to a sub-committee that it itself does not have. The sub-committee cannot subpoena them. It won't happen. Bush is actually doing just as Clinton did. He is protecting "The Office of the President" by ensuring separation of powers.

It is a real stretch for you Bush haters to actually think that he and his administration had information about 9/11 prior. You can keep repeating it, but it loses something each time you do. This fiasco could have been averted if Clinton did something to address the burgeoning terrorism issues during his eight years in office. It was out of control by the time he left. That is why Zell Miller is supporting Bush. He knows that Bush is attacking this head on. He called him the right man at the right time to tackle this issue. Yall sound desperate to me!
I love how you blame all terrorism on Clinton's lack of action..bboc
Oct 30, 2003 8:09 AM
What did Bush do about Terrorism in the Time before 9-11-01 that was better than Clinton?
Thanks! Bush was in office for 7 months not 8 years! nmLive Steam
Oct 30, 2003 10:42 AM
And what did he do in that 7 months to combat terrorism? nmbboc
Oct 30, 2003 11:54 AM
Silly question really. What does any ....Live Steam
Oct 30, 2003 12:26 PM
President do in their first 7 months - A President needs the support of a team in order to do anything. He get his Cabinet appointments passed through Congress during the first months in office. Plus he had to deal with the Clintonista regimes shennanegins when they left the White House in a shambles. There wasn't a smooth transition thanks to the Clintons. Did that conveniently slip your memory?
To Quote you....bboc
Oct 30, 2003 12:46 PM
"This fiasco could have been averted if Clinton did something to address the burgeoning terrorism issues during his eight years in office. It was out of control by the time he left."

Shouldn't Bush have made some time to address an out of control situation, especially one with the potential to bloom into 9-11. Bush didn't do squat to avert terrorism until after 9-11. Clinton at least did something (even if it was argueably only politically motivated) by firing some cruise missles at Osama Bin Laden.

Maybe this fiasco could have been avoided if Bush would have went after OBL in his first 7 months in office.
OK I guess if you say it enough it ...Live Steam
Oct 30, 2003 12:56 PM
has more impact. Not really, but you must like hearing that. Show me any President that did anything other than try to put together an administrative team, in their first months in office. It is a fact that Clinton had many chances to take out Bin Laden one way or another, but failed to do so. He lobbed a few cruise missiles at Iraq and into Afghanistan, but never directly confronted the issues. He was in office when the Cole was hit. Please tell me what his response was. Please tell me how he responded to the bombing of two US embassies in Africa. He didn't. That is why Bin Laden calls the US The Paper Tiger. Because for the prior eight years, we did not respond to terrorist acts appropriately and with force. Clinton was afraid of another Mogadishu. That was a terrible reason for not responding. He was more willing to throw money at these SOBs than confront them militarily. Is that what you wanted? Your tax dollars paying off some terrorists in a blackmail scam?
It's all GWB's Faultbboc
Oct 30, 2003 1:09 PM
It's all Clinton's Fault
It's all Bush 1's fault
It's all Reagan's Fault

Repeat 200X without getting stuck on Clinton and You'll start to sound reasonable.
I'll give you one thing.DJB
Oct 30, 2003 1:15 PM
Reagan pulling out of Lebanon after the barracks bombing still leaves a bad taste. I'd put that right up there with Somalia.
If I recall we didn't pull out right awayLive Steam
Oct 30, 2003 2:00 PM
Didn't we strike Syria? I need to look at some things to refresh my memory. The French were involved again too of course. They had men killed in a similar bombing. That was a mess as Israel was running amuck. I think Reagan didn't want to be seen as supporting Israeli "terrorism". The Israeli Army kill hundreds of civilians in a raid.

Though bboc may want to see it differently, I never blamed Clinton for 9/11. I do however blame him for not employing a strong offence as a good defense against terrorism. My opinion is that we must also go after state sponsored terrorism without prejudice. It is reported that a terrorist is running operations for Al Quaida out of Norway of all places. He was granted asylum there. I say we freeze Norway's assets until it can be proven that he is not doing what intelligence says he is doing. The Norwegian authorities should take him into custody for questioning at the very least. The Saudis should also be dealt with in sever terms too.
Just to add to the discourse...Brooks
Oct 31, 2003 9:58 AM
"Show me any President that did anything other than try to put together an administrative team, in their first months in office."
I show you FDR who in his first 100 days did more than any President before or since to change the country (whether you agree with his policies or not) against a generally hostile Congress.
He intended to.DJB
Oct 30, 2003 1:08 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/17/attack/main509434.shtml

Bush had every intention of doing something about Bin Laden.
But plans like that take time to develop. No President steps into office and has a fully functional staff ready to go to work. Every administration has a transition period.

Clinton's firing of cruise missles argueable did more harm than good as it only confirmed Bin Laden's view of America as blustery, but weak. "See, just a token response."

Clinton's response to all of the other terrorist actions against the U.S. like the first Trade Center bombing, Khobar towers, the Cole, and the U.S. embassies in Africa only embolded Bin Laden. Other than the cruise missles, what did we do? And what happened when we lost a few men in Mogadishu (when the Rangers weren't given the heavy armor they asked for)? We scrammed.

Clinton saw the cancer growing and spreading. He blinked because he was unwilling to risk the potential political fallout if things didn't go our way.
Bwahahahahahah.bboc
Oct 30, 2003 1:21 PM
After the tragedy Ari Fleischer says that the Bush administration had a plan to dismantle Al Queda pre 9-11. I guess that I should beleive that, since Ari would never distort the truth(insert dripping sarcasm). Show me an article dated pre-911 that hints/outlines at a Bush plan and I'll consider it as a possibility.
You're not asking for much, are you?DJB
Oct 30, 2003 1:40 PM
If what you want is a news article published about a National Security Presidential Directive that hadn't even been presented to the president yet, well then I think you're out of luck.

However, I also found this. Doesn't seem likely to be much of a neo-Con site.

http://www.why-war.com/news/2002/05/16/alqaedag.html
Really only 6 meaningfull months since everything in Americabboc
Oct 30, 2003 12:19 PM
was going so perfect that Bush took a vacation for the whole month of August '01.
Again every President has traditionally taken August. Besides .Live Steam
Oct 30, 2003 12:30 PM
do you really think that The President of the United States gets a vacation like you or I? I'd say he has to answer his phone where we can sleep in and let the rest of the World go to sh!t. That is a really lame attempt at some effort to discredit Bush.
BSMJ
Oct 30, 2003 8:43 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A43165-2003Jul24¬Found=true

"A History of Missed Connections
U.S. Analysts Warned of Potential Attacks but Lacked Follow-Through
By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 25, 2003; Page A14

Those privy to the intelligence community's classified reports on domestic terrorism had plenty of reason to lose sleep in the spring and summer of 2001. Analysts warned of potential attacks by unspecified terrorists in New York and California, and by operatives of Osama bin Laden somewhere in the United States.

CIA sources in Afghanistan picked up chatter about an unspecified, impending attack, and the National Security Agency monitored at least 33 communications suggesting an imminent attack, according to a congressional investigative report issued yesterday. Bin Laden operatives were dropping out of sight, and according to some classified warnings, headed for the United States and Canada.

The classified alarms reached a crescendo at the beginning of July, when top U.S. officials were warned that bin Laden was in the throes of advanced preparations for a major attack, most likely against an American or Israeli target. "The attack will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against U.S. facilities or interests," they were told.

But in the critical month of August, the government's complex and balky counterterrorism machinery failed to move fast enough to stop accelerating preparations for an attack."
So what does this mean?Live Steam
Oct 30, 2003 10:48 AM
The US gets reports of immanent terrorist attacks every day. What was the government to do, shut down everything? It may be true that "CIA sources in Afghanistan picked up chatter about an unspecified, impending attack", but where, when, how, etc? This is a tired arguement. It's like trying to blame Clinton for the first WTC bombing. He was in office for just a few months when that occured.
What has been effective?TJeanloz
Oct 30, 2003 6:22 AM
The Democratic Party would like us to believe that the Bush Administration has done nothing good in its 3 years in office. But, we have seen a tax cut (I know, it "all" went to the wealthy) - that's something that was effective. All in all, from my perspective as a disinterested economist, I'd say the economic policy is shaping up pretty nicely - not that I give the Administration a lot of credit for it, but the tax cuts apparently did provide the stimulus that was advertised.

The National Do Not Call registry - why didn't anybody think of that sooner? And it sounds like no big deal, but this is a major quality of life issue for Americans, affecting just about everybody. That's been something of a victory for the Administration.

A medicare drug benefit. That's something of a victory (though I don't believe it's finalized yet).

I'm don't necessarily agree with your contention that the world is not a safer place today. I'm not sure either way, but I don't really think the world is more dangerous than it was 5 years ago. Regardless, I think the danger is (and was) so minute as to barely be measurable. I'm positive there's evidence that Bush could have done something to prevent 9/11 - he could have waged a pre-emptive war against Osama Bin Laden. We knew ObL was a terrorist, we knew he targeted the WTC. We could have killed him (if we could have found him). But the same information was available 5 years ago too.

The rest of the World has to realize that there's more to American politics than foreign policy, and in the final analysis, most Americans care more about domestic priorities than foreign wars.
What has been effective?MJ
Oct 30, 2003 8:37 AM
George W. Bush Resume The White House, USA:
MY ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT:
I attacked and took over two countries with no plan for reconstruction in place.
I spent the U.S. surplus and bankrupted the Treasury.
I shattered the record for biggest annual deficit in history. I set an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12-month period.
I set all-time record for biggest drop in the history of the stock market.
I am the first president in decades to execute a federal prisoner.
I am the first president in US history to enter office with a criminal record.
In my first year in office I set the all-time record for most days on vacation by any president in US history. After taking the entire month of August off for vacation, I presided over the worst security failure in US history.
I set the record for most campaign fundraising trips by any president in US history.
In my first two years in office I allowed over 2 million Americans to lose their jobs.
I cut unemployment benefits for more out-of-work Americans than any other president in US history.
I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month period.
I appointed more convicted criminals to administration positions than any president in US history.
I set the record for the fewest press conferences of any president since the advent of TV.
I signed more laws and executive orders amending the Constitution than any other president in US history.
I presided over the biggest energy crises in US history and refused to intervene when corruption was revealed.
I presided over the highest gasoline prices in US history and refused to use the national reserves as past presidents have.
I cut healthcare benefits for war veterans.
I set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously take to the streets to protest me (15 million people), shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind.
I dissolved more international treaties than any president in US history.
I've made my presidency the most secretive and naccountable of any in US history.
Members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in US history. (The 'poorest' multimillionaire, Condoleeza Rice, has a Chevron oil tanker named after her).
I am the first president in US history to have nearly all of the states of the Union simultaneously go bankrupt.
I presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud in any market in any country in the history of the world.
I am the first president in US history to order a US attack and military occupation of a sovereign nation, and I did so against the will of the United Nations and the world community.
I engaged the nation in a war that is costing $4 billion dollars a month.
I have created the largest government department bureaucracy in the history of the United States.
I set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending increases, more than any other president in US history.
I am the first president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the Human Rights Commission.
I am the first president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the Elections Monitoring Board.
I removed more checks and balances, and have the least amount of congressional oversight than any presidential administration in US history.
I rendered the entire United Nations irrelevant.
I withdrew from the World Court of Law.
I refused to allow inspectors access to US prisoners of war and by default no longer abide by the Geneva Conventions.
I am the first president in US history to refuse United Nations election inspectors access during the 2002 US elections.
I am the all-time US (and world) record holder for most corporate campaign donations. The biggest lifetime contributor to my campaign, who is also one of my best friends, presided over one of the largest corporate bankruptcy frauds in worl
What has been effective?MJ
Oct 30, 2003 8:38 AM
I am the all-time US (and world) record holder for most corporate campaign donations. The biggest lifetime contributor to my campaign, who is also one of my best friends, presided over one of the largest corporate bankruptcy frauds in world history (Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron Corporation).
I spent more money on polls and focus groups than any president in US history.
I am the first president to run and hide when the US came under attack (and then lied, saying the enemy had the code to Air Force One)
I am the first US president to establish a secret shadow government.
I took the world's sympathy for the US after 911, and in less than a year made the US the most resented country in the world (possibly the biggest diplomatic failure in US and world history).
I am the first US president in history to have a majority of the people of Europe (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and stability.
I am the first US president in history to have the people of South Korea more threatened by the US than by their immediate neighbor, North Korea.
I changed US policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.
I set the all-time record for number of administration appointees who violated US law by not selling their huge investments in corporations bidding for government contracts.
I have removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than any other president in US history.
In a little over two years I have created the most divided country in decades, possibly the most divided that the US has been since the civil war.
I entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down.
RECORDS AND REFERENCES:
I have at least one conviction for drunk driving in Maine (Texasdriving record has been erased and is not available).
I was AWOL from the National Guard and deserted the military during a time of war.
I refused to take a drug test or even answer any questions about drug use. All records of my tenure as governor of Texas have been spirited
away to my fathers library, sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view. All records of any SEC investigations into my insider trading or bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view. All minutes of meetings of any public corporation for which I served on the board are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.
Any records or minutes from meetings I (or my VP) attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public
review.
PERSONAL REFERENCES:
For personal references, please speak to my dad or Uncle James Baker
(They can be reached in their offices at the Carlyle Group where they are helping to divide up the spoils of the US-Iraq war and plan for the next one.)
Thanks for that bit of original thought (nm)TJeanloz
Oct 30, 2003 8:40 AM
Maybe next time you can just link us to a Guardian article.
anytime - about as original as yours though in reality (nm)MJ
Oct 30, 2003 8:45 AM
I never realized that george was so EVILMR_GRUMPY
Oct 30, 2003 2:18 PM
I've always thought that he was a minor league dope. We're allllll doommmmmmmmed.
It's been reported that Clinton had 12 clear opportunities ...Live Steam
Oct 30, 2003 10:51 AM
to kill or capture Bin Laden. He did neither in an 8 year term.
It has been reported that you can trace this whole thing........MR_GRUMPY
Oct 30, 2003 1:01 PM
back to the Ron and George show. Sometimes, something you start in back in 1981, takes a long time to come back to bite you in the ass.
It may or may not be the case, yet it is undeniable that ...Live Steam
Oct 30, 2003 2:08 PM
Clinton did not deal with Bin Laden in a forceful manner. He had knowledge about Bin Laden's desire to inflict damage on the US, but didn't want to suffer any political fallout because of the possibility of losing American lives in the pursuit of taking him out.
He thought a few bombs could scare him off.........MR_GRUMPY
Oct 30, 2003 2:24 PM
Like it did to Kadafy (sp).......He was wrong. (20-20 hindsight)
Really not the same, is it?Live Steam
Oct 30, 2003 2:35 PM
Khadafy had his country and his position as supreme dictator to worry about. Bin Laden has nothing to lose. We killed some Khadafy's children and other family members in that bombing. I think the message was real and understood. We didn't do the same to Bin Laden. Maybe we should have killed his sons and family members to get the message across that he shouldn't mess with us.
No. nmNo_sprint
Oct 31, 2003 12:10 PM