AP Reporter Reviews Powell's Case For War

Sir O · 08-11-2003, 05:43 AM

Linkage

I actually like General Powell. Too bad he's being used as a pawn.

But "Iraq is the size of California, it takes time to search", "Just because they haven't found any weapons doesn't mean they don't exist", "Saddam moved his weapons to Syria before the war (undetected by any satellites...maybe Scotty beamed 'em up?)," etc.

I'm still waiting...

I steal watermelons · 08-11-2003, 06:18 AM

Apri knew where the WMD were

Thats why he is all gone

Sir O · 08-11-2003, 07:55 AM

Makes about as much sense as anything I've heard from our leaders...

Sir O · 08-11-2003, 08:29 AM

A better article from that bastion of liberalism, The Washington Post

Fun, fun, politics is fun...

Galt · 08-11-2003, 03:49 PM

you support terrorism.

Doc · 08-11-2003, 03:58 PM

12 years to hide weapons
5 months of searching

Like the old man said to the hooker, "Just give it time baby"

I'd rather wait for a formal report to come out than to make assertions based on a few pieces of infomrmation that has been leaked

Keyser Soze · 08-11-2003, 04:33 PM

the weapons of mass destruction are right here in America.

Ken'sPen · 08-11-2003, 04:38 PM

What pisses me off is that for all the tough talk and rhetoric....
the war on terror is a crock,

The "Axis of evil" the war on terror is a sham.....
it seems the worst offenders in the region are the Saudis....
and Bush can find them to bring them to justice most weekends on his ranch.

Keyser Soze · 08-11-2003, 04:40 PM

you're either with us, or you're against us.

Mad · 08-11-2003, 04:52 PM

Fascist scum.

Doc · 08-11-2003, 04:53 PM

Ken'sPen Wrote:the war on terror is a crock,

The "Axis of evil" the war on terror is a sham.....

Please elaborate

I'm trying to wrap my mind around how the war on terror is a crock

Oh, and you made a comment about Bush being on his ranch a lot. Many past presidents have made use of the 'Western White House'. I believe Nixon actually spent more time there than on Pennsylvania Avenue

Ken'sPen · 08-11-2003, 04:55 PM

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO,
I meant the Saudi's bear the MOST culpability for the attack of any country in the middle east,

BUT because of the oil ties of the Saudi's and the Bush Administration somehow Saudi Arabia did NOT make the list of "bad guys"

and the Saudi princes spend time with Bush at his ranch.....

My point is that 9-11 became the reason du jour for Bush to push forth an anti Iraq agenda.

Mad · 08-11-2003, 05:03 PM

Ken'sPen Wrote:NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO,
I meant the Saudis bear the MOST culpability for the attack of any country in the middle east,

BUT because of the oil ties of the Saudis and the Bush Administration somehow Saudi Arabia did NOT make the list of "bad guys"

and the Saudi princes spend time with Bush at his ranch.....

My point is that 9-11 became the reason du jour for Bush to push forth an anti Iraq agenda.

:thumbs-up:

Yeah, how come no one ever mentions that? Strange how most of the assholes that hijacked the planes were Saudis?

Doc · 08-11-2003, 05:08 PM

There may be a little more to this than the quick once-over you're giving it. Don't get me worng, I'm a little bit perplexed as to why Saudi Arabia doesn't bear more of the blame, but I can think of a couple of reasons why it's in our best interests to be a little more diplomatic with the Saudis, and NO, it's NOT COMPLETELY about oil.

Saudi Arabia is a moderate Arab state, but there are some realy nasty fundamentalist groups there. If given the opportunity - because the US comes in and tries to institute some other government, they may try to overthrow the regime just like was done in Iran in the 70's. Destabalizing that region would not be a good thing for anyone. And yes, it would affect our energy resources in that area.

As for the anti-Iraq agenda, how can a regime fail to comply with UN Security Council resolutions for 12 years and not be seen as a threat to stability?

Ken'sPen · 08-11-2003, 05:11 PM

Doc, see you are kind of making my point,
Bush spoke in terms of Black and White,
you are either with us or against us,
it's a battle of good vs. evil.

Hell we blasted France for allowing their economic ties to Iraq play a part in their decisions....

YET we do the same thing for the Saudi's.

I just see it as hypocrisy.

Doc · 08-11-2003, 05:18 PM

That's because you and I both know the world does not exist in simple black-and-white terms. That, however, is Bush's style of speaking, very straightforward, very definitive.

Yeah, it does seem odd that our foreign policy does not follow the same trajectory as Bush likes to talk about, but I'm OK with that. I'd rather have a few more people making the decisions about what we do than just the one dude who sits behind the desk in the Oval Office. That's why you have people like Condie Rice, to make sure we do the right thing, even if that's a little different than what the big guy says to do.

--Edit--
As an aside, and I the only one that finds Condoleezza Rice strangely attractive?

Edited By Doc on 1060622413

Ken'sPen · 08-11-2003, 05:22 PM

you mean condie rice, "it's ok to stretch the truth to get what we want, leave the words in mr. President"?

Going into Iraq the way we did was folly,
we should have stayed focused on Bin Laden till we had him caught.
Then Bush stretched the truth immensely to support going to war with Iraq and our credibility on the world stage is diminished.

Doc · 08-11-2003, 05:33 PM

Geez, everyone like to harp on that one thing, don't they. Never trust British Intelligence I suppose

Anywho, you think we've lost focus on bin Laden? It's not the type of thing where you can get better results by putting more boots on the ground in Afghanistan or Pakistan. I personally doubt we'll ever catch bin Laden, and I don't think it's that important to do it...but that's another story.

Stretched the truth "immensely"? Like I said earlier, how aout we all wait until all of the information has been gathered before we rake the administration over the coals. I'd at least like to give the benefit of the doubt to our government, they're the one's we empower to look out for us.

As for our credibility, you think that will keep a country from calling on us in a time of need? I think not. You don't see the Liberians crowing for the French to get over there and help, do you? You don't see the South Koreans asking the Germans to intervene and stop the sabre-rattling of Kim Jong Il?

diceisgod · 08-11-2003, 05:41 PM

As long as Sauron doesn't get his hands on the Ring everything will be ok.

Ken'sPen · 08-11-2003, 05:41 PM

So you like being the bully of the block?
"Get the americans they'll beat up anybody"

The administration worked HARD to foster the impression that Iraq had ties to the 9-11 terrorists, and that there was a credible threat of them passing on weapons to be used against us.

I am saying that such impressions were false, and made to create a sense of urgency in action that we shouldn't have had.

Many of the "right wingers" were spouting comments like are the liberals waiting for a mushroom cloud over america before we act?

I just don't like the rush to war that Bush had.