<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>GWB got annoyed with his apparent attempts to subvert the weapons inspection teams - and we end up where we are today.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Well, I sure hope old GWB doesn't get "annoyed" too easily. <br>I think what we will learn from this is patience. Yes, the threat of terrorism is real, and yes in some cases invasion of a sovereign state may be the only option for protecting the U.S. However, this clearly isn't and wasn't one of them. The opposition to this invasion 2 years ago predicted exactly what is happening today.<br><br>At best, Bush had squishy evidence of Saddam's threat level, evidence that was disputed within his own administration, let alone the rest of the planet. This latest report shows that the weapons inspectors were doing their job and would have come to the same conclusion we have today if given enough time. Of course that would have saved thousands upon thousands of lives, and billions of dollars, foreign respect and not created a terrorist hotbed.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>2 years back, just about everyone seemed to be of the opinion that Saddam had WMD.<p><hr></blockquote><p>I'll use your words here. So what? So does N. Korea, so does Pakistan (you think those can't end up in the wrong hands?). Iran is almost there. All three of these countries could easily be considered as much if not more of a threat than Saddam ever was, and he was being watched like a hawk! They picked on Saddam because he was an easier target (politically, and maybe militarily) rather than based on solid intelligence.<br><br>Look, people are going to disagree on the basis of Saddam's removal for years, but one thing is painfully clear. It was a mistake to invade when we did. If John Kerry had ordered this invasion it would have been a mistake too, and he would not deserve a second term (at the least). I would like to hear Bush ONCE in his time in office admit he has made a mistake. This is HUGE.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>should we appologise to Saddam, put him back in power, give him some new tanks and planes to play with, pay him some reparations for killing his two sons unjustifiably?<p><hr></blockquote><p>Don't be ridiculous. Of course we have to fix the mess that has been created, and every serious presidential candidate pledges to do so. Whether Bush outright lied, stretched the truth or was really misinformed by shoddy intelligence (we know this is now unlikely) it was poor leadership and absolutely atrocious vision that caused this to happen in the first place. Its time for this administration to step aside.<br>
reality is, is word, ok then<br>Here's my new post form:<br>By TOM RAUM, Associated Press Writer , edited by TGD.<br>MIAMI - Dick Cheney Iraq Hussein no weapons of mass destruction Bush war. <br>delay Cheney Democrats Iraq was a mistake, Cheney administration's case.<br>weapons CheneyJohn Edwards Cheney's Republican Edwards Cheney, Earth sun Cheney's comments GOP oil-for-food weapons destruction. Saddam's weapons program Gulf War 2003, Saddam's international sanctions. weapons program, Cheney United Nations oil-for-food program Saddam Hussein United Nations Mr. Duelfer that Saddam governments sanctions Cheney Iraq Cheney sanctions regime Cheney Fort Myers. "Saddam dollars corrupt others GOP Bush countries U.S. allies Iraq, Poland Russia — administration U.N. weapons Hans Blix CIA no weapons Duelfer's Saddam United States Iraq Duelfer Saddam's weapons Cheney Taliban regime Cheney Afghanistan<br><br>now read that backwards<br><br><br>[color:red]!sevaS trA</font color=red>
What I don't get is why we didn't seem to care when he was using WMD's against the Iraninans? Seems like our foreign policy is a major flip flop.<br><br>It is, it is!<br>Flip flop, Flip flop, Flip flop, Flip flop!<br><br>
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>now read that backwards<p><hr></blockquote><p>I'm sorry, I can't even read it forward. I just don't know what that means.<br><br>No offense, I usually agree with the messages you imply with your posts, but I just have a really hard time figuring out what they are sometimes.<br><br>
2 years back, just about everyone seemed to be of the opinion that Saddam had WMD.<br><br>2 years back? Clinton was talking about his WMDs and that if we did nothing he would use them over 4 years ago. <br><br>
I'm no fan of Clinton but...<br><br>you mean he knew that and still didn't hop into a B-bomber and start dropping bombs on a metropolitan city without first solidifying the intelligence and justifying his case to the world? What an idiot, this is all Clinton's fault! But then most of the U.S. problems of today are.<br>
2 years back? Clinton was talking about his WMDs and that if we did nothing he would use them over 4 years ago.<br><br>William Jefferson Clinton is a sage. If we would have paid more attention to the WMD's and less attention to the MBJ's, we would be enjoying "Global Harmonic Convergence" right now! We would have passed the test!<br><br>
Right he was too busy bombing those vicious aspirin factories <br><br><br><br>to keep his name out of the headlines for being a felon.<br><br>But then most of the U.S. problems of today are [Clinton's fault].<br><br>True dat. And when China decides to use the missile technology he allowed them to acquire maybe then more will see that.<br><br>Ohhh for the peacful easy going days of Clinton<br><br><br><br><br><br><br>...a half dozen of the other. <br><br>
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Ohhh for the peacful easy going days of Clinton<p><hr></blockquote><p>So, are you making a comparison of those mistakes by Clinton to the Iraq invasion by George Bush? I don't see them as even being comparable on a casualty, economic or foreign policy level. I'm pretty sure they are not. No, not by a long shot.<br><br>I also wish for the peaceful easy going days of Clinton. Maybe he had it easy. But, the question for today is about George W. Bush and not previous presidents. That is now history, and something that we can learn from.<br><br>I honestly cannot answer this, but when Clinton was in office and made mistakes and was criticized by Republicans, did Democrats point out the corruption and mistakes of Richard Nixon as exoneration? I still don't understand these arguments. If every liberal member of this board agreed that Clinton was a sh!tty president would that stop people from using him as some sort of turd standard to try and make Bush look "less bad"??<br><br>
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.