The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-22-2013, 03:54 PM   #51
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 54,464

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Herpy Derp



Informationclearinghouse? Did you get that link from Gaff?

Anywho, I'm not sure what you're limply trying to establish here. The point is that nobody can argue that the Clintons were deceived into believing the WMD justifications for war, when they were the ones who laid all the necessary groundwork for that justification just a few years earlier.
Same ole ****. Get proved wrong and pretend you meant something else. Tired and pathetic trick.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2013, 05:00 PM   #52
elsid13
Lost In Space
 
elsid13's Avatar
 
Bóg, Honor, Ojczyzna

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: DC
Posts: 19,752
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arkie View Post
There's no way to know "what if's", but you're giving too much credit to one man to change things that dramatically. Only a dictator who loves his people could have prevented this mess. There are so many more variables before Bush, during Bush, and after Bush that were out of Bush's control. If the President really does have that much power, then we need to shrink his power.

Our foriegn policy hasn't changed much under different presidents. The same scenario could have happened under Gore. He likely would have invaded Iraq in 2003. He's in the same group as the Clintons. Hillary voted to attack.
I highly doubt he authorize the invasion of Iraq. There was no connection between 9-11 and Iraq. The only reason Iraq occurred is because of Cheney and his crew at the Pentagon.
elsid13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 07:19 AM   #53
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
Same ole ****. Get proved wrong and pretend you meant something else. Tired and pathetic trick.
You're comical. Someone says "How can you blame bush for hoodwinking the Clinton's on Wmds when they started the whole story while Bush was still Governorin' Texas?" And all you come up with is RUMSCHENYBURTONOWITZ!!!! INFORMATIONCLEARINGHOUSE!!! YEEEAAAAAAARRRRRGH!!!

The more this goes the more I start to think I'm arguing with some kind of chatbot. Just a dictionary of responses queued up to respond to certain keywords and catch phrases. LABF version 2,5 maybe. With the gif flood bug finally patched.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 07:33 AM   #54
Play2win
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 9,630

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Duke
Default

If it was done by one person– not an entire nation– the war on Iraq would have been premeditated murder.
Play2win is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 07:58 AM   #55
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 18,842
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Someone says "How can you blame bush for hoodwinking the Clinton's on Wmds when they started the whole story while Bush was still Governorin' Texas?"
You're entirely missing the point and/or changing the argument, as per usual. This isn't about anyone being "hoodwinked". This is about the invasion of Iraq in 2003 which was done primarily based on a false information campaign perpetuated by the Bush Admin, with the Cheney faction leading the charge. This directly from Wiki:

Quote:
...While it never made an explicit connection between Iraq and the 11 September attacks, the George W. Bush administration repeatedly insinuated a link, thereby creating a false impression for the U.S. public. Grand jury testimony from the 1993 World Trade Center attack trials cited numerous direct linkages from the bombers to Baghdad and Department 13 of the Iraqi Intelligence Service in that initial attack marking the second anniversary to vindicate the surrender of Iraqi armed forces in Operation Desert Storm. For example, The Washington Post has noted that,
“While not explicitly declaring Iraqi culpability in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, administration officials did, at various times, imply a link. In late 2001, Cheney said it was "pretty well confirmed" that attack mastermind Mohamed Atta had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official. Later, Cheney called Iraq the "geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."[75]”
Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland, observed in March 2003 that "The administration has succeeded in creating a sense that there is some connection [between 11 Sept. and Saddam Hussein]". This was following a New York Times/CBS poll that showed 45% of Americans believing Saddam Hussein was "personally involved" in the 11 September atrocities. As the Christian Science Monitor observed at the time, while "Sources knowledgeable about U.S. intelligence say there is no evidence that Hussein played a role in the 11 Sept. attacks, nor that he has been or is currently aiding Al Qaeda... the White House appears to be encouraging this false impression, as it seeks to maintain American support for a possible war against Iraq and demonstrate seriousness of purpose to Hussein's regime." The CSM went on to report that, while polling data collected "right after 11 Sept. 2001" showed that only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Saddam Hussein, by January 2003 attitudes "had been transformed" with a Knight Ridder poll showing that 44% of Americans believed "most" or "some" of the 11 September hijackers were Iraqi citizens.[76]

According to General Tommy Franks, the objectives of the invasion were, "First, end the regime of Saddam Hussein. Second, to identify, isolate and eliminate Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. Third, to search for, to capture and to drive out terrorists from that country. Fourth, to collect such intelligence as we can related to terrorist networks. Fifth, to collect such intelligence as we can related to the global network of illicit weapons of mass destruction. Sixth, to end sanctions and to immediately deliver humanitarian support to the displaced and to many needy Iraqi citizens. Seventh, to secure Iraq’s oil fields and resources, which belong to the Iraqi people. And last, to help the Iraqi people create conditions for a transition to a representative self-government.”[77]

The BBC has also noted that while President Bush, "never directly accused the former Iraqi leader of having a hand in the attacks on New York and Washington", he, "repeatedly associated the two in keynote addresses delivered since 11 September", adding that, "Senior members of his administration have similarly conflated the two." For instance, the BBC report quotes Colin Powell in February 2003, stating that, "We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September 11, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America." The same BBC report also noted the results of a recent opinion poll, which suggested that "70% of Americans believe the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks."[78]

Also in September 2003, the Boston Globe reported that "Vice President Dick Cheney, anxious to defend the White House foreign policy amid ongoing violence in Iraq, stunned intelligence analysts and even members of his own administration this week by failing to dismiss a widely discredited claim: that Saddam Hussein might have played a role in the 11 Sept. attacks."[79] A year later, presidential candidate John Kerry alleged that Cheney was continuing "to intentionally mislead the American public by drawing a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 in an attempt to make the invasion of Iraq part of the global war on terror."[80]

Throughout 2002, the Bush administration insisted that removing Hussein from power to restore international peace and security was a major goal. The principal stated justifications for this policy of "regime change" were that Iraq's continuing production of weapons of mass destruction and known ties to terrorist organizations, as well as Iraq's continued violations of UN Security Council resolutions, amounted to a threat to the U.S. and the world community.

The Bush administration's overall rationale for the invasion of Iraq was presented in detail by U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell to the United Nations Security Council on 5 February 2003...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

I don't know why you keep bringing up the Clintons or anyone else.
TonyR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 09:54 AM   #56
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

MSNBC recently ran a special on the manufactured war in Iraq. Since you're too dumb to realize that they used real sources and will immediately go "MSNBC ROBBLEROBBLEROBBLE" (why do you think I made it the first word of my post? Got your attention now?), I'll just list the Wiki article and you can read the info directly on the sources' websites.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_...nk_allegations

But here's a good tidbit from PBS' Frontline in 2006. I thought this **** was common knowledge by now? Oh wait, it is...to all but you few deniers.

Quote:
In the initial stages of the war on terror, the Central Intelligence Agency, under George Tenet, was rising to prominence as the lead agency in the Afghanistan war. But when Tenet insisted in his personal meetings with President Bush that there was no connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq, V.P. Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld initiated a secret program to re-examine the evidence and marginalize the CIA and Tenet. The questionable intelligence acquired by this secret program was "stovepiped" to the vice president and presented to the public. In some cases, Cheney’s office would leak the intelligence to reporters, where it would be reported by outlets such as The New York Times. Cheney would subsequently appear on the Sunday political television talk shows to discuss the intelligence, referencing The New York Times as the source to give it credence.
Open your freaking eyes and stop being such a smug little dunce. It's not a good thing to be proud of being stupid or ignorant.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 10:18 AM   #57
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

The public is so aligned with Obama that he bled over 6 million votes from 2008.

Herp-a-derp!
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 10:19 AM   #58
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
MSNBC recently ran a special on the manufactured war in Iraq. Since you're too dumb to realize that they used real sources and will immediately go "MSNBC ROBBLEROBBLEROBBLE" (why do you think I made it the first word of my post? Got your attention now?), I'll just list the Wiki article and you can read the info directly on the sources' websites.
If you and yours don't accept Fox News as a source, then don't jab your thumb in your mouth about MSNBC.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 05:09 PM   #59
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyR View Post
I don't know why you keep bringing up the Clintons or anyone else.
hhh...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arkie View Post
He's in the same group as the Clintons. Hillary voted to attack.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyR View Post
I partly agree, they aren't faultless. But at the same time you have to consider that they were going off of the false information that team Cheney created and propagated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
The Clintons? R U Serious? You do realize that until January 2001, the Clintons OWNED the intelligence apparatuses.

Read the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, or any number of Clinton WMD statements/condemnations from around the same time. Then tell me how they just didn't know any better and had the wool pulled over their eyes by the Governor of Texas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyR View Post
I don't know why you keep bringing up the Clintons or anyone else.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2013, 11:11 AM   #60
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 18,842
Default

Beavis, you are so ponderous. Did you even read posts #55 and #56? Do you even understand what this discussion is about? Sorry to break it to you but no matter how you try to spin it the Clintons weren't in power leading up to 9/11 or the 2003 invasion.
TonyR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2013, 11:45 AM   #61
Requiem
~~~
 
Requiem's Avatar
 
~ ~ ~

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Earth Division
Posts: 23,325

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Princes of Tara
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk View Post
The public is so aligned with Obama that he bled over 6 million votes from 2008.

Herp-a-derp!
There was roughly ~ 3% (2.7) less voter turn out in 2012 compared to 2008.

Obama had ~ 69.5 million votes in 2008 and ~ 66 million (figures rounded) in 2012. That's 3.5 million votes less. If turnout was the same, his numbers this year (total votes) would have risen and the numbers wouldn't have been anywhere near a six million vote disparity you are discussing.

Romney's vote total was ~ 1.5% better than McCain, roughly a million votes.

So in reality, in a year with much less turnout, Obama still performed well. Either way, your goofy math doesn't add up. Try again.

Last edited by Requiem; 02-24-2013 at 11:48 AM..
Requiem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2013, 11:53 AM   #62
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,000

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyR View Post
Beavis, you are so ponderous. Did you even read posts #55 and #56? Do you even understand what this discussion is about? Sorry to break it to you but no matter how you try to spin it the Clintons weren't in power leading up to 9/11 or the 2003 invasion.
That's the bottom line,it blows beavis argument apart. He can say all he wants about Clinton,but Clinton wasn't president on 9/11 nor was he in control of the intelligence apparatus in 2003. At the end of the day it was the GWB/Cheney admin that lead us into iraq & dropped the ball on 9/11. Beavis can't defend bush so he wants to deflect blame away from bush.
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2013, 08:19 AM   #63
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepipe View Post
That's the bottom line,it blows beavis argument apart. He can say all he wants about Clinton,but Clinton wasn't president on 9/11 nor was he in control of the intelligence apparatus in 2003. At the end of the day it was the GWB/Cheney admin that lead us into iraq & dropped the ball on 9/11. Beavis can't defend bush so he wants to deflect blame away from bush.
I'm not defending Bush from his decision. But so long as people are willing to entertain whatif games on a hypothetical President Gore, you can't suddenly hide behind who was and wasn't President.

Fact: The Clinton Administration believed Iraq possessed illegal chemical and biological weapons.

Fact: The Clinton Administration made regime change in Iraq formal United States policy.

Fact: The Clinton Administration both threatened and used force in response to perceived noncompliance on the issue of illegal WMDs.

Fact: President Gore, supported the first Iraq invasion, and even went so far as to later criticize Bush Sr for disengaging in the Gulf War as quickly as he did.

It's an argument that's been had over and over again.

http://www.salon.com/2011/08/30/gore_president_iraq/

It's ok for you to make the argument that we MIGHT not have gone to war in Iraq under President Gore. But to pretend that that was a certainty is just the partisan kool aid talking again. It's easy to look back in hindsight now with the assumption the weapons weren't there. But nobody believed that at the time. Not Bush. Not Clinton. Not Gore. Nobody.

And the idea that during the post-9/11 frenzy, people were going to stand by for another decade of impotent "You Stop That Saddam!" condemnations is pretty comically unrealistic. Try to put yourself back in that place in time. Not knowing anything you know now. Different ball game.
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:29 PM.


Denver Broncos