POL-Gingrich had affair while spearheading crusade to get Clinton

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

I think there is a difference between saying that Iraq had WMD programs and then declaring war based on that presumption. If you are going to act on that information, I think you have a duty to check, double-check, and triple-check your sources and be as sure as you possible can that the information is legit.

The WMD thing aside, there was also the strong insinuation (if not out right declaration) on the administration's behalf that Sadam/Iraq played some role in 9/11 or at least had strong ties to/with Al Qaeda. If I recall correctly, no such link was ever proven and, in fact, may have been disproven.

But that is why I am drawing the link between the two. You're right, you would hope that they would double-check and triple-check the sources. They claimed that there was not enough time, just as the global warming crowd is claiming there isn't time in the fight against global warming. Or, like the administration, they claim that their sources are enough to go on.

What happened with the Saddam/Iraq connection was this. There were some Al Qaeda operatives in Iraq, and there were a couple of high level meetings, but Iraq was not involved with 9/11. What the administration claimed, was that given the risks, they were obliged to pre-emptively attack Iraq to prevent a possible WMD attack by weapons developed in Iraq and delivered by Al Qaeda.

Now, there was no link between 9/11, Iraq, and Al Qaeda. That was proven. What the left claimed was that Bush linked Iraq and 9/11, which never happened.

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

On second thought, I think this is analogous to global warming, only not in the way that you think it is. There is overwhelming evidence pointing to the fact that there were no WMD's (none found pre-invasion, none found post-invasion, US government's own report saying there were none, Niger/centrifuge/etc stories turning out to be bogus, sources discredited, etc), but you choose to believe otherwise based on the fact that a guy you know said that there was abnormal activity on the border before the war. You believe that they had WMD's, but I think that you can see that if it were argued objectively in a court of law there is no way that the evidence would stack up. It would be my opinion that you came to your conclusion based more on your political beliefs than on an objective look at the facts at hand.

There are plenty of reasons for my belief. You choose to believe that global warming is real for the same reasons you accuse me of believing in this. Its really not any different.

Hell, as far as a court of law is concerned OJ was not guilty, so I wouldn't go around using that as support for your case. There are plenty of times where the side that is right, loses the court case.

The sad fact is that there needs to be two sides to every debate. I might disagree with you, but you have every right to believe in whatever it is that you do. I happen to have a number of reasons for my belief. That is all I need. You are basically looking at information from a number of sources that have a variety of different reasons why they would promote a certain agenda. I just think it is sad, that you feel the need to belittle my point of view because it does not line up with yours and feel that I am basically creating a case to back up a view skewed by my political leanings.

Truth be told, I am pretty disgusted with Bush at this point. Outside of Iraq and 9/11 what has he done? I look back at his term much the way I look at Clinton's, a big blank. Sure, there were some important things that he did, but there has been little impact on me, with the exception of the tax break, which happens to be one of the few things that I agree with.

Iraq could have been a crowning achievement. But, the administration did not have a plan for how to deal with the country after the government collapsed. Rather than do the right thing as proven in every successful military campaign against partisans dating back to the early 1000s, we decided to violate the precept of a high force density in the country. Not only that, but we consciously decided not to seal the border of Iraq with Syria or Iran which is where all the supplies for the insurgents have been coming from. We also took away many of the Iraqis jobs without providing alternate means of earning a living. The result was a citizenry ripe to listen to anyone who was willing to help out and provide meals.

We can still win in Iraq. Those who say we can't are really deceiving themselves, or are not willing to do it. That is the only way that the deaths and injuries suffered in this war will be in vain, if we decide to bail now, and leave an unstable Iraq behind. What is required is additional forces, the will and resources to seal the border with Iran and Syria, institute martial law, and the stomach to shoot first and ask questions later. Unfortunately, our leaders have decided that it is best to gild their nests and secure their own position of power, rather than actually do what is best for the country. A free, secure, democratic Iraq would be a huge boon to our country and our position in the middle east. But, for many leaders in this country on both sides of the aisle, there is more personal gain in our failure in Iraq, and so they are engineering that end. While I'm not sure that Bush's side would have the cajones to actually do what needs to be done over there, the side that wants to pull out at all costs is definitely the wrong course.

Sorry for rambling, having a pretty crappy night over here, and I just started typing...

[Raiders Army]

Neither his first name nor his surname elicits a good looking guy. I think this story gives ugly fat guys around the world hope that if they can amass enough wealth and power, they can still bone chicks.

Clinton getting some? pffft.

Gingrich getting some? That's an accomplishment.

[JPhillips]

I'll get into this more if anyone wants, but in summary, you can't have an honest discussion about the runup to the Iraq War and WMD unless you separate chemical/biological weapons from nuclear weapons.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

What happened with the Saddam/Iraq connection was this. There were some Al Qaeda operatives in Iraq, and there were a couple of high level meetings

False.

Originally Posted by Warhammer

What the left claimed was that Bush linked Iraq and 9/11, which never happened.

False again.

This is why the debate is pointless at this stage.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Welcome to 10 years ago.

That was my first thought. I'm fairly certain this was news during Penisgate, and that it's getting revived now only because his name keeps coming up as a potential Republican candidate (even though he hasn't announced any intention of even thinking of running).

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

That was my first thought. I'm fairly certain this was news during Penisgate, and that it's getting revived now only because his name keeps coming up as a potential Republican candidate (even though he hasn't announced any intention of even thinking of running).

He has mentioned that he'd consider running in the fall if there isn't a front runner in the GOP race.

[Dutch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warhammer
What happened with the Saddam/Iraq connection was this. There were some Al Qaeda operatives in Iraq, and there were a couple of high level meetings

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

False.

Why would President Clinton lie about that?

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Quote:



Why would President Clinton lie about that?

Let me clarify: The 9/11 report states that the September 11 investigators found "no evidence" that these contacts ever developed into a "collaborative operational relationship." It also says that the commission did not find any "evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States."

So, I apologize. Yes, there were meetings but no evidence that it ever amounted to taking any action against the U.S., on 9/11 or anything else. I acknowledge that Warhammer admitted no 9/11 connection, but I got from his statement that he was still contending there was an ongoing relationship to do the U.S. harm, which is false from all the evidence we have.

And I still stand by the statement that to contend Bush did not draw a link between Iraq and 9/11 is not only false but laughable. The response that, well Bush never really said it (but instead the VP and other in the admin. did) is weak. Just watch clips of elections speeches. It's all intertwined. And the most obvious effect of this was looking at the public polls at those times -- the bulk of the public believed there was a connection -- hmm, I wonder where they got that notion from?

[Dutch]

The Clinton administration was pretty adamant about Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein having a working relationship. Al Qaeda develops WMD's for Iraq while be smothered by UN Sanctions. In exchange, Al Qaeda will not operate inside Iraq with hostility.

It's seems pretty clear from Clinton Administration documents that Al Qaeda worked to develop WMD's (experimenting on animals mostly) but couldn't complete their efforts by the time of the US overthrow of the Taliban in 2001.

Was the relationship beyond that? If we consider both parties fairly shrewd and overly cautious about the US intelligence at the time, it would stand to reason that they would maintain as little evidence as possible about their cooperation.

The Sunni influenced Al Qaeda and the Sunni influenced Saddam Hussein probably worked together. Just like the Baath party and Al Qaeda work together today in post-Hussein Iraq. It's really not that far of a stretch. But I agree, the proof just wasn't there, and is a big black eye for the world's intelligence agencies, including the Bush and Clinton administrations.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

The Sunni influenced Al Qaeda and the Sunni influenced Saddam Hussein probably worked together. Just like the Baath party and Al Qaeda work together today in post-Hussein Iraq. It's really not that far of a stretch. But I agree, the proof just wasn't there, and is a big black eye for the world's intelligence agencies, including the Bush and Clinton administrations.

So, to summarize, the fact that there exists absolutely no evidence for something is not evidence that the thing didn't happen, but rather evidence that the world's intelligence agencies screwed up? This seems to be Warhammer's basic rationale too about the WMD's in Iraq. If you operate by this premise, what information would make you revise your thoughts? If there being no evidence of Al-Q and Saddam working together isn't enough, what is? If there being no evidence of WMD's in Iraq isn't enough, what is?

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Whatever that belief was, it just didn't justify going to war with Iraq or to consistently conflate the issues to the public to win an election.

[Dutch]

No thanks, I'll use my own words and the summary was already completed.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

No thanks, I'll use my own words and the summary was already completed.

As I put in my edit, if there being no evidence is not enough to make you think it didn't happen, what WOULD make you think it didn't happen?

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I also forgot to add that in addition to the 9/11 report, a senate select committee (under Republican control) also reached the same conclusion that Saddam had "no ties" to al qaeda and that Saddam "did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates."

P.S. Despite this, Bush was quoted as saying "we knew Saddam Hussein harbored Zarqawi".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDz6e...elated&search=