Perspective

And, no one in the administration ever said he was.

cheers

bob


While Saddam rejoiced in the fact that it happened, it

 

Yep. Did you?

I have never claimed he was accurate. I have often said he was wrong. I
add that he was not alone in his opinion. I have never even claimed that
you and Bill are wrong in your opinions. I submit to you that what you have
is opinions. I don't know if your opinions are right, or wrong. Nor do
you, which is my point.

More properly "Where is my statement that he was right?". Read back. I
have NEVER said he was right about the WMDs.

When Bill gets upset, I'll wonder if I should have. It's good that you're
willing to stand up for your dad. He is, however, not being attacked. He's
only being disagreed with, and at that not all that strongly. Mostly, I've
been saying that his opinion is an opinion, not a fact. He even agreed
once.

You have your

Sir, you are, in this, quite wrong. I have repeatedly said he was wrong.
You, have repeatedly stated that he lied. You don't know that. It is your
opinion. I won't even say you're wrong. I merely reiterate that it's an
opinion and remains unproven.

cheers

bob

 

Yes, he maintained that he was complying with the treaty and part of
that treaty was to have inspectors (UN, not US) inspect places to
insure he wasn't hiding anything. When he prevented the inspectors
from doing their job and then kicks them out of the country it makes
it hard to verify whether his words are the truth or not. He defied
the treaty. Is that so hard to understand? Had he not done that he
would still be in his pallace(s) living off the blood of his people.
Now I would be the first one to call foul had GW gone after Saddam had
Saddam followed the rules. But Saddam didn't and paid the price for
his error. Is that so hard to understand? IIRC he did let the
inspectors back in to Iraq in the end but that was way past the
deadline he was given. He only did it because he realized he had
pushed us to far and that we were set to invade. By then it was too
late. And yes, part of what I was referring to took place back in the
90's. This was during the time of the treaty and clearly shows he had
already broken his word. As many people had said Intel is not perfect.
But we did have solid proof that he had the stuff and all we wanted
was to insure that the stuff was used or destroyed. If Saddam was such
the innocent victim that you make him out to all he had to do was
cooperate with the inspectors instead of banning them.

Then why didn't he let the inspectors prove him right instead of
kicking them out?

Yes, I watch the history channel. I also watch the military channel
(what used to be Discovery Wings). My main hobby is restoring military
vehicles from WWII on up along with building 1/35th scale models of
them. I am also the webmaster for a military vehicle club. So I take a
big interest in the equipment our men and women in the military use.
No where have I seen any of their shows say what you claim. I know the
system wasn't perfect (never claimed it was) and it had some issued
when it was first brought out that were reduced but never eliminated.
And yes, I know that the PR numbers used to show how great it was
while Desert Storm was going on were taken out of context. They were
not the results of a proper survey but ended up getting treated as
such. But that doesn't mean the system was a complete failure. Now the
M247, that was a failure if you really need to see what a true failure
really is.

Nope, not going by that at all. I was going by info I had from friends
of mine that were really there. When you deal with a military vehicle
club you spend a lot of time with people that were also military
veterans. While I volunteered for Desert Shield I was never sent but
have spent a lot of time talking to soldiers that were there. So my
comment is base on info from people that really know what happened,
not the opinions of others.

Okay, I read it. Did you? (the FAS sight is one of my favorites and
they have been in my bookmarks for years) If so care to show me where
either said they missed ever target and had no effect on the Scuds?
The funny part is both those links prove my point (I did not click on
every report that was listed at the bottom of the CDI site though so I
can't vouch for what's there but the reports at the two links above do
not claim the system was a complete failure). They worked and did hit
some of their targets. Not 100% though, that I will admit. It also
depends on what the survey classifies as a "success". Some reports
call it good if it prevents the Scud from reaching its intended target
while other reports only consider it a success if it destroys the Scud
100%. One or two of the reports even mention that the Scud was so
poorly built that some fell apart on reentry which made it impossible
for the Patriot to keep the weapons lock. Since the system was not
built for tracking multiple targets it is not the Patriot's fault. But
unless you have forgotten already your claim about the Patriot missile
system was "they missed every target they were launched at". The links
did not prove that, only that they were overrated. I still stand by my
statement that the system still worked.

Ruppster

 

ROTFLMAO.. Sorry.. that one doesn't even register.. George Bush continually
managed to try to link Saddam Hussein to 911.. Few .. if any of his
addresses or comments that included Iraq did not also include some comment
about 911.. Forget that one.. it is too ridiculous to consider..

Bill Walker

 

Only in the minds of supporters and apologists of George Bush.. hmmm.. And,
of course the Debaters.. <grin> There will be no final conclusions to any
of this until all the files are opened and examined.. That, of course will
not happen for years to come, if ever..

Fortunately.. I still have hope that Americans possess enough logic and
common sense to know that if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and
looks like a duck, it must be a duck.. The next election should be a good
indicator of just how much we deserve the reputation that we have always
enjoyed, in the eyes of the world.. If George Bush completes this term in
office, I'll be surprised, but surely the American people aren't simple
minded enough to accept the arguments that you made in this forum.. You are
a good debater, but you don't accept or recognize a duck when it walks in
front of you..See ya'

Bill Walker

 

First, I never claimed he was 100% accurate. All I asked was a simple
request for info to back up your accusations. Whether he truly had the
real info or poor intel is something we will never know. It does not
proof he lied about everything. Show me where GW had 100% proof that
Saddam was a perfect angel and there was no need to kick his ass. And
I don't mean a report or two that was mixed in with a bunch of other
Intel saying he did or might have.

Two, have you seen every bit of Intel that was passed on to GW
beforehand or for that matter do you even have a clue how the Intel
system works? There's a reason for having different levels of
classified material. As I mentioned before I spent 9 years in the
military working for a command that gathered nuclear data from
countries all over the world for the President. I've seen a lot of the
classified stuff that gets passed up the chain. Not all of it went all
the way to the top. And we were just little guys, our stuff wasn't
earth shattering info compared to what the big dogs in the Intel arena
had to deal with. As far as a comment made in another message about
why weren't the Intel people fired you would have to prove that they
were truly negligent or if it was a case of making an educated guess
that turned out to be wrong. If you had to analyze satellite photos of
a nuclear test site that showed signs of activity to determine whether
a foreign country was about to set off a nuke but weren't 100% sure
what would you do? Do you report that it is about to happen and end up
getting a hard time from your coworkers if it doesn't happen or do you
report that there is no indication that it will take place and give
the all clear signal only to have a test take place anyhow and really
catch crap for your error? And this just a simple example with the
consequences of being wrong only being a minor error. Did you ever
think of how much pressure the real Intel guys must me under when the
results would be further reaching then that?

The crux of the problem boils down to what we do know versus what we
don't. We know that nothing has been found yet and that this could be
due to bad Intel or that Saddam did a better job at hiding stuff then
we thought. Iraq is a huge desert. We've even found planes buried
under the sand. Why? What else has he hidden out there? No one will
truly know for years to come. That does not prove GW lied and you have
yet to show anything either. I am giving GW the same benefit of the
doubt as I would have given Clinton under these circumstances. But if
a credible source can prove without a shadow of a doubt that GW knew
more then he let on and had all the info he needed that showed Saddam
was an angel then I will gladly get in line to demand that GW be tared
and feathered. Till then everything is just one person's opinion
against another.

Ruppster

 

<sigh> I'd suspect that you would still be posting your support of George
Bush on usenet, no matter what .. Ducks are more easily recognized by some
than by others.. <grin>

Bill Walker

 

Now you are saying that anyone that doesn't see things as you do are
just too simple minded to understand? That sounds like a real logical
statement. Not. So we should believe everything we hear if it sounds
like it might be true or is spoken loudly enough without asking for an
ounce of proof? I believe in proof, not hearsay. And I base my opinion
on that. I try to keep an open mind and have given GW the benefit of
that doubt since I don't know what truly happened and no one does.
Just because someone sees things differently then you do does not mean
they are wrong. They just handled the data differently.

Ruppster

 

LOL.. If that is what you read into my comments, you may be a little bit
shaky with your own.. Some Americans recognize a Duck more easily than
others.. Some debate for the fun of the debate, itself.. And some, just have
a problem with the Duck thing..<grin>

That sounds like a real logical

ROTFL.. There's that Duck thing, again..

 

Oh, I am quite capable of recognizing a duck as a duck. I am also
quite capable of recognizing a bunch of hot air as just that, nothing
but hot air. As I said I am just giving GW the same benefit of the
doubt as I would have given Clinton under these circumstances. If I
were to base my opinion on the opinion of others I wouldn't even be
talking to you. When I came back to this group after a long absence a
few people were calling you all sorts of things. That was their
opinion and I treated it as such. Had I been simple minded I would
have taken their opinion as fact and jumped on the bandwagon telling
you to f' off. But as you see I had enough intelligence to make my own
decision and gave you the benefit of the doubt and treated you with
the same respect that I've shown others. Or are you saying I was even
wrong to do that too and should have just called a duck a duck and
written you off based on someone else's opinion regardless of fact?
How well can you say "quack"? <g>

Ruppster

 

Nope, I am quite able to read your comments and see them for what they
are. You sad "surely the American people aren't simple minded enough
to accept the arguments that you made in this forum". That means that
anyone that accepts the points that Bob and a lot of other people have
made (myself included) that echo what Bob mentioned is simple minded.
Since Bob's points counter yours that means anyone with different
viewpoints then yours falls in to that category. Or are you going to
tell me you did not make the statement I quoted?

The way you keep talking about ducks it sounds like you have either a
duck fetish or perversion. What ever floats your boat, I guess. <g>

Ruppster

 

Well enough, I'd suppose.. The good part is that I recognize a Duck ..
sometimes from a ways off.. ROTFL.. I don't recall that I solicited anything
from you.. I did not subscribe on Reeky to win friends or influence people..
Whatever opinions that anyone has about me, is their business.. Your
reference to that is a non-issue with me .. I'll take it as an indication
that you welcome the opportunity to engage with me, in some form or
fashion.. That's alright too..

Bill Walker

 

That's what I said, alright.. hmmm.. Who's that "lot of other people" you
reference, now ?

Can you please get to the point and get us out of the suspense .. <grin>
Your Neo Conservative talking points in support and apology for George
W.Bush isn't exactly all that is on your mind, is it ?
You've made that point several times, but you seem to not grasp the
significance of George Bush lying and the impact of those lies on so many
Americans and the world.. Americans could surely select a president without
the baggage that a man like Bush brings to the office with him..

Never heard that one before.. huh ? LOL

 

Some of us are able to spot a duck from far off.

--
Instead of swerving, I should have been reloading
(remove _NO_SPAM_ to reply)

98 FLTRI
83 Nighthawk

RCOS#7
Share yourself: http://xidos.ca/XManager/ReekyLogin.asp
To register: http://xidos.ca/OrgUserEdit.asp?OrgCode=REEKY_MOTO
Home page: http://xidos.ca/scripts/Personal/
Alaska trip: http://xidos.ca/scripts/Personal/Alaska/

 

Still haven't got the hang of that Killfile thing, do you ?

 

I once held a Top Secret Special Compartmented Information classification.
I've had access to that kind of information. I am well aware of how that
information is obtained and collated. I held that level of clearance all
thru the 80s and to the mid 90s when I retired from the gummint. They came
up to me in June of 94 and said, "Bob, how'd you like to have $25K and a
full retirement now instead of much later". I said, "Well.........YES!"
grin So, at the ripe old age of 57, I retired.

The way information about something like Saddam's weapons is collected is
pretty indirect. We don't have many/any agents on the ground with little
cameras. Satellite data is useful but not conclusive. Some of the pictures
we saw in the news were clearly of the type of bunker used for weapons
storage. But...ya can't tell what's in 'em. There was a lot of activity
and big trucks photographed there shortly before the war and some of those
trucks apparently went to Syria. In addition, Israeli intel said they had
info indicating the weapons were moved to Syria. That information was never
confirmed by other sources and never became, as far as I'm aware, part of a
"finding".

In addition, information is gathered from travelers, defectors, etc. Many
of them either have an ax to grind or are looking to get paid and the juicer
the information, the bigger the payment.

Only after a specific item is confirmed by more than one, usually more,
sources is it afforded a higher credibility level and it becomes a part of
the body of data upon which the final "consensus" is derived.

There are ALWAYS data points that contra-indicate the consensus. If they
are single source data points they are generally not considered credible.
AFTER the fact, some of those data points emerge as correct, and are often
lauded as "proof they ignored....", or "lied". And, there are always those
who disagree with the consensus. Sometimes they're right. Usually they
aren't.

Bottom line, intel blew it. Given their constraints..not enuf money and
insufficient numbers of people on the ground, I'm not sure how they could
have done any better.

I agree that Bush and his people trusted those intel "findings" more than
they should have, given the way the consensus was reached.

But, Intel, for SURE, didn't KNOW Saddam had no WMDs. Nor did they KNOW he
had 'em. They though he did. I'll even admit I agreed, based upon what I
knew at the time. And, I freely admit that the fact that we found none
certainly leads to the logical conclusion that they weren't there. And, if
intel didn't know, you can betcher ass Bush didn't know his statements were
wrong. Thus, he didn't lie. He may well have been fulla crap, but he
didn't lie. grin

cheers

bob

 

You may well be correct that he "tried to". But, he never said it. My
granddad used to say, "When I sell a horse, I don't TELL 'em he's got four
legs, I expect 'em to count 'em."

The whole point of the change in US policy was that 9/11 taught us not to
wait until we are attacked but to act proactively. The FACT of 9/11 was
used as the reason that we felt it was necessary to take out Saddam before
he became an immediate danger/threat.

If that leaves an impression that Saddam had a part in 9/11, that might have
(grin) been seen as a fortuitous accident. I dunno.

cheers

bob

 

I gather that I stand accused of being an "debater". I
plead...well...er....maybe I better open another beer. lol

Depends, maybe, on who thinks it looks like....etc.

The next election should be a good

Lot of people thought that just before he got his second term.

If George Bush completes this term in

I, on the other hand, would be greatly surprised if he didn't.

but surely the American people aren't simple

Or, perhaps, simple minded enough to ignore them.

You are

If I see a duck, I'll let ya know.

cheers

bob

 

LOL... That reads kinda like you are anxious for the one party system

Hell no. If I wanted that, I'd keep my mouth closed and let you keep
destroying what little credibility that there is left of it!

 

And, I told you it wasn't.

Take it as you like.

I'll put it this way. The ONLY statements he made about Iraq that weren't
correct were the ones about WMDs.

That isn't a "major conflict" which is large bodies of troops opposing each
other.

All of 'em except those about WMDs.

Only those about WMDs.

Yeah, probably made by Michael Moore or a clone. Yes, I'm saying neither HE
nor ANY member of his administration EVER said it.

Possibly. Still.........now what?

I also mentioned his firing on our planes.

You have a very selective memory, I think.

Now you're reading minds?

Those people in Iraq weren't being held in bondage or

I've already told you.

"Never"??? I suppose that was DDT he sprayed on the Kurds and the
Iranians???????

Can you

You don't know that I ever had any. We KNOW he had 'em and that he used
'em.

"Tag and destroy"?? Not too much of that. And, he continually disrupted
and obstructed them.

I'm perfectly willing to entertain the idea that it was a mistake. I wasn't
on this ng at the time, but I opposed the invasion based upon my thoughts
that we'd end up killing thousands of draftees who probably didn't like
Saddam any better than I did.
I'm just not willing to accept your unsupported word that "he lied".

Yes, and it seems they were wrong. I don't dispute that.

You're right again.

With all

Other than Blix, just who were all these people???

Instead, they decided to go on a smear campaign to those people who

Wilson???? snort.

Had that been the only reason, I'd agree.

You obviously read some opinion pieces. Read the ones that quote Bush's
statement, the 9/11 Commission Report, etc. And, the cite was to lead you
to the quote of Bush's 16 words to prove to you that your two different
"quotes" of his "exact words" were wrong...which you no longer wish to
discuss.

I'm aware of them. I just wonder what you think they said. You implied, or
so I understood it, that they said Bush was wrong. Not true. If this
wasn't your meaning, then I was wrong.

Sigh, look it up yourself. You're the one with the wild claims.

I was referring to the terrorism.

He invaded Mogadisu. He invaded Haiti.

He did not have nor seek UN approval. It was NATO.

The UN was neither consulted nor involved.

The UN was neither consulted nor involved.

Christ on a Harley, Bryan. Where the Hell do you get your "facts"?

He launched the missiles because "Saddam has WMDs and defies the UN". He
did NOT have UN approval. It was NOT a police action. It wasn't a declared
war either...he just did it. He killed a lot of Iraqis. Wonder how many of
'em had any thing to do with "all those WMDs"???

You didn't say he lied???

No, I'm saying that Bill Clinton and every Democrat who could get within 50
feet of a microphone were announcing to the world that Saddam had WMDs.
Were they lying too???

If so, you were right.

Tell me.

When I find them to be baseless and without merit, I do so. I reject his
opinions about stem cell research, for instance. I reject his bringing God
into politics. I reject a lot of things.

I've only said it about 10 times. Glad you finally got it. He was wrong.
And, this discussion was between Bill and me and was centered around Bill's
flat statement that Bush lied. And, it is that with which I stand
unconvinced.

Which was it, your opinion or your facts???

France, Germany and Russia refused to join the war. They didn't deny Saddam
had WMDs.

And, that proved only that they didn't find any.

Now, it's up to the Bush Administration to prove where all those WMDs

I have no problem with that. I only object to the bland assertion that they
lied.

OK. So it was. And, it is my impression that they believed what they said.

How does it feel

That entity being the government of the United States? Welcome to reality.

cheers

bob