|
Posted on 06/29/2004 7:00:20 PM PDT by churchillbuff
He's on the radio right now. He says there were no WMDs. Who you gonna believe about what David Kay says - - David Kay, or your own hallucinations? Before spouting off, tune in and listen to him: www.kgo.com
|
I am glad that you read it, because when you use the President's proposal about "immigration", thought you could use an update.
That proposal, was just that, a proposal. The President would need the Congress to take action which they have refused to do and chose to ignore.
I saw the "proposal" as a method to force those who saw political advantage in ignoring the illegal immigration to get the very reaction you have, from the citizens to their respective congress people.
Thank you,it is easy with so many wonderfully insightful freepers on this thread that want to win the war on terrorism,and love every soldier of any stripe that is fighting for all of us and humanity.
Kay acknowledged that the truth might never be revealed. Widespread looting in Baghdad after the invasion destroyed many government records. "There's always going to be unresolved ambiguity here."
Kay said he resigned after his resources were diverted to other work from the exclusive goal of searching for unconventional weapons.
"It's very hard to run organizations with multiple missions, particularly if one half is controlled by the Defense Department and one half is controlled by the CIA. ... I thought that was the wrong thing to do."
They aren't intimidated by the media, they just haven't figure out RR's formula for making them irrelevant. They don't control the stories well. The media IS monolithic in its goal to remove Bush from office. Tough road to hoe. I may be getting old but this is the worst I have ever seen it.
sorry to break through your ideologically-inspired shield of ignorance, but he's on the radio right now, and he's said - four times - there were no WMDs in Iraq. turn it on, instead of wasting time spouting ignorance: www.kgo.com
More distortions. That banner referred to the end of the tour of duty of that carrier (the Lincoln, as I recall).
Why don't you spare us the DU talking points?
The President's appearance in the flight suit really turned her on, and now she's terribly conflicted.
Right, I advise never calling the Iraq war preemptive. And try not to oversimplify. Better to be wordy. It was a pretty complex situation. Even if Saddam did not have WMD stockpiles, even if Saddam did not have readily restartable WMD programs, (HUGE ifs) he was in violation of buku treaties. He was threatening neighbors as if he had these stockpiles and programs, and was showing the world that you can just play games indefinitely. The world has to know what real disaramament looks like. Enter Libya.
It is amazing how contained this thread has been all the way around largely, on so incendiary an issue. Freepers are doing well here. Kudos to all of them.
You haven't read squat or you would know that I am speaking the truth and you are pissin in the wind.
With respect, William Buckley and George Will are wrong. The credentials in the conservative movement are of weight, I will not deny their successes. They are still wrong.
Wrong and late. At least people with intellible arguments from those in opposition to the war at the start are certain in their convictions. Why should I give weight to those that apparently offered artificial support.
This action was debated from all angles for a year and a half. I prayed about it. Looked at all evidence cited. Examined as many alternative scenarios as possible. Considered the consequences that included 70,000 full body bags. I supported this war then because arrived at the conclusion it was a necessity. Have not wavered in this conviction and do not respect those who do.
My primary reason for support wasn't the citation of WMD's, either. I actually believe in the argument that a free Iraq will have consequences for other totalitarian governments. I do believe in the domino effect of democracy. At least, I believe it is worth a try. Treaties haven't solved the problem. Sanctions haven't ended it. Ignoring it allowed our people to be murdered. Something needed to be done and I've yet to hear of a better, bloodless approach.
I'm not sure you where you get that quote, but what's your problem with it? He was right.
Oh. That's what's wrong with it.
I have friends in Saudi Arabia. The entire country is basically run by guest workers (the average Saudi being more inclinded to sit in a cafe and enjoy their government oil money). The big problem for the Saudi Royals is that they are perceived as unable to control the terrorist threat, which means that guest workers no longer find Saudi Arabia a place they want to work, which means Saudis might actually have to get jobs themselves to keep their country running. This has made the locals very unhappy with the ruling Saudis. My prediction, and I welcome people who disagree, is that the Saudi Royal Families are more concerned about protecting their wealth than their power, and at the moment, both are threatened. I believe that they will conceed some form of democratic rule not only to help the US (although they are sympathetic to the cause of Islamic Fundementalists, they are more addicted to American Greenbacks and in fact have already sent people to the various Madras telling the Clerics to back off the Al Qaeda crap or face reprisals) but to placate the masses at home who have grown to enjoy their life of leisure and have no intention of seeing an exodus of the help due to terrorist threats.
Why did Kay quit in a huff when his resources were diverted if he knew his job was done anyway?
Patience involves waiting until the very end. But world affairs have stops and turning points along the way, but few ends.
2)We went into Iraq for all the right reasons. I supported it then...and I support it now.(Unlike Bill...I stand by my Beliefs).
3)You grubbing for support is shameful. Face it, and learn to live with it, most here support the War in Iraq. We support the killing of every single terrorist and supporter in the world. And if that means we need to gut the governments of Iran and Syria next....so be it. Of course they can always take the Libya way out.
redrock
bad guys
+ bad guys
+ 17 resolutions
+ shooting at our planes
+ genocide (not to mention "puppycide" -- did you see the films of nerve gas being administered to the Beagle puppies, showing their slow and twitching deaths? --'course it never got PETA's attention...oh no!)
+ President's job is to protect the American people
= reasons to go into Iraq and show strength, so they don't come here and murder us, AND liberate the Iraqi people at the same time, are just plain wrong?
Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.
bad guys
+ bad guys
+ 17 resolutions
+ shooting at our planes
+ genocide (not to mention "puppycide" -- did you see the films of nerve gas being administered to the Beagle puppies, showing their slow and twitching deaths? --'course it never got PETA's attention...oh no!)
+ President's job is to protect the American people
= reasons to go into Iraq and show strength, so they don't come here and murder us, AND liberate the Iraqi people at the same time, are just plain wrong?
Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.