When Bush talks about WMD...

[Deleted]

...be sure not to believe a word he says.

www.sundayherald.com/27735

www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/25/eveningnews/main560449.shtml

And for the sheer joy of it all:

"I want to thank my friend, Senator Bill Frist, for joining us today. You're doing a heck of a job. You cut your teeth here, right? That's where you started practicing? That's good. He married a Texas girl, I want you to know. Karyn is with us. A West Texas girl, just like me."
-- Dubya the gender bender in an appearance at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, May 27, 2004

"I'm honored to shake the hand of a brave Iraqi citizen who had his hand cut off by Saddam Hussein."—Washington, D.C., May 25, 2004

"But the true strength of America is found in the hearts and souls of people like Travis, people who are willing to love their neighbor, just like they would like to love themselves."—Springfield, Mo., Feb. 9, 2004

"[T]he illiteracy level of our children are appalling."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004

"Just remember it's the birds that's supposed to suffer, not the hunter."—Advising quail hunter and New Mexico Sen. Pete Domenici, Roswell, N.M., Jan. 22, 2004

"The ambassador and the general were briefing me on the—the vast majority of Iraqis want to live in a peaceful, free world. And we will find these people and we will bring them to justice."—Washington, D.C., Oct. 27, 2003

And you have to love this one:

"See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction."—Milwaukee, Wis., Oct. 3, 2003

[Gorf]

GWB is a west Texas girl?

[The Bofa on the Sofa]

{ said:

>-(Gorf)-<[} link=board=news&thread=1085768488&start=1#0 date=1085772701]GWB is a west Texas girl?

He's a lumberjack and he's ok...

[Lwood]

Here's your top secret report. Read it and get back to me. Show me where it says what that news article says it says.

www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf


The uranium intelligence is open for debate. It was not an attempt to mislead the U.S. as many have suggested. Don't forget that Tony Blair and Mi6 stand behind their intelligence that Iraq attempted to purchase uranium in Africa. Blair even blaims France for failing to share French intelligence with the U.S. regarding uranium. France shared it with Mi6, but not the CIA.

thescotsman.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=767622003

Bush stumbling through the English language is not an relevant response to my orginal post.

Keep trying (R).

[Deleted]

I wasn't trying to be relevant.

I was obsequiously poking fun at the Moron-in-Chief.


Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. The Uranium story has not been totally discredited. C'mon, LWood, you're brighter than that. I just know you are.

I suppose there was a Saddam-al Qaeda connection, too?

[Gorf]

Lwood said:

Here's your top secret report. Read it and get back to me. Show me where it says what that news article says it says.

www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

In terms of the article claiming PNAC advocated a US presence whether Hussein was in power or not:


"Though the immediate mission of those forces is to enforce the no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq, they represent the long-term commitment of the United States and its major allies to a region of vital importance. Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

...


Although Saudi domestic sensibilities demand that the forces based in the Kingdom nominally remain rotational forces, it has become apparent that this is now a semi-permanent mission. From an American perspective, the value of such bases would endure even should Saddam pass from the scene.


...



Not sure which other pieces of the article you refer to in trying to claim they aren't present in the document, however, I found pretty much each of the snippets of text provided within the article to be present in the document you posted.

[Lwood]

(R)uffda! said:

I wasn't trying to be relevant.

I was obsequiously poking fun at the Moron-in-Chief.


Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. The Uranium story has not been totally discredited. C'mon, LWood, you're brighter than that. I just know you are.

I suppose there was a Saddam-al Qaeda connection, too?

I know that I stopped trusting the mainstream media years ago. I know that I watched Tony Blair address Parliament as he passionately stood behind Mi6's intelligence.

I know that the Bush administration backed off the claim because the CIA's intelligence differed from Mi6's and was proven to false.

Regarding Saddam being connected to terroism it's simple he was. He sponsored suicide bombers in Israel. Time will tell us if there was a link between him and Al Queda.

[Lwood]

{ said:

>-(Gorf)-<[} link=board=news&thread=1085768488&start=5#0 date=1085851940]

In terms of the article claiming PNAC advocated a US presence whether Hussein was in power or not:


"Though the immediate mission of those forces is to enforce the no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq, they represent the long-term commitment of the United States and its major allies to a region of vital importance. Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

...


Although Saudi domestic sensibilities demand that the forces based in the Kingdom nominally remain rotational forces, it has become apparent that this is now a semi-permanent mission. From an American perspective, the value of such bases would endure even should Saddam pass from the scene.


...



Not sure which other pieces of the article you refer to in trying to claim they aren't present in the document, however, I found pretty much each of the snippets of text provided within the article to be present in the document you posted.

The Neil MacKay article said this: The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power.

That is different from the snippets you posted. Military control is dfferent than military presence. The U.S. has had a military presence in many parts of the world for a long time. The 'secret report' presents a reorganization of our military presence to better meet the challenges of the post-cold war.

[Gorf]

I can see where McKay could come up with his assumption with statements along the lines of this being in the PNAC document.

"American military preeminence will continue to rest in significant part on the ability to maintain sufficient land forces to achieve political goals such as removing a dangerous and hostile regime when necessary."

Making comments about deciding which "regimes" are "hostile" to our interests in a region and actively advocating their removal via military action certainly sounds like a desire to take control.

[Lwood]

{ said:

>-(Gorf)-<[} link=board=news&thread=1085768488&start=8#0 date=1085895738]I can see where McKay could come up with his assumption with statements along the lines of this being in the PNAC document.

"American military preeminence will continue to rest in significant part on the ability to maintain sufficient land forces to achieve political goals such as removing a dangerous and hostile regime when necessary."

Making comments about deciding which "regimes" are "hostile" to our interests in a region and actively advocating their removal via military action certainly sounds like a desire to take control.

The political goal of regime change in Iraq exited in Washington before Bush was elected. Many Democrats including Clinton were for a regime change. This document is not the hideous right wing world domination manifesto that MacKay's tone suggests. Articles like that is what makes conservatives loathe liberal "journalists". It took a stategic document completely out of context in an attempt to make the President look like emperialist.

[Gorf]

Don't you think it at all possible that McKay and others see "the context" of the document in a different way than you see it at least in part because of the other documents / articles / papers available from the PNAC site that show PNAC as the hardcore neo-cons that they happen to be and espouse?

[Lwood]

{ said:

>-(Gorf)-<[} link=board=news&thread=1085768488&start=10#0 date=1086006446]Don't you think it at all possible that McKay and others see "the context" of the document in a different way than you see it at least in part because of the other documents / articles / papers available from the PNAC site that show PNAC as the hardcore neo-cons that they happen to be and espouse?

The right has moved into an area that the left has occupied for many years - the "New World Order". Neo-cons are the right's answer to the left's neo-socialists advocating one world government. I'm not saying I agree with Bill Kristol, but I also do not agree with George Soros.

[Gorf]

I agree with you in not agreeing with either of them.

HA!

I bet you didn't expact that.