Story Comments
Posted by: quackpot 1 year, 7 months ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
Neutral
quackpot1 year, 7 months ago
-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 7 months ago
-
Neutral
Origin1 year, 7 months ago
-
-
-
Neutral
djn3nunez31 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ah the invasion and occupation of Iraq had nothing to do with the terrorist bin Laden. Well, other than the President and Co. used his name in conjunction with Saddam Hussein to scare the bejesus out of the Ameri-coned coinsumers....
Reply-
Neutral
injest1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"bin Laden. Well, other than the President and Co. used his name in conjunction with Saddam Hussein"
For those of us that understand the world is not re-created every 4 years on Jan 21, know Bin Laden had been linked (by our government, top down) to Saddam, long before Bush ever took office.
Reply-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What do you mean by linked? If you mean that Saddam told bin Ladin point blank that he didn't want him in his country, then yes, I suppose they had been linked. If you mean that Saddam gave comfort and aid to bin Ladin, that is incorrect.
Reply-
capecoralMComment removed: Retracted by user22 Replies
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Come on. We ALL know the 2 were linked.
First, they had all those assassins they sent to kill each other.
Second, they both had ties to the Bush family. Saddam got weapons from Daddy Bush & Osama also got weapons from daddy, along with close family ties.
So, injest is correct. There WERE ties between the 2. Not just the ones he's trying to insinuate.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 7 months ago
-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
See that's where liberals like you fall down. You don't realize that if it comes to moral issues like lying about getting a hummer in the White House it is an impeachable offense. Lying about WMD's to force a war to get free bennies for your buddies in the oil industry is alllll gooood.
I don't know if President Bush lied about WMD's or if he just didn't know, but either way it's dicey, but that's not even what they should get the criminals for. The criminality is for their extraordinary blindness when it comes to the Constitution and enforcing the law of the land.
Reply-
Neutral
injest1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Bkumm
"Lying about WMD's to force a war to get free bennies for your buddies in the oil industry is alllll gooood."
For those of us that understand the world is not re-created every 4 years on Jan 21, know Saddam had been linked (by our government, top down) to WMDs, long before Bush ever took office.
Fact is we now know there were no WMDs after 1994. The question now is why didn't we know from 1994 to 2003 that Saddam had no WMD's.
I would welcome an investigation into that. Since it would cover just about every combination of Dem/Repub government it would not be seen as a witch hunt.
That would require EVERY senator in office 1998 to account for their claim that Saddam HAD WMDs then (there were more repubs than dems in 1998).
It would require EVERY member of the Clinton admin to account for their claim that Saddam HAD WMDs
Now if you think this will ever happen you vary naïve.
Reply-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If we were talking about when we attacked Saddam Hussein's Iraq in 1999 with cruise missiles you would be correct. Since we're actually discussing events that took place nearly three years LATER, that isn't relevant.
I'd welcome an inquiry into the whole thing, top to bottom. But, if we're going to do it, it should be done by the Swiss or the Norwegians or somebody else that isn't beholden to the US for anything. And there would have to be complete transparency by five Administrations which ain't gonna happen.
And Saddam and bin Ladin had no prior connections except for their mutual dislike and distrust. The claim that they did have ties is simply not true.
Reply-
-
Neutral
Candida1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't want to defend Clinton's decision to bomb Iraq but, if I remember correctly, the weapons inspectors weren't allowed to look for the WMD in the 1990s, but they were allowed in 2002 and 2003. Three weeks before the invasion, they reported that Iraq had no nuclear program, but that didn't stop the image of a mushroom cloud being evoked at every opportunity.
Reply-
Neutral
djn3nunez31 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"if I remember correctly, the weapons inspectors weren't allowed to look for the WMD in the 1990s,"
Actually they were and by 1995 had seen to the distruction of most of what Saddam had. By 1996 Saddam claimed that the US was inflitrating the inspction team with spies and identified several teams that he would not allow access to certain areas. Other teams that he did not supcect as having spies were still allowed unfettered access to all sites in Iraq. This situation eventually lead to the UN pulling out the inspection teams in anticipation of Clintons cruise missile attaks in 1998.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It isn't relevant because we're talking about two different things. Whether or not the Nixon administration said that there were WMD's in Iraq is not relevant. You are responsible for what happens on your watch. That means that if your Intel guys screw the pooch you take the blame. Good and bad.
It's like saying that President Clinton isn't responsible for what happened at Waco because the investigation of David Koresh and the Branch Davidians started under the Bush I Administration.
Reply -
Neutral
djn3nunez31 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Clinton (nor any of his officals) never stated that he knew where they were. He(they) was using such statements to defend the continuation of the sanctions being imposed on Iraq. He never used them to lauch an invasion and never suggested that an invasion or occupation would be necesary.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
>>Saddam had been linked ... to WMDs, long before Bush ever took office.
Imagine that. We knew Saddam had WMD's that WE gave to him. Wow.
>>why didn't we know from 1994 to 2003 that Saddam had no WMD's.
That's why the inspectors were there - to see what he had & to destroy them.
>>It would require EVERY member of the Clinton admin to account for their claim that Saddam HAD WMDs
And Clinton was pushing for the inspectors to make sure Saddam got rid of whatever WMD's he had left.
Reply-
Neutral
Lurch1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually we knew up until the inspectors left in 1998 that Saddam had no WMD producing or storage facilities and since then the UN and all countries have been working incredibly hard to ensure no dual-use equipment was provided to Iraq. Ask any WMD expert. Without the proper equipment to weaponize the WMD, its more dangerous to the people storing or handling it than to any target.
Cattle are killed every year by Anthrax. It grows naturally. But to use it as a weapon, takes incredibly advanced and expensive equipment as well as highly-trained experts. Neither of which Iraq had.
Reply-
Neutral
miklkit1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Umm, about anthrax.....
http://www.propeller.com/viewstory/2008/01/29/h...
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Lurch1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
> I don't know if President Bush lied about WMD's or if he just didn't know
935 proven, known lies later...
http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/
>The criminality is for their extraordinary blindness when it comes to the Constitution and enforcing the law of the land.
Only an America-hater would want to prevent or divert an investigation into the Bush administration. Speaking of which, what kind of investigation does McCain intend to do of the Bush admin?
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
grungeplunge1 year, 7 months ago
-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Oh please.
Comparing an investigation of whether or not BushCo broke the laws of our nation in their pursuit of stuffing money into their friends pocket is hardly comparable to any of the Inquisitions.
Why are Cons always so afraid of investigations of their own, but so loud about investigating the 'other.'
Should I quote the usual Con line that always goes with the violation of law regarding domestic wiretapping? "If you've got nothing to hide, what are you afraid of?" Personally I'm afraid of a unitary executive that violates the constitution and our nation's laws left and right without consequence.
Reply -
-
Neutral
djn3nunez31 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Principles
Principle VI
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
(a) Crimes against peace:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/docs/memotext.pdf
"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism
and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
"Hangins too good for him. Burnins too good for him. He should be torn into little bits and buried alive!"
-Hanover Fist, (Trial of Captain Stern.)
Heavy Metal
Reply-
-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Why the negs, mcarpentry & Wolfie2007? Do you LIKE torture? Do you like it that we are now engaging in the same acts as some of the worst despots in history?
And now I'm hearing a report that we are one of the top executioner states, right up there with China, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, & Iran.
Do you enjoy keeping company w/countries we condemn for their human rights violations?
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
JohnQPublicComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Blackacereturn1 year, 7 months ago
-
-
-
Neutral
tanglang1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Oh Jovi calm down. I did not scream bloody murder. What I did do was point out the fact that you said that, (and props for finnaly admitting it, in the past you said "How do you know I was not talking about one opf your siblings?") the same day that you were talking about how someone else insulted you. I used your words to prove your hypocrisy.
And for the record, I did not insult BAR. I asked him what kind of stupid he was. There is a difference.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
Neutral
tanglang1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I would like to submit these two links as exhibit A.
http://politics.propeller.com/story/2008/04/13/...
http://politics.propeller.com/story/2008/04/13/...
They show how incorrect you are.
Reply -
Neutral
tanglang1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I liked the love note you sent me today Tessy. It made me feel all warm and funny inside knowing that someone like you feels so strongly about me. Unfortunately I am taken. Sorry. :( However, the next time I am in the market for some thing like you I will let you know.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
slate1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
(((((Obama was also careful to say that he would not want such an investigation to become a witch-hunt.)))
He says to the onlooking witches and warlocks. What do you think it will turn out to be? Look at all the witch hunting that's gone on over the last two years since the Dems won the House.
Reply-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
>>Look at all the witch hunting that's gone on over the last two years since the Dems won the House.
2 years? Since when is 15 months 2 years?
And don't you think that Congress should exercise its constitutional authority over oversight of the executive branch? What other constitutional rights do you think should be stripped? Illegal wire taps, illegal search & seizure, illegal spying on US citizens, indefinite detention? What rights are you willing to give up for the sake of your Republican party?
Reply
-
-
loading ...
People Who Liked This Comment (31)
-
engineer
-
joey-evans
-
Pretko
-
rumple4skin
-
cushi
-
Amazing1
-
ETproductions
-
Lurch
-
miklkit
-
jovial
-
djn3nunez3
-
Niimki
-
Beau7890
-
juvel
-
Will1313
-
Candida
-
mesodude
-
JohnQPublic
-
canadianrancher57
-
dunkirk
-
NoWayMan
-
scott4261
-
ML2007
-
IneedIwantIgottahave
-
dissent
-
augustine974
-
grungeplunge
-
AtheismIsReality
-
Wolfie2007
-
bluetexasvalley
-
ernievega
People Who Didn't Like This Comment (0)
No one voted this comment negatively.
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.