Story Comments
Posted by: Origin 1 year, 8 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
Origin1 year, 8 months ago
-
-
-
Neutral
djn3nunez31 year, 8 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, 8 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, 8 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, 8 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, 8 months ago
-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 8 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, 8 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, 8 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, 8 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, 8 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, 8 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, 8 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, 8 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, 8 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, 8 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, 8 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 -
-
-
-
loading ...
bonaroo
lum-chate
vidman04
djn3nunez3
Will1313
quackpot
mesodude
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin
Wolfie2007
gwhiddon
bluenote1522
joey-evans
rumple4skin
cushi
ETproductions
miklkit
jovial
juvel
Dionys
JohnQPublic
scott4261
expursuit
IneedIwantIgottahave
dissent
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.