Washington football community discussions spanning the Redskins to Commanders era. 20+ years of game analysis, player discussions, and fan perspectives.
https://the-hogs.net/messageboard/
Redskins Rule wrote:You know what I really find funny about the whole thing. All of you Republicans seemed to have VERY strong feelings when Clinton shot his load on his secretary's dress, but don't have any feelings about Cheney shooting his shotgun into a friends face and chest. I just don't get it!
You know what I really find funny about the whole thing. All of you Republicans seemed to have VERY strong feelings when Clinton shot his load on his secretary's dress, but don't have any feelings about Cheney shooting his shotgun into a friends face and chest. I just don't get it!
thaiphoon wrote:Redskins Rule:You know what I really find funny about the whole thing. All of you Republicans seemed to have VERY strong feelings when Clinton shot his load on his secretary's dress, but don't have any feelings about Cheney shooting his shotgun into a friends face and chest. I just don't get it!
I'm on record as saying it was not a good thing. It was an accident and it should've been handled differently by the VP and his people and by the WH... but it was an accident and was investigated. Now as for Clintons "load"...I had no problem with that (I mean look at his wife - does anyone wanna come anywhere near that harpy?? j/k). I did have a tad of a problem when he tried to corrupt the proceedings of a co-equal branch of government by lying under oath. Most of the people I've talked to on the Right feel the same way about it.
NikiH wrote:Obviously none of you have ever done this type of hunting. When I have a free moment I am going to post a link that explains why the guy was off to Cheney's side and explain each person's role in this type of hunting. It will show you that while Cheney was partially at fault, the gentleman who walked in the spray of his gun was also at fault. Mind you this man was NOT shot with a bullet as some of you are picturing. Educate yourself and then speak. If every American did this before opening their mouth and letting every opinionated thought out we'd all be better for it.
thaiphoon wrote:No worries man - I don't mind the sweeping generalizations and don't get upset like others when it happens. I would tell you that alot of Republicans I've talked to agree that the problem wasn't the affair (people have them all the time)...it was manner and the place in which it was done and also the lying under oath that was the problem.
Wow. You must really be ticked off that Bush sent Powell to lie about WMD at the UN and that his representatives were once instructed to lie to congress about even the budget.
Oh, didn't Libby lie under oath?
Rove?
And how about that affair Bush senior conducted at Camp David...that really ticked you guys off...didn't it?
and Eisenhower's gal?
NikiH wrote:Obviously none of you have ever done this type of hunting. When I have a free moment I am going to post a link that explains why the guy was off to Cheney's side and explain each person's role in this type of hunting. It will show you that while Cheney was partially at fault, the gentleman who walked in the spray of his gun was also at fault. Mind you this man was NOT shot with a bullet as some of you are picturing. Educate yourself and then speak. If every American did this before opening their mouth and letting every opinionated thought out we'd all be better for it.
thaiphoon wrote:Quote:
Wow. You must really be ticked off that Bush sent Powell to lie about WMD at the UN and that his representatives were once instructed to lie to congress about even the budget.
Would love to see you prove a lie here...
He said that Iraq was trying to get nukes. Later it came out that Bush had already been told by the CIA that this was BULLCRUD. In other words Bush knew Iraq wasn't trying to get nukes and he still said it before both houses of Congress and the American People. This incident later led Rove to do his thing. By the way.....why do you think his testimony is sealed? What does he have to hide?thaiphoon wrote:Wow. You must really be ticked off that Bush sent Powell to lie about WMD at the UN and that his representatives were once instructed to lie to congress about even the budget.
Would love to see you prove a lie here...
Redskins Rule wrote:You know what I really find funny about the whole thing. All of you Republicans seemed to have VERY strong feelings when Clinton shot his load on his secretary's dress, but don't have any feelings about Cheney shooting his shotgun into a friends face and chest. I just don't get it!
DEHog wrote:Redskins Rule wrote:You know what I really find funny about the whole thing. All of you Republicans seemed to have VERY strong feelings when Clinton shot his load on his secretary's dress, but don't have any feelings about Cheney shooting his shotgun into a friends face and chest. I just don't get it!
Any you never will...Reps and Dems aside surely you can see one was a "choice" while the other was a "accident" Please tell me you get that!!
There is a lie there. You probably don't remember the Presidents State of the Union address the year before we went to war. It was a couple of years ago so I understand
He said that Iraq was trying to get nukes. Later it came out that Bush had already been told by the CIA that this was BULLCRUD.
In other words Bush knew Iraq wasn't trying to get nukes and he still said it before both houses of Congress and the American People. This incident later led Rove to do his thing.
By the way.....why do you think his testimony is sealed? What does he have to hide?
thaiphoon wrote:Wrong. They were...500 tons of uranium were found in Iraq and 5 tons had been processed. Additionally, the recently declassified tapes of Saddam show that he was trying to build a nuke and refine the uranium through a process called "plasma separation". BTW- there are about 2 million or more items containing documents (i.e.- CD's harddrives, audiotapes, etc...) that were captured by coalition authorities and are being translated. 50,000 so far have been translated. Know what else they found so far ?? That inside these documents are the names and backgrounds of 8,000 or more terrorists who trained in Iraq from 1999-2002. Eight thousand terrorists trained in Iraq under Saddam! And the anti-war MSM along with apologists for Saddam still blindly insist that Saddam had no ties to al Qaeda and to terrorist organizations.
You need to source a statement like that.
"The United States has informed an international agency that oversees nuclear materials that it intends to move hundreds of tons of uranium from a sealed repository south of Baghdad to a more secure place outside Iraq. The repository, at Tuwaitha, a centerpiece of Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program until it was largely shut down after the first Persian Gulf war in 1991, holds more than 500 tons of uranium,"
"None of it [is] enriched enough to be used directly in a nuclear weapon."
"some 1.8 tons" that they "classified as low-enriched uranium."
a more potent form" of the nuclear fuel, it was "still not sufficient for a weapon. Consulted about the low-enriched uranium discovery, however, Ivan Oelrich, a physicist at the Federation of American Scientists, told the Associated Press that if it was of the 3 percent to 5 percent level of enrichment common in fuel for commercial power reactors, the 1.8 tons could be used to produce enough highly enriched uranium to make a single nuclear bomb. And Thomas B. Cochran, director of the nuclear program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, told the Times that the low-enriched uranium could be useful to a nation with nuclear ambitions. "A country like Iran could convert that into weapons-grade material with a lot fewer centrifuges than would be required with natural uranium," he explained.
There is one sentence in Paul Pillar’s new Foreign Affairs article that
says all you need to know about the role intelligence played in the
decision to invade Iraq: “As the national intelligence officer for the
Middle East [2000-2005], I was in charge of coordinating all of the
intelligence community's assessments regarding Iraq; the first request I
received from any administration policymaker for any such assessment was
not until a year into the war.”
This article contains many more stunning insights. Pillar’s insider’s
look at the Iraq intelligence process confirms the findings of the January
2004 Carnegie study, WMD in Iraq: Evidence and Implications. Pillar
concludes, as did the Carnegie authors, that the assessment process was
highly politicized by the White House, that pressure was brought to bear
on analysts to agree with a predetermined policy, and that while many
analysts thought that Saddam had some weapons, the real pre-war debate was
not over weapons but over war. Pillar says :
[The White House] perception of Saddam's weapons capacities was shared by
the Clinton administration, congressional Democrats, and most other
Western governments and intelligence services. But…intelligence on Iraqi
weapons programs did not drive its decision to go to war. A view broadly
held in the United States and even more so overseas was that deterrence of
Iraq was working, that Saddam was being kept "in his box," and that the
best way to deal with the weapons problem was through an aggressive
inspections program to supplement the sanctions already in place. That the
administration arrived at so different a policy solution indicates that
its decision to topple Saddam was driven by other factors -- namely, the
desire to shake up the sclerotic power structures of the Middle East and
hasten the spread of more liberal politics and economics in the region.”
Pillar acknowledges that the intelligence analysts made serious mistakes,
still, he finds:
Official intelligence on Iraqi weapons programs was flawed, but even with
its flaws, it was not what led to the war. On the issue that mattered
most, the intelligence community judged that Iraq probably was several
years away from developing a nuclear weapon. The October 2002 NIE also
judged that Saddam was unlikely to use WMD against the United States
unless his regime was placed in mortal danger.
thaiphoon wrote:There is a lie there. You probably don't remember the Presidents State of the Union address the year before we went to war. It was a couple of years ago so I understand
Actually I do...He said that Iraq was trying to get nukes. Later it came out that Bush had already been told by the CIA that this was BULLCRUD.
Wrong. They were...500 tons of uranium were found in Iraq and 5 tons had been processed. Additionally, the recently declassified tapes of Saddam show that he was trying to build a nuke and refine the uranium through a process called "plasma separation". BTW- there are about 2 million or more items containing documents (i.e.- CD's harddrives, audiotapes, etc...) that were captured by coalition authorities and are being translated. 50,000 so far have been translated. Know what else they found so far ?? That inside these documents are the names and backgrounds of 8,000 or more terrorists who trained in Iraq from 1999-2002. Eight thousand terrorists trained in Iraq under Saddam! And the anti-war MSM along with apologists for Saddam still blindly insist that Saddam had no ties to al Qaeda and to terrorist organizations.
Going forward - > George Tenet, his own CIA director, assured him that the case was “a slam dunk.” This phrase would later become notorious, but in using it, Tenet had the backing of all fifteen agencies involved in gathering intelligence for the United States. In the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of 2002, where their collective views were summarized, one of the conclusions offered with “high confidence” was that;
Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding its chemical, biological, nuclear, and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions.
The intelligence agencies of Britain, Germany, Russia, China, Israel, and—yes—France all agreed with this judgment. And even Hans Blix—who headed the UN team of inspectors trying to determine whether Saddam had complied with the demands of the Security Council that he get rid of the weapons of mass destruction he was known to have had in the past—lent further credibility to the case in a report he issued only a few months before the invasion:
The discovery of a number of 122-mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker, and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions. . . . They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for.In other words Bush knew Iraq wasn't trying to get nukes and he still said it before both houses of Congress and the American People. This incident later led Rove to do his thing.
Wrong again...the information presented to Congress was the information that was given to them. If you were in a closed room with no windows and I told you it was 8pm at night outside and it was really noon and you called and told your wife that it was 8pm...are you lying ?? Or just repeating information that was supplied that was incorrect??
BTW- what lead Rove to do his thing was that Joseph Wilson lied about what he found.
Finally -> The consensus on which Bush relied was not born in his own administration. In fact, it was first fully formed in the Clinton administration. Here is Clinton himself, speaking in 1998:
If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons-of-mass-destruction program.
Here is his Secretary of State Madeline Albright, also speaking in 1998:
Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.
Here is Sandy Berger, Clinton’s National Security Adviser, who chimed in at the same time with this flat-out assertion about Saddam:
He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.
Finally, Clinton’s Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, was so sure Saddam had stockpiles of WMD that he remained “absolutely convinced” of it even after our failure to find them in the wake of the invasion in March 2003.
Nor did leading Democrats in Congress entertain any doubts on this score. A few months after Clinton and his people made the statements I have just quoted, a group of Democratic Senators, including such liberals as Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, and John Kerry, urged the President;
to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons-of-mass-destruction programs.
Nancy Pelosi, the future leader of the Democrats in the House, and then a member of the House Intelligence Committee, added her voice to the chorus:
Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons-of-mass-destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.
This Democratic drumbeat continued and even intensified when Bush succeeded Clinton in 2001, and it featured many who would later pretend to have been deceived by the Bush White House. In a letter to the new President, a number of Senators led by Bob Graham declared:
There is no doubt that . . . Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical, and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf war status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.
Senator Carl Levin also reaffirmed for Bush’s benefit what he had told Clinton some years earlier:
Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton agreed, speaking in October 2002:
In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical- and biological-weapons stock, his missile-delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members.
Senator Jay Rockefeller, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, agreed as well:
There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. . . . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.
Even more striking were the sentiments of Bush’s opponents in his two campaigns for the presidency. Thus Al Gore in September 2002:
We know that [Saddam] has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.
And here is Gore again, in that same year:
Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.
Now to John Kerry, also speaking in 2002:
I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force—if necessary—to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.
Perhaps most startling of all, given the rhetoric that they would later employ against Bush after the invasion of Iraq, are statements made by Senators Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd, also in 2002:
Kennedy: We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.
Byrd: The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical- and biological-warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons.
If you think Bush and Powell lied then these people also lied...my guess is that you don't think they lied...By the way.....why do you think his testimony is sealed? What does he have to hide?
Because grand jury testimony is sealed my friend ...
I only got a couple sentences to respond with......That was some serious detail you went into. It was weird though. A very intelligent response from a Republican. I'm not used to this. Anyways, If Iraq had weapons of mass destruction as you are so sure they did.....where are they? All that I've heard from just about everybody is that there are no WMD's in Iraq. You know how easy it is to make one? You can go on a shopping trip to your local grocery store and pick up some things. Its so easy. Why didn't they use it? Iraq was getting its butt kicked toward the end of the war. I mean, Saddam went to live in a mud whole for crying out loud. If he was that desperate why didn't he use it. Where is it? Where are they? Where is the bomb? Where is the nuclear plant to make one? No, not the one that was destroyed over two decades ago. I mean an active plant. North Korea has one. They've made a couple of bombs. Where is Iraq's plant? Sorry dude, but I don't buy into your post one bit.If Iraq had weapons of mass destruction as you are so sure they did.....where are they? All that I've heard from just about everybody is that there are no WMD's in Iraq.
You know how easy it is to make one? You can go on a shopping trip to your local grocery store and pick up some things. Its so easy. Why didn't they use it?
Where is the bomb? Where is the nuclear plant to make one? No, not the one that was destroyed over two decades ago. I mean an active plant. North Korea has one. They've made a couple of bombs. Where is Iraq's plant?
Sorry dude, but I don't buy into your post one bit.