Number-crunching pollster sees decisive Obama win

#126
#126
emainvol said:
My biggest issue with Bush's statement about the yellowcake is that he said that it was being used to create nuclear weapons. At least if memory serves correct.
Click to expand...

Sort of.....the way I saw it was that the administration claimed there was an on-going nuclear program, including enrichment...for which the yellowcake would be a feedstock. They couldn't make their weapons directly out of yellowcake.
 
#130
#130
emainvol said:
I don't understand how that makes my argument inconsistent. Al-Qaeda was operating out of Afghanistan with the help of the Taliban. Al-Qaeda attacked us, therefore we were justified in going in to attempt to defeat them.
Click to expand...

That's correct, Al-Qaeda was operating out of Afghanistan just as they were out of many other countries. Why did we invade Afghanistan and not the Phillippines, for instance.
The inconsistency lies in that you believe the administration when it comes to Afghanistan but not when it comes to Iraq, and I’m curious why.
 
#131
#131
jcwvolfan said:
That's correct, Al-Qaeda was operating out of Afghanistan just as they were out of many other countries. Why did we invade Afghanistan and not the Phillippines, for instance.
The inconsistency lies in that you believe the administration when it comes to Afghanistan but not when it comes to Iraq, and I’m curious why.
Click to expand...

Because, Afghanistan was where the Al Qaeda leadership was.
 
#132
#132
jcwvolfan said:
That's correct, Al-Qaeda was operating out of Afghanistan just as they were out of many other countries. Why did we invade Afghanistan and not the Phillippines, for instance.
The inconsistency lies in that you believe the administration when it comes to Afghanistan but not when it comes to Iraq, and I’m curious why.
Click to expand...

Because in the years after Afghanistan it hasn't come out that Osama Bin Laden was never there.
 
#133
#133
MontereyVol said:
Because, Afghanistan was where the Al Qaeda leadership was.
Click to expand...


And according to the same administration and intelligence sources, Iraq is where SH kept his WMDs.

We can go back and forth on this all day. I guess my point is, why do so many people believe the administration or intelligence that built the case for invading Afghanistan and then the poo poo the admin and intel when it comes to Iraq?
 
#134
#134
emainvol said:
Because in the years after Afghanistan it hasn't come out that Osama Bin Laden was never there.
Click to expand...


Isn’t the fact that we haven’t found him proof that he was never there? That seems to be the argument when it comes to WMDs in Iraq. “No WMDs were ever found so that must mean they weren’t there.”
 
#135
#135
jcwvolfan said:
And according to the same administration and intelligence sources, Iraq is where SH kept his WMDs.

We can go back and forth on this all day. I guess my point is, why do so many people believe the administration or intelligence that built the case for invading Afghanistan and then the poo poo the admin and intel when it comes to Iraq?
Click to expand...

The key difference is that both classes of intelligence that the administration chose to go with led to invasions.

It was pretty obvious to Americans that Afghanistan was a reasonable place to go after OBL. The same can't be said for Iraq. If the entire intelligence apparatus was pretty sure that SH had nuclear WMDs at hand..then that's one thing....but after the fact, we have found out that wasn't the case....there were serious questions, yet we chose to go with the intelligence that led us to war (in this particular case).

Edit: By in this particular case I mean that I keep harping on one issue that still bothers me, the centrifuge issue...I'm not as knowledgeable on other issues that compelled the administration to invade Iraq.
 
#136
#136
jcwvolfan said:
Isn’t the fact that we haven’t found him proof that he was never there? That seems to be the argument when it comes to WMDs in Iraq. “No WMDs were ever found so that must mean they weren’t there.”
Click to expand...

WMDs can't dig themselves out of the ground and move when they see us coming.

Are you suggesting that it is easier to find a man than an inanimate object?
 
#140
#140
TennTradition said:
The key difference is that both classes of intelligence that the administration chose to go with led to invasions.

It was pretty obvious to Americans that Afghanistan was a reasonable place to go after OBL. The same can't be said for Iraq. If the entire intelligence apparatus was pretty sure that SH had nuclear WMDs at hand..then that's one thing....but after the fact, we have found out that wasn't the case....there were serious questions, yet we chose to go with the intelligence that led us to war (in this particular case).

Edit: By in this particular case I mean that I keep harping on one issue that still bothers me, the centrifuge issue...I'm not as knowledgeable on other issues that compelled the administration to invade Iraq.
Click to expand...

I believe that in the months prior to the invasion of Iraq the majority of the American public believed that SH posed a strong threat to our country. I don’t think they believed that Iraq was directly involved in 9/11. I think they believed that according to the current intelligence, going after SH and his supply of WMDs was the best way to stop another attack on US soil, after going after Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.

Earlier you mentioned the differing opinions between the DOD and DOE regarding SH nuclear program. Where else did the rest of the intelligence community fall on this?
 
#142
#142
emainvol said:
WMDs can't dig themselves out of the ground and move when they see us coming.
Click to expand...

This is correct. They can't move themselves. But neither can an ailing terrorist leader with a ton of camera equipment and a dialysis machine. Both would require someone else to move them.

And back to my earlier question: Why do you believe the info regarding Afghanistan and not the info regarding Iraq when they both came from the same source?
 
Last edited:
#144
#144
emainvol said:
polling seemed to indicate otherwise. I think at one point something like 60-70% of the country believed that Saddam was involved
Click to expand...

I stand corrected:
USATODAY.com - Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link

However, I would be interested in seeing the questions that were asked. There is a big difference between someone thinking that he helped fund Al-Qeada and believing that he was at the table when the plan was laid out. And any answer on this spectrum could have gone towards that 70%
 
#145
#145
jcwvolfan said:
This is correct. They can't move themselves. But neither can an ailing terrorist leader with a ton of camera equipment and a dialysis machine. Both would require someone else to move them.

And back to my earlier question: Why do you believe the info regarding Afghanistan and not the info regarding Iraq when they both came from the same source?
Click to expand...


It is much easier to believe something when in the 7 years since it happened no one has come out and said "this is bs."

I can't say the same about intelligence on Iraq
 
#146
#146
emainvol said:
We were justified in invading Afghanistan.

I don't care much for any democrat that allowed themselves to be misled. Hell, I was very skeptical from the beginning and I have no power.
Click to expand...

emainvol said:
It is much easier to believe something when in the 7 years since it happened no one has come out and said "this is bs."

I can't say the same about intelligence on Iraq
Click to expand...

Above you say you were skeptical from the beginning, not just after 7 years. Why were you skeptical?

Also, the reason people are saying that Iraq had WMDs was "bs" is because we haven't found any (by the way, we have found quite a few pre Gulf War WMDs). So I say that OBL being in Afghanistan is bs because we haven't found him. :p
 
#147
#147
jcwvolfan said:
Above you say you were skeptical from the beginning, not just after 7 years. Why were you skeptical?

Also, the reason people are saying that Iraq had WMDs was "bs" is because we haven't found any (by the way, we have found quite a few pre Gulf War WMDs). So I say that OBL being in Afghanistan is bs because we haven't found him. :p
Click to expand...

I was skeptical about Iraq because of our seeming unwillingness to let weapons inspectors continue to work inside the country, even when they were asking for more time.

It also seemed to me that the administration wasn't doing much to curb the public's feelings that Saddam was involved in 9/11. I feel that had they done so, Americans may not have been so accepting of the decision in the beginning. I suppose that it just looked as if the administration's mind was made up, we were going to war, and they didn't want public opinion getting in the way.
 
#148
#148
emainvol said:
I was skeptical about Iraq because of our seeming unwillingness to let weapons inspectors continue to work inside the country, even when they were asking for more time.

It also seemed to me that the administration wasn't doing much to curb the public's feelings that Saddam was involved in 9/11. I feel that had they done so, Americans may not have been so accepting of the decision in the beginning. I suppose that it just looked as if the administration's mind was made up, we were going to war, and they didn't want public opinion getting in the way.
Click to expand...

SH was the biggest obstacle to the inspectors doing their jobs. He is the one that would not allow them to conduct their inspections with the freedom that he originally agreed to. Which lead most people to think he was hiding something. That definitely didn’t help public perception.

Regarding the administration discouraging the public’s perception of Saddam’s involvement in 9/11, at that point the matter was still under investigation. Would it have been honest for the admin to say, “there was no involvement” when it was still being investigated?
 
#149
#149
jcwvolfan said:
SH was the biggest obstacle to the inspectors doing their jobs. He is the one that would not allow them to conduct their inspections with the freedom that he originally agreed to. Which lead most people to think he was hiding something. That definitely didn’t help public perception.

Regarding the administration discouraging the public’s perception of Saddam’s involvement in 9/11, at that point the matter was still under investigation. Would it have been honest for the admin to say, “there was no involvement” when it was still being investigated?
Click to expand...

I agree with your first point. He certainly didn't help himself.

As for your second point, the congressional investigators did say that there was no evidence of his involvement at that point. That was the anti-war crowd's main ammunition in their argument.
 
#150
#150
emainvol said:
As for your second point, the congressional investigators did say that there was no evidence of his involvement at that point. That was the anti-war crowd's main ammunition in their argument.
Click to expand...

True, and the American people could have based their opinion on whether SH was involved, on the congressional investigators. Also Congress wasn't the only entity investigating whether or not there was a connection.

Setting aside the SD/9-11 connection, I believe that there was still a strong case to be made for getting involved in Iraq. Right or wrong, the intelligence agencies of this county along with other countries believed SD had WMDs and was pursuing a nuclear program. As stated earlier, his reluctance to allow the investigators the freedom to search anywhere anytime added to the suspicion. As did the numerous UN resolutions that were ignored.

We had just invaded a country to attack a rogue government and the terrorist network they were supporting that was responsible for an attack on our country. The next natural question is, who is likely to attack us next, and do they have the means to do so. I don’t see how an argument can be made that Iraq and SH didn’t meet those criteria.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top