http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/02/14/flashback_biden_2002_on_saddam_we_have_to_eliminate_the_threat.html

I find this video very interesting, seeing how Joe Biden announced this morning that Iraq war wasn't worth `horrible price'.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100214/D9DRV98G1.html

Beating a dead horse. Nearly everyone bought into the hype of the war and the rational for it. Plus, at the time, going against the war was seen as unpatriotic as we were still in the post 9/11 we need to do everything we can do defeat evil time period.

Once the war started, the situation turned ugly, and the mismanagement/ poor judgments made by the Bush administration came out people's opinion started to change.

Hell, I even was for the war at the start, then once I found out the horrible intelligence failures and awful reasons why we went in, I became against it.

So, you can't comment on someting after you see the result? Plenty of things seem like a good idea at the outset only to seem 'not worth it' in the end. It's quite common in life...

Cool story, bro.

Given where he was on this issue before -- it would have been smart of Mr. Biden to simply not say anything. You know, simply shut up.

But like I said, that would have been the SMART thing to do. Smart and Biden don't go together.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: Hell, I even was for the war at the start, then once I found out the horrible intelligence failures and awful reasons why we went in, I became against it.

I was and am the same way and have the same feelings on it.

Strapping Young Lad wrote: Plenty of things seem like a good idea at the outset only to seem 'not worth it' in the end. It's quite common in life...

Like marriage?

Writerbuckeye wrote: Given where he was on this issue before -- it would have been smart of Mr. Biden to simply not say anything. You know, simply shut up.

But like I said, that would have been the SMART thing to do. Smart and Biden don't go together.

I agree with you that SMART and Biden don't go together, but I really have no problem with him saying this if he admits he was wrong for thinking we should have gone in in the first place.

I admit that my first feelings on the war were wrong and misguided, Biden should too.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: Beating a dead horse. Nearly everyone bought into the hype of the war and the rational for it. Plus, at the time, going against the war was seen as unpatriotic as we were still in the post 9/11 we need to do everything we can do defeat evil time period.

Once the war started, the situation turned ugly, and the mismanagement/ poor judgments made by the Bush administration came out people's opinion started to change.

Hell, I even was for the war at the start, then once I found out the horrible intelligence failures and awful reasons why we went in, I became against it.

So you were for it, before you invested any intellectual time into the source of the war, but after that you were against it.!!!!!!! You based it upon people's opinions??????

WTF. How can you be "for it", before you learned about the intelligence behind the war????? Head in the fucking sand? Nice job of calling a spade a spade, long after everyone else has already called it a spade. What a lame Mother Fucker, calling it out now.

^^^I suppose he should have been over in Iraq investigating on his own?

And you were basing your opinion on other people's opinions, it just happened to be opposite of P-town's.

Ghmothwdwhso wrote:

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: Beating a dead horse. Nearly everyone bought into the hype of the war and the rational for it. Plus, at the time, going against the war was seen as unpatriotic as we were still in the post 9/11 we need to do everything we can do defeat evil time period.

Once the war started, the situation turned ugly, and the mismanagement/ poor judgments made by the Bush administration came out people's opinion started to change.

Hell, I even was for the war at the start, then once I found out the horrible intelligence failures and awful reasons why we went in, I became against it.

So you were for it, before you invested any intellectual time into the source of the war, but after that you were against it.!!!!!!! You based it upon people's opinions??????

WTF. How can you be "for it", before you learned about the intelligence behind the war????? Head in the fucking sand? Nice job of calling a spade a spade, long after everyone else has already called it a spade. What a lame Mother Fucker, calling it out now.

Maybe if the president doesn't lie about it he could have made a judgement based on facts. And why do you give a shit whether he changed his mind once facts actually came to the surface??? Seems to me alot of people did so....

Most people were behind the idea of war during the times right after 9/11. Many were basing their veiws of the war on emotions more than anything and the pres was right there to play off those emotions, like any good leader.

Shit's not as black and white as you make it seem.

Strapping Young Lad wrote:
Shit's not as black and white as you make it seem.

It's generally brown, sometimes green after Thanksgiving.

I had a case of the greens today. Jagermister.......

Ghmothwdwhso wrote: So you were for it, before you invested any intellectual time into the source of the war, but after that you were against it.!!!!!!! You based it upon people's opinions??????

WTF. How can you be "for it", before you learned about the intelligence behind the war????? Head in the fucking sand? Nice job of calling a spade a spade, long after everyone else has already called it a spade. What a lame Mother Fucker, calling it out now.

lol. Other than the IAEA and a few nonproliferation experts, name one credible, mainstream source that was against the leadup to the war.

Remember, even the liberal NYT and Washington Post were for the war. It was believed the intelligence was "a slam dunk". Turns out, after the fact, looking at the rational and methodology the intel community used was deeply flawed. But, that wasn't public knowledge until after the start of the war.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:

lol. Other than the IAEA and a few nonproliferation experts, name one credible, mainstream source that was against the leadup to the war.

There weren't any. And that is a bloody shame. Especially after Iraq readmitted the inspectors unfettered in December of 02. If one questioned an Iraqi bombardment, you were publicly lambasted. You were labeled un-American, a terrorist hugger, or far worse.

With the snow job professed publicly by the Office of Special Plans, and the subsequent media blitz in September/October of 2002, I am surprised there was even one House member or Senator against the invasion. The war was "sold" on intel that just wasn't there. Lincoln Chafee, a true RINO if you will, went the extra nine yards in demandinga powerpoint presentation on the evidence before he voted. He voted no stating "there just isn't anything there" regarding Saddam and WMD.

Remember, even the liberal NYT and Washington Post were for the war. It was believed the intelligence was "a slam dunk". Turns out, after the fact, looking at the rational and methodology the intel community used was deeply flawed. But, that wasn't public knowledge until after the start of the war.

The NYTimes had their own warmonger on the case, Judith Miller. Nobody questioned her sources, nobody had the nads to do so. One year after 9-11, the US people were very scared. I was very scared. It's a goddam shame that the intelligence was manipulated to fit an agenda.

A full 70% of Americans thought Saddam Hussein was behind the attacks of 9-11 back in late 02. How in the hell can that be? I repeat, a full 70% of Americans believed Hussein was behind 9-11. All that, inspite of the known intel ay that time publicly stating that there was no connection...none at all. Sorry PTowne, but this whole endeavor was a premeditaded lie manufactured by a very bellicose band of neoconservatives, whose motto was "ready, shoot, aim."

Too many people people are quick to absolve the past administration for what they did. I don't buy into this..."OK. turn the page".

Especially, given the fact that 4200 young soldiers died, many of whom, thought they were atoning for 9-11.

I was against the war before it started based on holes in the thinking - Saddam was actually one of the more secularist regimes in the middle east, he wasn't behind 9/11 and Al-Qaeda and Saddam had a rocky past of hate toward each other and I doubted they had WMDs. I was also worried about post-victory and the super charged atmosphere after 9/11. Saddam was an evil man but there are many of those in the world and he really wasn't a threat to us. I thought going there could take our eye off the ball in Afghanistan of killing the terrorists who killed our fellow countrymen and was unfortunately proven right. I was labeled anti-American and even a supporter of the terrorists by some. I turned out to be right but seeing so many of my fellow countrymen being killed or severely injured there is sickening.

Footwedge wrote:

Especially, given the fact that 4200 young soldiers died, many of whom, thought they were atoning for 9-11.

I think this is an important point. I've heard from a few who felt mislead after signing up after 9/11, thinking they would fight the war on terror. Instead they fought Bush's war for middle east oil to support our careless oil consumption (Rush Limbaugh is my favorite example. The way he gloated about driving a gas-guzzler on purpose to piss off the left, while neglecting to be attentive to the fact that our military is risking their lives for our oil habit is pathetic).

It's funny that the right has the audacity to call anyone un-American and act like they are God's gift to the U.S. etc. after they voted Bush/Cheney in TWICE!!!!!! That's like the biggest blunder in American history, lol.

I was very skeptical about the war from the beginning, but i went along with it because if one person: Colin Powell. I had always thought highly of Powell, and I trusted that he wouldn't cherry pick intelligence to create a false premise for war.

Unfortunately, I was wrong.

Writerbuckeye wrote: Given where he was on this issue before -- it would have been smart of Mr. Biden to simply not say anything. You know, simply shut up.

But like I said, that would have been the SMART thing to do. Smart and Biden don't go together.

Biden is a laughingstock- he also was giving BHO credit for democracy and free elections in Iraq.

Writerbuckeye wrote: Given where he was on this issue before -- it would have been smart of Mr. Biden to simply not say anything. You know, simply shut up.

But like I said, that would have been the SMART thing to do. Smart and Biden don't go together.

Simply shut up? Now that sounds a little too repressive to me.

Footwedge wrote: A full 70% of Americans thought Saddam Hussein was behind the attacks of 9-11 back in late 02. How in the hell can that be? I repeat, a full 70% of Americans believed Hussein was behind 9-11. All that, inspite of the known intel ay that time publicly stating that there was no connection...none at all. Sorry PTowne, but this whole endeavor was a premeditaded lie manufactured by a very bellicose band of neoconservatives, whose motto was "ready, shoot, aim."

man the bullshit is deep in here. not even Bush claimed Saddam was behind 9/11. having ties to Al-Qaeda and being behind 9/11 are two different things. and just because Al-Qaeda may not have been in Iraq, doesnt mean other terrorists groups werent.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/13/alqaeda.saddam/
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9513/
http://www.husseinandterror.com/

Are we going to invade every country that is home to Islamic extremists who want to irradicate the western presence in areas that have high religious and historical importance to them??? I wonder why the country is bankrupt......

Wonder why they chose Iraq???? Hmm....

Glory Days wrote:

Footwedge wrote: A full 70% of Americans thought Saddam Hussein was behind the attacks of 9-11 back in late 02. How in the hell can that be? I repeat, a full 70% of Americans believed Hussein was behind 9-11. All that, inspite of the known intel ay that time publicly stating that there was no connection...none at all. Sorry PTowne, but this whole endeavor was a premeditaded lie manufactured by a very bellicose band of neoconservatives, whose motto was "ready, shoot, aim."

man the bullshit is deep in here. not even Bush claimed Saddam was behind 9/11. having ties to Al-Qaeda and being behind 9/11 are two different things. and just because Al-Qaeda may not have been in Iraq, doesnt mean other terrorists groups werent.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/13/alqaeda.saddam/
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9513/
http://www.husseinandterror.com/

The deep bullshit is coming from your post, not mine. Both Cheney and Rice directly connected Al Quada with 9-11.

Let me asky you, GD....if their wasn't a clear message of connecting Al Quada with Saddam, then why did over 70% of Americans think that Saddam was behind 9-11?

Apparently, you are inferring that that administration was on the up and up.

I can pull the actual quotes from Rice and Cheney if you want proof of their lying.

Ball's in your court...why did 70% of American believe Saddam was behind 9-11? back in 2002? Why?

As a sidenote...better than 50% STILL BElLIEVED the lies and thought Saddam was behind 9-11 pre election in 2004.

I'll post the links. if you want me to..but the exercize is fruitless. You will never accept the truth no matter what is posted.

Back to the topicv of the thread....there was a GREAT Op/Ed piece in yesterday's Columbus Dispatch about Biden's many liberties in taking credit for the work of other people.....including the topic of how the War in Iraq is progressing.

http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/editorials/stories/2010/02/16/calt16.ART_ART_02-16-10_A9_AHGJR3E.html?sid=101

Footwedge wrote:

Glory Days wrote:

Footwedge wrote: A full 70% of Americans thought Saddam Hussein was behind the attacks of 9-11 back in late 02. How in the hell can that be? I repeat, a full 70% of Americans believed Hussein was behind 9-11. All that, inspite of the known intel ay that time publicly stating that there was no connection...none at all. Sorry PTowne, but this whole endeavor was a premeditaded lie manufactured by a very bellicose band of neoconservatives, whose motto was "ready, shoot, aim."

man the bullshit is deep in here. not even Bush claimed Saddam was behind 9/11. having ties to Al-Qaeda and being behind 9/11 are two different things. and just because Al-Qaeda may not have been in Iraq, doesnt mean other terrorists groups werent.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/13/alqaeda.saddam/
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9513/
http://www.husseinandterror.com/

The deep bullshit is coming from your post, not mine. Both Cheney and Rice directly connected Al Quada with 9-11.

Let me asky you, GD....if their wasn't a clear message of connecting Al Quada with Saddam, then why did over 70% of Americans think that Saddam was behind 9-11?

Apparently, you are inferring that that administration was on the up and up.

I can pull the actual quotes from Rice and Cheney if you want proof of their lying.

Ball's in your court...why did 70% of American believe Saddam was behind 9-11? back in 2002? Why?

As a sidenote...better than 50% STILL BElLIEVED the lies and thought Saddam was behind 9-11 pre election in 2004.

I'll post the links. if you want me to..but the exercize is fruitless. You will never accept the truth no matter what is posted.

They made some loose (and brief) associations between Saddam and A-Q. They were dropped quickly when the evidence fell apart, i.e. the alleged Mohammed Atta meeting with the Iraqi operative.

Bush was clear on several occasions that there was no evidence tying him to 9/11. Here's one example.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4742.htm

There's a quote from Condi in there too...I certainly hope it's not the one you're referring to above. If so, I see why you're reluctant to post it.

Footwedge wrote:

Glory Days wrote:

Footwedge wrote: A full 70% of Americans thought Saddam Hussein was behind the attacks of 9-11 back in late 02. How in the hell can that be? I repeat, a full 70% of Americans believed Hussein was behind 9-11. All that, inspite of the known intel ay that time publicly stating that there was no connection...none at all. Sorry PTowne, but this whole endeavor was a premeditaded lie manufactured by a very bellicose band of neoconservatives, whose motto was "ready, shoot, aim."

man the bullshit is deep in here. not even Bush claimed Saddam was behind 9/11. having ties to Al-Qaeda and being behind 9/11 are two different things. and just because Al-Qaeda may not have been in Iraq, doesnt mean other terrorists groups werent.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/13/alqaeda.saddam/
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9513/
http://www.husseinandterror.com/

The deep bullshit is coming from your post, not mine. Both Cheney and Rice directly connected Al Quada with 9-11.

Let me asky you, GD....if their wasn't a clear message of connecting Al Quada with Saddam, then why did over 70% of Americans think that Saddam was behind 9-11?

Apparently, you are inferring that that administration was on the up and up.

I can pull the actual quotes from Rice and Cheney if you want proof of their lying.

Ball's in your court...why did 70% of American believe Saddam was behind 9-11? back in 2002? Why?

As a sidenote...better than 50% STILL BElLIEVED the lies and thought Saddam was behind 9-11 pre election in 2004.

I'll post the links. if you want me to..but the exercize is fruitless. You will never accept the truth no matter what is posted.

Do you mean Saddam? and I am sorry, but the ball has been in your court since you start spouting off bullshit numbers, you know, rule #5.

Footwedge wrote: I'll post the links. if you want me to..but the exercize is fruitless. You will never accept the truth no matter what is posted.

Post the links.