Posted on 07/12/2003 8:25:42 AM PDT by Destro
Righto. The pre-war facts on the ground were that Iraq was contained. After the beating Saddam took in the Gulf War followed by a dozen years of bombing, no-fly zoning, sanctions and inspections, Iraq was a military basket case.
If Iraq was our main security threat, we would expect those color alerts never to rise again. We were had by the Rice's unknown 'bowels of government'. Just as was Clinton's bombings in Kosovo, Serbia and Africa. We should have focused on Afghan's Al-Queda, then over and out and build our military. We have more to fear from Weapons of Small Destruction, like box-cutters, anthrax, and personal bombs than nuclear WMD.
I suggest that no one reads this thread any more, and goes on to read and post to much better threads!
You misunderstood me. I agree that it was the central justification for going into Iraq. I said that I think the Bush administration understated the case of WMD. There was actually far more evidence that WMD and programs to develop them existed than the Bush administration used. Anybody who claims otherwise is either ignorant (probably simply has not read the UN reports) or has a burning cause to pursue.
I also agree that we have a right to know exactly how this turns out and I would further state that impeachment may be appropro IF nothing whatsoever is found or revealed. But that will not be the case. The WMD did exist and the traces and records and materials and evidence and testimony will be found and displayed to the world.
You see, we learned from history, something that liberals are incapable of doing.
I guess from your comment that you want increased and larger federal government, that you dont want any cuts in federal spending, that you dont want any government agency eliminated, and that you dont want gross total taxes(including deficit spending) reduced in real terms. If you call yourself a republican, you are not correct.
I want a smaller federal governemnt, with less taxes, less spending, fewer federal government agencies and departments, etc. If you have a problem or disagreement with my concept of republicanism, then you and I disagree. However, if you call yourself a republican, then you have a problem.
Only one?
If Iraq was our main security threat, we would expect those color alerts never to rise againNon-sequitor. Eliminating one threat does not eliminate all threats.
But come to think of it, the level hasn't been raised in a while, has it? How about that!
There's a big difference in those two statements. Even I think the administration is guilty of salesmanship.
JMO, but according to your standards, he is not. He cut taxes and increased spending.
Why not the "tar and feather" spiel for Ronald Reagan?
Huh? Where were you in ww2? Millions of jews did die. Many nations were conquered.
Anyways, none of that is relevent, the fact is that we were provided proof of what the nazis did. FDR did not lie. Now that the war with Iraq is over, where is bush's proof for this one? No noone hid the truth about ww2 after the war was over, so no one should hide the truth about Iraq now that this one is over.
If you truly think Bush lied and that Saddam was NOT a threat, then I guess you believe all these people have a lot of explaining to do as well:
"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, 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." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998
"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained 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 capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002
"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998
"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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998
"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002
"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998
"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998
Let's see what you just did to my quote. First, the original:
You see, unlike WWII, we did not wait until there were millions of dead Jews, handicapped, old people, you name it. And we did not wait until the enemy had conquered several nations. And we did not wait until the entire world was embroiled in war.See that word unlike there? It is pretty significant. Removing it changes the entire meaning, as demonstrated by what you replied to:
Where were you in ww2? Millions of jews did die. Many nations were conquered.Precisely, my peacenik friend. Precisely. And unlike then, we did not wait this time for those things to happen again. We learned from history that you do not let these viper nests fester and grow.
Perhaps you just made a mistake in your editing there. Or perhaps you have difficulty reading English. Or perhaps you were acting as liberals always do, trying to change inconvenient facts and truths to suit a reality you wish, oh how you wish, was real.
I was a gleem in my Father's eye, but I read the history of WWII from many sources.
Anyways, none of that is relevent, the fact is that we were provided proof of what the nazis did. FDR did not lie. Now that the war with Iraq is over, where is bush's proof for this one? No noone hid the truth about ww2 after the war was over, so no one should hide the truth about Iraq now that this one is over.
Actually it is, because during World War II, many critics of FDR(later day Buchanan isolationists), claimed he knew that Pearl Harbor was going to happen and let it happen, and he had to suffer their broadsides.
JMO, but I am glad for FDR's and Churchill's leadership during World War II.
Yes I have political animus for FDR's legacy of domestic socialism, but not for his wartime leadership.
Oh BTW, before you type your next reply that Bush is a FDR socialist, let me remind you that Bush has stated that FDR's golden goose legacy, social security, should be privatized.
Talk is cheap, and worth nothing. Look at what bush does, not what he says.
What has bush actually done about eliminating the H1-B visas, where has he submitted legislation to repeal any gun control laws or submitted legislation to make ccw national, what government agencies and departments has he eliminated or reduced? Has bush reduced federal spending? Has bush repealed laws which invade american citizen privacy? What has bush done to encourage american companies to open and expand new factories and jobs in the United States? How many american troops has bush deployed along our mexican border?
I will believe bush is a republican when he actually does something republican.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.