Thinking out loud

[Martus]

Ok everyone, I'm thinking out loud here.

I've heard so much on the news about the evidence for WMDs which was the reason for the war is shaky.

I'd hate to think that I was lied to. I've been all for President Bush in whatever he's done. But if it comes out that there was really no evidence and that we've been lied to, I'll be VERY P.O.'ed.

Anyone else thinking this way? Help!!

[TLBSHOW]

Anyone else thinking this way? Help!!


Nope! No one is thinking that way on this issue.

[ETERNAL WARMING]

I sure wouldn't like it either. Having said that, to my mind there were other valid reasons to go in...one of them being that Saddam has always been a big supporter of terrorism. How does one have a War on Terror without taking out the sponsors? To me it was more important to take him out before he got the weapons. Believing that, I find it hypocritical to ignore Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, and the Palestinians. THAT galls me.

[Keith in Iowa]

Back from your time-out eh?

[ETERNAL WARMING]

I sure wouldn't like it either. Having said that, to my mind there were other valid reasons to go in...one of them being that Saddam has always been a big supporter of terrorism. How does one have a War on Terror without taking out the sponsors? To me it was more important to take him out before he got the weapons. Believing that, I find it hypocritical to ignore Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, and the Palestinians, etc. THAT galls me.

[nopardons]

Are you certain that you really ARE a Conservative and that you belong here ?

We, as a nation, weren't " lied to " and the win / win situation, re the Iraq War, is that America is no longer viewed as a " paper tiger ", Saddam's regime is gone,Saddam's no longer sending money to the families of Pali suicide bomer killers, and this president just may pull off an Israeli/Pali peace plan. That's just for starters, newbie.

[america-rules]

A friend called me today and said what do you think of the WMD scam. I said are you questioning Presidant Clinton, VP Gore, the UN and the Clinton CIA ? He says what you mean. I said just look up Rush's site and you'll see many times where Clinton said Iraq has WMD etc and the line goes silent. He changed the subject !

[TLBSHOW]

I had a little trouble logging in for a few days! :>)

[RJayneJ]

Exactly who is lying? George Bush the elder? Bill Clinton? The UN? They all claimed that Iraq had WMD. None made any stronger argument that they had them than Bill Clinton, so that would be a good place to start since he preceeds this president.

Quote of the Day by friendly

[Pro-Bush]

Patients...President Bush is very smart. He is setting up the Press and Democrats. Evidence will surface in July.

[stockpixx]

Are you a democratic plant???
You seem like one...
I love this Pres and it has only been like what 2 months???
Go back to DU where you belong OK???

[PeaceBeWithYou]

Do you smell something?

Is your skin tingling?

Just curious.

[wardaddy]

1) Lots of chem suits all over Iraq.
2) Aired communications between command in Iraq instructing them to prepare such weapons.
3) Use of said weapons before on Iraqi citizens and Iranians
4) Atomic Reactor thankfully destroyed by Israel with our birds 20 years ago.
5) Public testimony from a variety of defectors
6) UN Inspectors even claiming there was ample evidence before.
7) Abnormal levels of mustard and other nerve agents present in the Tigris and Euphrates

I could go on and on....nobody lied to you. These weapons are hidden well or were taken into Syria or elsewhere or destroyed perhaps after the invasion or more likely a combination of the above.

But above all I don't give a shite, we got rid of a terr sponsor, freed some folks living under a family of maniacs and sent a collassal message to our foes and the namby pambies that we are their overlords!!!

(sort of kidding on that last...couldn't resist)

[gaucho]

Lied is a strong word in this case. Assumptions may have been made that weapons where present and there was every indication to believe they where. Intelligence and reports from defectors certainly gave the impression that there was WMD development during the Clinton Administration and the current Bush Administration. Saddam certainly didn't help matters by playing cat and mouse games. Given the type of person Saddam is, his sponsorship of terrorism and his brutality (not to mention the links to WTC 93 and 2001) I think that President Bush did the right thing in taking him down. When it comes to evil people like Saddam, it's better to err on the side of our protection.

For example, the mobile facilities the US Armed Forces found which where just like the ones that Powell described at the UN in Feb where suspicious. If they really had nothing to hide, how come Saddam didn't produce these mobile facilities for inspection?

[Paleo Conservative]

It was Iraq that had the burden of proof to show it no longer had WMD. It kicked out UN inspectors in the 90s sent to make sure Iraq complied with the terms of the cease fire. I really don't care if Saddam did destroy all his WMD (which I seriously doubt). The world is better off without Saddam and his Baathist party. Both should have been eliminated back in 1991, but we didn't get rid of Hussein due to the concerns of some of the UN coalition partners.

Saddam's representatives signed a cease fire at Saffwan, Iraq in 1991. In that cease fire agreement, the Iraqi government was required to eliminate all WMD and submit to UN inspections to prove he no longer posessed them. The acts of intimidation against UN inspectors and throwing out were in fact violations of the cease fire agreement hence reason for resuming hostilities.

Unfortunately the US administration lacked cojones just like the French and British administrations in 1935 lacked cojones when Hitler violated the Treaty of Versailles by annexing and militarizing the Saar land. The lack of intervention in 1935 by the British and French against Germany when it was relatively militarily weak eventually lead to the outbreak of World War II. Perhaps you should read up on the history of the 1930s and how World War II could have been avoided.

[Martus]

You've got a lot of never asking me if I'm really a conservative. I'm simply asking questions.

To me, there WERE enough reasons to liberate Iraq. But I'm just saying that I HOPE we weren't lied to.

Don't you understand that????

[Consort]

I'd hate to think that I was lied to.

Than consider that Bush may have been lied to. You can do that without being loud.

But if it comes out that there was really no evidence...

WMDs were used in the past, there is no evidence that they were destroyed, etc, etc...That has all been acknowledged. You would see that if you weren't thinking so loudly.

... I'll be VERY P.O.'ed.

Get your priorities straight. There is enough to get p.o.'ed about with the Democrats to keep you p.o.'ed for the rest of your life. Why would you want to add to that misery by also being p.o.'ed by the Republicans? Are you a glutton for punishment?

[chicagolady]

Thanks RJayneJ!

I just saw Hannity and Colmes and Sean ask our (disgraceful) Socialist Illinios Congress woman Jan Shakowsky WHY did she TOTALLY SUPPORT Bill Clintons call for war because Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction and NOT President Bush's call for war about the same thing!!

If they had them then, they have them NOW!

BEFORE the war even started, Israel had made a strong statement that they had intellegence that the weapons were moved to Syria (our good friends!)

To tell you the truth, I have a lot of respect for Israeli Intellegence! I give them a lot more credibility than the US conterparts.

[Northern Yankee]

Let not your heart be troubled.

In Oct. of 98 many prominant Dems signed a document stating that action needed to be taken because of the build up of WMD. The UN also noted that these weapons existed, and therefore inspections needed to take place to see that the agreements after the 91 Gulf War were being followed by Huessein.

Look if you were Saddam, would you want these weapons to be found, if you knew your regime was being threatened?!

Bush would not risk war unless he had good solid reasons why we needed to intervene.

If there were no weapons in Iraq, don't you think Saddam would have opened up his country completely to weapons inspections, rather than risk a war with the United States?

He had to know what was at stake!

[Northern Yankee]

Iran requires a completly different strategy.

According to Dr. Victor Hanson, eminent military historian, and professor at Cal State Fresno, dealing with Iran is more complex because you have the people who want to overthrow the Govt., but are not militarily capable at this point.

The best way to win freedom for Iranians is to do so covertly. Supply them with arms, and work towards an eventual overthrow.If the Americans invade, the Govt. would organize the Muslems to defeat the Americans. They would rally to that.