Posted on 12/08/2003 5:17:21 AM PST by DeuceTraveler
Toss them a bone here, most of the time, Democrats and Republicans don't have a good handle on the US Constitution.
And God knows there were no Communists or bomb-throwing subversives involved in those protests!
</sarcasm>
Sheesh. Is any source not questionable? Or is it just when they don't agree with the administration does it become questionable? Why should we believe him? Thousands of man hours by 'our' inspectors and top of the line technology can't find a thing, but hey we've got this out of work general wanting to stay on the good side of the US Armed Forces so it must be true!! If it is, then I'm quite sure he would be able to lead inspectors to the 'cache'.
That is unless he has selective amnesia, but then of course there will be some excuse for that too won't there?
There were four reasons consistently given for going to war with Iraq:
Kay searched and found nothing more than rudimentary labs, if they could even be called that.
The "Bush lied" mantra concerning WMD in Iraq is a dangerous gamble. I'm convinced Saddam had WMD in 1991, when we were exposed to chemical weapons at Khamisiyah and elsewhere during cleanup ops.
I think he still had them in 1995, when Kamel defected providing proof of Iraq's deception and continued efforts in it's WMD programs. To be fair, Kamel said Iraq did not possess WMD in 1995. He also said it really was a baby milk factory we bombed in 1991 (and again in 1998) and there was no military significance to the air defense shelter we bombed.39, 40 But the documents on his chicken farm and the discovery by Dr.Diane Seaman on 25 September 199741, 42 throw into question Kamel's denials of weapons. In addition, remarks by Khidhir Hamza contradicted Kamel's claims, and in return Kamel attacked Hamza's credibility in the UN transcript.
There was consensus through 1998, 2001 and 2002 by the world's intelligence agencies (including the CIA, Canadians and BND), within Congress (including Democrats) and from UNMOVIC that Iraq was pursuing WMD. Viewing Kay's recent and future findings in light of historical documentation of Iraqi WMD programs harldly makes me more skeptical that they were there.
How many more searches will it take?
As many needed until we have a definitive answer. I want to know the what, when and where answered - period. If everyone was wrong for so long on this issue, I really want to know that without equivocation.
The only thing holding the LP down in the mind of the public is the LP. In the open marketplace of ideas, the public consumer well sees their shabby political product sitting on the electoral shelf, and wisely walks away from it.
For many people, doing so in 1992 got us 8 years of someone ... feeling our pain.
Not to the exclusion of the one you conveinently overlooked, namely "Regime change".
Iraq's continued non-compliance with, and active material breach of, UN resolutions (a.k.a. cease fire conditions) which arguably cover the next three. Iraq's continued WMD ambitions. Iraq's ties to terrorism. Iraq's contined human rights violations.
Going to war at the beheast of world government? Hmmm, very conservative. The rest are thus far unproven allegations and suspicions with the exception of human rights violations. Which were not against our citizens.
So when do we attack the other hundred countries that violate human rights?
As for the reasons you listed as being given, one could easily argue that almost every Arabic nation there, some even considered 'allies' (i.e. Saudi Arabia), have not only been in support of terrorism in the past but are still supporting it. Are 'we' planning to go after them next? If not, why not? Human rights violations? I'm sorry but that's not even a reason. It may be an excuse to make the masses feel happy but it's not a reason
As many needed until we have a definitive answer. I want to know the what, when and where answered - period. If everyone was wrong for so long on this issue, I really want to know that without equivocation.
Now that's not the 'conservative' answer. How is it when this very request was broached before the war it was practically 'anti-American' to suggest such a plan? And now is any different? 'We' have access now where it wasn't allowed in the past and still no WMDs. On a side note, I see FoxNews hardly discusses WMDs anymore, why not? Now it's about building a democracy isn't it?
You sound confused. P. J. O'Rourke is a solid Republican, and while he might have made fun of some silliness about the way the war was conducted, he didn't oppose it.
You're right. I'm a conservative
I think there were other reasons for going to war with Iraq, and regime change was certainly the objective. It wasn't conveniently overlooked and neither are the other reasons. But regime change in Iraq has been a codified goal of our foreign policy toward Iraq since 1998.
Going to war at the beheast of world government?
The UN asked us to go to war with Iraq? Strange, I thought the argument was we unilaterally went to war with Iraq without the world's permission, but did it based on the statutory powers granted by Congress? Are you sure you're not thinking of another conflict: Bosnia, Kosovo, ??
The rest are thus far unproven allegations and suspicions with the exception of human rights violations. Which were not against our citizens.
I don't think there is any question that Iraq was in violation of it's cease fire conditions:
"Resolution 687 required, as a precondition for a formal cease-fire, that Iraq officially notify the United Nations of its acceptance of the provisions of the resolution. These provisions included:I don't think there is a question Iraq supported terrorism, I think what you allude to is the degree Iraq and Al Qaeda formed ties and whether that met a threshold of a threat to the US (and some might be concerned with the threat to allies), justly so.
(1) respect for the international boundary as agreed between Iraq and Kuwait in 1963, which the Security Council guaranteed;
(2) the creation of a demilitarized zone along the Iraq-Kuwait border and the deployment of a U.N. observer unit into that zone;
(3) the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless of all chemical and biological weapons, ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers, and nuclear-weapons-usable material, together with facilities related to them, and international supervision and inspection to verify compliance;
(4) the creation of a fund, drawn from future Iraqi oil revenues, to pay compensation for losses caused by the Iraqi invasion and occupation of Kuwait;
(5) the continuation of the embargo of all exports of arms to Iraq;
(6) the phased relaxation of certain other aspects of the U.N. sanctions against Iraq as Iraq complies with its obligations under the resolution; and
(7) the renunciation by Iraq of support for international terrorism."
(http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/papers/1991/91051704.html)
I'll let my previous post on Iraq's WMD ambitions stand. The current "unproven allegations" are based on proven violations in the past, from 1992 through 2002. Again, I think your disagreement should not be with fact, but whether your threshold was crossed for resuming hostilities with Iraq. Obviously it was not, but I'd be curious which of our past conflicts - without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight - would have been in your opinion.
So when do we attack the other hundred countries that violate human rights?
Good question. I imagine we'll get around to all of them as time goes by, unfortunately. I try to be optimistic that it won't be us hoping for liberation from a foreign oppressor or domestic tyrant, it's much better being on the other side picking which battles to fight and which to turn a blind eye to - such as Rwanda.
It's not uncommon for Libertarians to quote Ronald Reagan out of context in a way implying his opposition to the Republican Party also. I don't think the Gipper himself would agree.
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.