Whose side are you on?

Israel Unity and Frontpagemag ^ | October 27, 2005 | David Horowitz

[M203M4]

1. Afganistan

2. North Korea

3. Iraq

4. Iran

5. Syria

Iran is looking to get some now.

[xzins]

Nice Fox Terrier. What's its name?

[2rightsleftcoast]

You got that right!!!

[Calpernia]

Yes he did. And I just added his quote along with George Bush's to me website.

Bump!

[fatima]

Thanks for the ping xzins.Here's a bump.

[smoothsailing]

Thanks for the ping!

The WMD, although a legitimate argument for going to war with Iraq, wasn't the only or even primary reason if I recall correctly.

The President's primary reason as stated at the time was that we would not just go after the perpetrators of 9/11, but we would go after terrorists everywhere, and those who harbored or supported them.Iraq was an obvious target.

IIRC,WMD was the lead argument by Powell at the U.N. because it was thought the best way to get a resolution.

In hindsight it was a waste of time because it bought Saddam time to unload alot of bad stuff.

[Calpernia]

I thought it was in violation of the UN resolution to let the inspectors in?

[Nateman]

" created the first democracy in the history of Islam."

Turkey was first. I search these AP articles but they never tell me how many bad guys have been killed or captured or even if this is number is going down or not. Like we were fighting a fog or something and not evil men dedicated to spreading that evil.

[smoothsailing]

I don't remember.(Sheesh, I sound like Hillary Clinton)

The inspection part with Blix was a joke, but at the time I guess the administration found it important to touch all the bases.

The UN was shown to be irrelevent in the end, as President Bush predicted.

[JLO]

Kissamee, FL --- LOL!

[Calpernia]

UN is absolutely irrelevant. But I think I remember Bush and Blair playing footsies with the Blix nonesense to comply with the 'politics' of the UN. Blix had some report he presented that left out information about an unmanned airplane or something.

It was a horse an pony show so it didn't look like we broke the rules.

[Itzlzha]

In war, the first order of business is to know whose side you are on, and who is on yours. In the case of the war to defeat the terrorists and establish a democratic government in Iraq, the answer is not always easy to come by.

Well, maybe we should first start with "whose side is the Bush Administration on?!"

Check out This article, and THIS link...

Quote;

"We in America know the benevolence that is at the heart of Islam. We've seen it in many ways."

Remarks at the Annual State Department Iftaar Dinner

Secretary Condoleezza Rice

Benjamin Franklin Room

Washington, DC

October 25, 2005

[pcottraux]

Iraqi WMD's is a more complex issue than it should be, considering it is now kind of moot.

I believe the issue of WMD's is at the very best an intelligence failure, and at the very worst they were hidden in Iran/Syria. I don't believe Bush lied about them, because that makes no sense whatsoever. Why would he lie and then lead us to war if he knew there weren't really any over there? He would know he would be caught on that.

I do think that while WMD's MAY have been a legitimate selling point, the ideas of creating democracy in the Middle East and liberating the Iraqis were far better reasons, and should have had more importance in the reasons for war. Although, I also believe that the MSM overhyped the WMD's after they realized that there may not have been any there to begin with. They realized how bad that would make Bush look, but I remember Saddam possessing WMD's being A reason for war, not THE reason.

[smoothsailing]

Exactly.

What baffles me is the fact that we have found WMDs but nobody seems to know about or talk about it.

1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium,sarin gas artillery shells, cyclosarin gas etc.; obviously just the tip of the iceberg.Remember all those jetfighters buried in the desert?

Maybe it's just my definition of WMD. I always thought it meant a weapon that did alot of damage or killed alot of people.

[smoothsailing]

*

[Dolphy]

In WWII, we lost 1000's of men on the beaches of islands no one could spot on a map yet people understood why it was critical to the outcome of the war.

There was no cable television or internet...who is to say if Americans might not have lost their will if the multiple defeats and loss of life were broadcast every hour in every home instead of weekly in newsreels at theaters. It's a different time...the airwaves and political offices are populated by people whose grasp of war starts and stops with their twisted interpretation of Viet Nam.

[xzins]

I agree that WMDs were "a" reason for the war and not "the" reason.

Actually, according to the congressional authorization of Sep 18, 2001, the President could go after anyone who aided, abetted, participated, etc. the 9/11 terrorists or any of their associates.

Salmon Pak was Zarqawi's al qaeda retreat in Iraq for developing ricin, a poison, for mass delivery. There's plenty of proof that an Iraq/terrorist/al qaeda connnection did exist.

The problem of WMDs was Saddam giving them to terrorists in small quantities.

[Sundog]

It wouldn't hurt to liberate Red China Either.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[pcottraux]

I guess if you really hate Bush, then the definition of a "Weapon of Mass Destruction" is a weapon that is several fully made nuclear bombs that have already been detonated.