|
|
|
 |
Donate Here By Secure Server
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
|
It is in the breaking news sidebar! Thanks Registered |
|
Posted on 10/12/2003 8:08:25 AM PDT by Daryl L.Hunter
As a well informed political wonk and news junkie the only argument George Bush had to present to me for war with Iraq was the well documented fact that Saddam Hussein was giving the parents of Palaniastian suicide bombers (terrorists) $25,000. This inducement for Palestinian parents to sell their children on the idea of an early death was a good investment for terrorist supporter Saddam Hussein to stir the pot further fomenting the Palestinian/ Israeli conflict that is the burr under the saddle of every Muslim alive. This animus by design practiced by Osuma, Saddam and others bonds Muslims together against a perceived evil (the USA) and aids despots like Saddam to rally their subjects against a common enemy therefore becoming distracted from their domestic oppression at home. As an informed person I understand that as long as there is unrest in Israel Muslim's will hate Americans for their support of Israel. I also realize world opinion negates George Bush's ability to make this argument as a primary reason for war.
Some in this country need a little more reason than I do to remove megalomaniac, genocidal, hate mongering, despots from power. So George Bush had to argue the 17 United Nations resolutions that Saddam flagrantly had violated during the 10 years since Gulf War One, defaulting on his cease-fire agreement, thereby circumventing the need to make the first argument. This second argument also wasn't enough for some.
To convince green party members, anti-global anarchists, Frenchmen, earth-fisrters, ACLU supporters and democrats George Bush had to put forth another argument by using Bill Clinton's explanation for bombing Iraq in 1998, "weapons of mass destruction". The fact is that when some people make up their minds about someone (George Bush) there isn't an argument in the world that will sway them as their faith in opposition of their opponent defies reason. Even if it is an argument they have gladly swallowed previously delivered by a different messenger.
Some argue that Saddam's fingerprints weren't on 9-11. I agree but that doesn't exonerate him from being a terrorist enabler, financier of notorious magnitude and a go to guy for volatile goodies to fight the west and quite worthy of our pursuit and annihilation in our war on terror.
Do I believe that Saddam has WMD's? Undoubtedly! Was it a pivotal argument? No! Was it the only argument for war? No! In retrospect George Bush shouldn't have put forth redundant arguments in his effort to sell everyone on war as to try to reason with the unreasonable is a fool's errand.
Those that oppose George Bush regardless of what he says and does have seized on the WMD argument because we have yet to find small hidden items in a large country. It is only a matter of time until we find WMD's at which time many liberal journalists will have the opportunity to fill their pie holes with crow.
Regardless of non-acceptance by some of George Bush's redundancy in argument, one less megalomaniac, genocidal, hate mongering, despot controls a rogue nation to harbor terrorists and manufacture, market, hide or launch his present or future WMD's and I'm damn glad about it and the world is a safer place.
| Daryl L. Hunter - Editor |
|
|
|
|
|
Donate Here By Secure Server
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
|
It is in the breaking news sidebar! Thanks Registered |
|
This, I think, hurt the Bush administration in two ways: first, the quibbling and hair-splitting over the use and precise meaning of the term "imminent" brought back memories of his predecessor ("It depends on what the meaning of is is.") Second, it tied the imminence (ok, gravity, immediacy) of the threat to WMD, ignoring the imminence of the other ways in which Hussein could hurt us. Al qaida didn't need chems or bios to hurt us on 9-11, yet the focus has been on WMD.
What President Bush should have said was something like,"Hell yes, Saddam and Iraq are imminent threats. We may not have found WMDs yet, but we know he is funding terrorism, we know he has the wherewithal and means to hurt us in many other ways. Yes, he's an imminent threat, so we took him out. This is neither in violation of, nor does it invalidate, the Powell Doctrine; said doctrine simply does not apply, because the threat is already imminent."
Would have sounded much less Clinton-esque then splitting hairs over the word "imminent".
| Daryl L. Hunter - Editor |
That's what is so sickening about the whole thing, it's a lot more about politics than truth and safety.
| Daryl L. Hunter - Editor |
Yep! Moreover, I'd rather be wrong than dead.
That's a good point. Worth saying twice.
That makes perfect sense to me! You must be a another neo con.
| Daryl L. Hunter - Editor |
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.