[kaylar]

This is what freepers have been saying from Day One : 'It isn't the WMD, it's the sending of a message to Islamic terrorists'.

[TheRedSoxWinThePennant]

I think miss goodman needs to read it

[backhoe]

Locator ^

[TheDon]

...

"If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people. "

...


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html


Even many FReepers miss the subtle distinction between Iraq not having WMDs and Iraq proving they don't have WMDs.

[Drew68]

This is what freepers have been saying from Day One

No kidding! Fortunately there were very influential people within the Bush administration whe felt this way as well.

Molly Ivins wrote a column recently where she was dumbfounded that no one seems to be upset that no WMDs have been found. "Aren't you angry that the President lied to you!" She bellowed.

The President never lied to me about WMDs. As far as I am concerned, it was more of a wink and a nod.

[independentmind]

Only if you believe the official line that their existence was the main reason why war happened. A few weeks before the conflict began, I argued in this space that neither the elimination of weapons of mass destruction nor the defence of human rights, while worthwhile aims, were sufficiently urgent in themselves to explain Operation Iraqi Freedom. By continuing to insist that they were, Blair and his ministers had left a gaping hole at the heart of the pro-war argument, and the millions who marched against it were filling that vacuum with some very reasonable objections.

Is the authors uggesting that we shouldn't believe "the official line"? Are we routinely to assume that when our leaders speak to us they mean something other than they say? Justification for lying is a very tricky business, especially for those who make claims to the moral high ground.

[sakic]

This is what freepers have been saying from Day One : 'It isn't the WMD, it's the sending of a message to Islamic terrorists'.

Then why Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia? By the way, I hate when some answer that question with something along the lines of "We'll get to that".

[mewzilla]

UN Res. 1441 stated that Iraq has WMDs. There is no question about whether or not they had them. They did. the question is: what happened to them? That's what we've got to find out.

[FairOpinion]

"'It isn't the WMD, it's the sending of a message to Islamic terrorists'. "

---

Why couldn't it have been both and a few other reasons?

I think the point was exactly that there were several key reasons.

There is no question that Iraq did have WMD-s, our intelligence knew it, the UN inspectors knew it. Saddam had a great deal of time to hide them.

The WMD and Saddam's support of terrorism, AND that we couldn't have Saddam and/or fundamental Islamists/terrorists control a large fraction of the world's oil supply and blackmail the world with it, all combined were the reasons for going into Iraq.

Thank God, it was such a successful operation.

[Free ThinkerNY]

Saddam was connected with Al Qaeda. Case closed.

[Austin Willard Wright]

Give me a break! I had had many discussions with pro--freeper freepers before the war who *always* highlighted WMD as the main justiificaiton for going to war. I guess being a pro-war freepers means never having to admit that you were wrong.

[Bill Davis FR]

why did we go to war?

a/ wmd
b/ human rights
c/ freedom
d/ terroism
e/ other

[VOA]

After this era-defining event, the removal of Saddam had become a pressing
strategic necessity in the wider war on Islamic fundamentalist terrorism, which
yesterday claimed dozens more innocent lives in Casablanca.

Works for me.
Anyone who drinks from the same cup as Osama...is a reasonable target.

Call me extreme, but when I heard Tony Blair asking if anyone doubts that if they
could have killed 10 times as many people on 9-11 that the terrorists would have...
that was my second wake-up call.

Besides, a Wall Street Journal article that ran a week or so after 9-11
(sorry, I can't give a citation...but it gets reposted here occassionally)
had a LOT of connections that the world press had been making between Saddam/Iraq and
Osama in the years leading up to 9-11...such as Osama's major gripes when he
called for Jihad in the late 1990's...all the points were about the "oppression"
of Iraq.
And Iraq was THE ONLY Arab state (out of 22? or 23?) that didn't issue a statement
of condolence soon after 9-11.

The rat-b@$tards that drink from the cup of Osama, Saddam and other monsters...
death to them all if possible.
And the sooner, the better.

[VOA]

If post-Saddam Iraq could act as a beacon for human rights and democratic government
in the Middle East, so much the better.

IIRC, last night NBC Nightly News (for Saturday) showed the re-convening of classes
at Baghdad University...for the first time since Saddam went missing.

One professor was lecturing his class and saying that Sharon of Israel was a better
leading of his country than Saddam was of Iraq (becuase at least Sharon didn't
slaughter his citizens).
I about fainted on that one.

And then it showed some sort of convocation of educators in Iraq VOTING BY BALLOT for
new administrators of Iraq's education system; the head man chosen was a chemist
who trained in the USA, a lesser officer voted in was a Christian Iraqi.

The smiles on the faces of these guys as they pushed the first freely-cast ballots of
their lives in Iraq...
PRICELESS!

[SpringheelJack]

This is what freepers have been saying from Day One : 'It isn't the WMD, it's the sending of a message to Islamic terrorists'.

Just who were these Freepers? As I remember, the main argument for invading Iraq on those earlier threads was the threat of WMD. I should know, because I was one of the people making that argument.

[aSkeptic]

But if in the end no weapons are found, does it undermine the case for war?
Only if you believe the official line that their existence was the main reason why war happened.
Can we believe our officials or not?

[The Great Satan]

Forget WMDs - they're not the real reason we went to war

True. The reason we went to war was because Saddam attacked us. The WMDs are the reason we had to lie about why we went to war.

[shuckmaster]

"Only if you believe the official line "

'nuff said...

[ContentiousObjector]

If you want to send a message to Islamic terrorists wouldn't it make more sense to attack islamic terrorists instead of the only secular regime in the region?

Islamic terrorists are delighted to see Saddam gone, he repressed them more than anyone else

[joesbucks]

This is what freepers have been saying from Day One : 'It isn't the WMD, it's the sending of a message to Islamic terrorists'.

Unfortunately, Freepers aren't the leaders of Britain and the US. WMD's were a centerpiece of why we invaded (liberated Iraq) according to our leaders. I can never understand why. Why the lie?

[snooker]

Might be the message to the Islamo-facists, but with all the equipment discovered, just because we don't find completed stockpiles means nothing. They can be made in days. This is like why the stocks were destroyed in the first place. Just make more.