War with Iraq Justified, Even If No WMD [Exceptionally bad news for the media, Democrats]

FOXNEWS ^ | Saturday, June 7, 2003 | By Dana Blanton

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the heads up!

[DrDeb]

"Let it be a given that the "police action" was justified, I want to know that if the Primary reason given that saddam had WMDs turns out to be a bald face lie, will that make any difference in your opinion of Pres Bush? Anyone?"


In his 9/02 speech to the UN, President Bush detailed FIVE reasons for 'regime change' in Iraq -- the fact that you focus on one reason to the exclusion of all the other reasons says more about your bias than the President's veracity [BTW: ALL countries in NATO/the West, as well as agents for the UN, agreed that Iraq possessed WMDs -- are you accusing them ALL of lying or is your animosity reserved solely for President Bush?!!!]

EXCERPT FROM THE PRESIDENT'S UN SPEECH (9/02)
The United States helped found the United Nations. We want the United Nations to be effective, and respectful, and successful. We want the resolutions of the world's most important multilateral body to be enforced. And right now those resolutions are being unilaterally subverted by the Iraqi regime. Our partnership of nations can meet the test before us, by making clear what we now expect of the Iraqi regime.

1.)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.

2.)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.

3.)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.

4.)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.

5.)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.

If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq. And it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis -- a government based on respect for human rights, economic liberty, and internationally supervised elections.

[poet]

"In his 9/02 speech to the UN, President Bush detailed FIVE reasons for 'regime change' in Iraq -- the fact that you focus on one reason to the exclusion of all the other reasons says more about your bias than the President's veracity [BTW: ALL countries in NATO/the West, as well as agents for the UN, agreed that Iraq possessed WMDs -- are you accusing them ALL of lying or is your animosity reserved solely for President Bush?!!!]"

DUH! It was a question designed to reveal blind loyalists like you, which is to say, another defender of the indefensible. For crying out loud. I did not say he lied, I said what if!!!

BTW, the u.n. inspectors, blix et al hadn't found any WMDS.
Further, if you give any validity to anything the u.n. says, you have a problem, not me. As for nato, aren't they the group that went along with the lowlife clinton in Kosovo and made an awful lot of people homeless?

Don't forget, Bush signed the CFR, gave us the obscene "patriot act and the Fatherland law, err, I mean the "homeland law. And if "patriot act 2" has any legs, your political "savior" will have the distinction of destroying the Bill of Rights!

As for speeches, I'm not impressed. They are meant for people like you.

And please don't pretend to know where I'm coming from. I am not a communist, democrat, republicrat, socialist, libertarian, disruptor or any other name with which you wish to tag me. I'm just an old American who is fed up with political deceit.

Your guy talks out of both sides of his mouth, just as all politicians do. Smaller government? 60,000+ new employees on his watch! Catering to special interest groups just like the dems. Citizenship for illegals just like the dems. Less spending? How about a TRILLION$ of NEW spending on his watch? A database on ALL of us with a Convicted felon organizing the base?

Show me where this guy is a conservative. He is most certantly a great politician, but, I look for Statesmen. You know what that is, don't you? Those are people who don't engage in political expediancy, rather, they truly look at the future consequences of their policies. Bush's consequences ( relative to the laws he's getting passed) will come back to bite us, mark my words. His rubber stamps in both houses are just as culpable.

Finally, is it possible for people to disagree with your guy without being accused of Bush bashing? Have I stated any untruths relative to any of his policies? If so, at least address what you think are not true and challenge me on those issues raather than saying my questioning violations of his sworn oath to uphold the Constitution speaks volumes about me. When you resort to snide remarks, it just shows that you have a closed mind and really cannot think for yourself.

FReegards to you.