Posted on 06/21/2003 3:19:07 PM PDT by Buckeroo
Edited on 06/29/2004 7:09:54 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush, trying again to explain the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, said on Saturday that suspected arms sites had been looted in the waning days of Saddam Hussein's rule.
"For more than a decade, Saddam Hussein went to great lengths to hide his weapons from the world. And in the regime's final days, documents and suspected weapons sites were looted and burned," Bush said in his weekly radio address.
(Excerpt) Read more at wireservice.wired.com ...
Not true. Recently, Afghanistan. Farther back, revolution and Indian wars. We have a long history of striking first.
Beware of Blair -- that's a good one. Blair is nothing but a US lackey and puppet. As far as congress goes, yeah right. They are the same bunch of clowns who signed the Patriot Act without reading it. Only people I see eating crow are the people suckered into the WMD story without being able to prove it.
Richard W.
Pure crap. You have your facts wrong.
Seeing that you don't agree with two of the most succesfull representative governments the world has ever known, what form of dictatorship do you propose we become to address your concerns about mismanagement ?
You assume an awful lot about people you don't know. However, we need assume NOTHING about you, liar.
A very good question; one whose importance escapes some.
I wrote this before it all began. Read for yourself.
Iraq: The Bush Administration’s Weapon Of Mass Destruction
Mar 28, 2003
We all know the Bush administration's stated reasons for going to war: Saddam Hussein's brutal dictatorship, his proliferation of WMD's, his attempts to build or acquire nuclear weapons. We also know the argument of the protestors: that this entire war is based on the United States’ lust for control of an oil rich nation. However, there is another premise, one that deserves much more attention than it has received. The basic theory is this: that the Reaganites, hawks, neoconservatives – however you wish to classify them - in the Bush Administration are using the downfall of Iraq as their own private weapon of mass destruction - the mass destruction of any government in the Middle East that they deem to be a threat to democracy and stability within the region.
The hawks, characterized by Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Scooter Libby, found themselves at a distinct advantage after September 11, 2001. Suddenly they had a fully legitimate reason to do exactly what they had wanted to do for so long: completely restructure the Middle East. Consider the change in rhetoric concerning the regime in Saudia Arabia; our relationship with them went from being characterized as America’s "good friend in the Middle East" on September 10, to the Saudi family being suspected Al-Qaeda supporters on September 12. Coincidence? I don't think so. The hawks are using public rhetoric and private recriminations to set up the public for a series of American led attacks – whether they be financially, diplomatically, or militarily – on certain governments in the Middle East.
The chances of the current Operation Iraqi Freedom expanding into a regional war seem to be astounding. And the influential hawks that produce America's foreign policy have no qualms about admitting it. Richard Perle, resident fellow at AEI and one of Donald Rumsfeld’s main advisors at the Pentagon, says that with victory for the United States in Iraq, "We could deliver a short message, a two-word message: 'You're next.' " Perle is a man who know of which he speaks, as he was actively involved in the Pentagon before, during, and after the first Gulf War. The implication of that statement is that regimes like Iran, Syria, and Saudia Arabia could be the first to fall, followed shortly by Libya and Sudan...and so on and so forth.
The strategy in and of itself is brilliant. It began with the downfall of the Taliban. Do you remember all the talk of Afghanistan being ‘only the beginning’? Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and company were quite serious when they said it. They were preparing the American people for a long campaign against dictatorships in every Middle Eastern country, with the long-term goal being the spread of democracy.
The Bush Administration has begun a chess game of monumental proportions. It is breathtaking in its sheer audacity. The premise is that America can and will reshape the Middle East in the coming years, and, thereby, reshape the entire world. The entire issue of worldwide American-imposed peace is a volatile one. Many countries view us as a bully, pushing our democracy and values on other nations. However, the real question is: Which is preferable - Pax Americana, or less-than-perfect and sometimes brutal governments?
____________________________________________________________
I still stand by this. It's all about the long-term, not the short-term.
Why of course it happened. What does that have to do with our claim that Iraq still had an active production program and stores of WMD that PRESENTLY posed a threat to his neighbors and us? Good history but what does it have to do with our reason to invade and make war?
Richard W.
Notice, neither Bucky nor Arete are running to an airport ticket counter to flee the alleged "tyranny" they live under. I guess there's still SOME things about America they like.
The freedom to spout their lies, for instance.
Are you another American that has given up personal dignity about how our government operates? I guess America is truly falling down because no one cares anymore.
"For one, I never bought into the WMD being the main reason for the war and IMHO I think the administration overplayed that aspect. " -- SAMWolf
Of course you have. In your post #11, you stated that the U.S. armed Saddam Hussein with WMD, which was refuted by the facts posted in #47, which you refuse to respond to.
"But, please continue posing your opin against me."
I will, thanks. Not that I need your permission or anything.
"You make yourself look like an ass---- on FR."
Seems I've got more credibility than YOU, Lips.
Hey, it's your false argument and distraction from the point of not having to deal with the original subject. I want a responsibe representative government that is accountable for its actions. Your "dictatorship" ploy is juvenile. No, I don't take the party line or accept what the propagandists are pushing without asking uncomfortable questions. That is what democracy and citizenship is all about.
Richard W.
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.