Posted on 07/05/2003 7:45:12 AM PDT by BJungNan
After what was found in Iraq and learned about Saddam and Sons, it is without question that the former Iraqi regime itself was a weapon of mass destruction. Biological dirty bombs, nuclear weapons programs or sponsoring terrorist for such acts as flying planeloads of people into buildings, it is all the same.
Liberal critics of the President, however, latch on to a different post war theme. "It is not what we were told we would find" is their complaint about White House communications prior to the war. For purely political ends, they beat this drum in hopes someone will listen.
Beat as they might, nearly everyone sees the effort in Iraq had good results for our country. Few listen when they can see for themselves what should be obvious to all – and is to most – that a man that would hold his own people in dungeons, torture and maim them would have no second thoughts about funding another major terror strike against our country.
The message of the war has been heard. No matter what the intelligence was before the war, no matter what we were told we would find, what we found was as bad or worse. Anything now about us being misled about weapons of mass destruction is only partisan background noise against an outcome an overwhelming majority of Americans agree with.
And had we been told then what America knows now, most Americans would still have given President Bush the go-ahead to move on Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.
That resolution (1441) did not authorize force but explicilly stated that further action of the Security Council would be required. Action that did not come.
What makes the claim that Bush might have lied so illogical? Is it that a President would never lie? HAH, our history is rife with presidents that lied us into a war. Most recent was the non-existant Gulf of Tonkin incident but there was also "Remember the Maine" and the details of the Lusitania incident.
The only thing that is different here is that the evidence of lying is coming out too soon, before the next election. The other incidents didn't become obvious lies for years.
That will only be true if all you loyal Bush supporters continue to ignore the obvious. Even if put aside the war and all its problems, there are plenty of reasons for you to understand that Bush is not a conservative as you understand the term. Medicare drug benefit, renew assault weapons ban, steel tariffs: these are not the things that conservatives do. You will be choosing between a liberal democrat, a liberal republican or a constitution believing libertarian. If you keep voting for the lesser of two evils you will always get an evil. When you, the conservative majority understand that the republicans are not doing what you want, they are dooming us to hell, just a little slower than the rats, then you will vote the only logical choice, libertarian.
I'm probably one of the few posters on this forum who would disagree with that statement, but let me reiterate that this was the underlying reason we went in.
We had justification with Sadaam's refusal to honor the UN resolution.
This analogy has been used before, but suppose Sadaam, instead of oil, had a cure for a disease that was wiping out hundreds of thousands of our citizens. Would we be justified in invading Iraq to secure that cure for ourselves and the rest of the world from a madman who would use that cure to hold the world at ransom? I say we would.
Your reasoning about the "rightness" of the act is not logical.
If you walk across the street when the sign says to walk even though cars are still going through that intersection, you will be right, but you will also be dead.
Understand this:
The whole world runs on oil. There is no substitute.
It's one thing to say that we should stop all welfare programs in this country when you have a plate of food sitting in front of you. It's quite another when you're hungry.
It's one thing to take the high moral stand about attacking another country to secure their oil supply when your lights are on, the furnace is going and your car has gas to get to work. It's quite another when your cold, hungry and without a job.
Without an adequate oil supply the world stops turning economically.
If George Bush had stated that the reason we were going in was to secure the oil supply, I would have supported him with no less vigor than I supported his stated reason for going because I understand the absolute necessity of having an adequate oil supply.
We have a beachhead in Iraq now. If Saudi Arabia falls to an antagonistic regime we have the ability to survive.
George Bush has the duty to protect America - whatever it takes. I say, in that instance, he did a good job of doing so.
No matter What "W" does they will critize and find fault.
After all we picked on poor slick willie. We put Monica right in his path and he bought it. Hook, Line and Sink.
7.62MM
I'm sure you don't need me to approve of your opinions but I will say that you have finally gotten around to expressing a quite correct point of view. The pendulum swings wildly to the left with the Dems and to the left with the Republicans. You are so very, very correct.
I'll add to it by saying, if a group genereated wish list of what FR members would like to see changed in this country were put together, Bush would not score at the top of the list (perhaps we should try it, a wish list).
- Use the military to shore up the border to stop the flood of illegal immigration.
Bush Score - 0
- Take effective steps to stop or slow illegal immigration across the boarder.
Bush Score - 1
- Next question?
(scales is 0 to 10)
I will add a few more possibilities: -Enforce the second amendment
Bush Score - 0
Enforce due process clause of the 5th amendment
Bush score- negative 5 (enemy combatants are not just a failure to enforce but an intentional violation on his part).
Enforce 10th amendment
Bush score - 0 (Many examples. Let's just list Medicare drug benefit for currency.)
I looked at that. How reliable do you think this site's figures are? I heard someone do an interview with these people a while back and the conclusion seemed to be that they were working pretty hard at keeping it realistic but knew they could not get it exact.
This group or a different one. Sorry, I don't remember. Anyhow, is this group's numbers reliable?
This poll was taken the day after the war started. Its obvious the majority disagreed with you then as they do now
| "Do you think the United States will be able to justify this war ONLY if it finds weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical or biological weapons, in Iraq; or do you think the United States will be able to justify this war for other reasons, even if it does NOT find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?" | ||||||
| Only if Find WMD |
Even if Don't Find WMD |
Neither/ No Justifi- cation (vol.) |
No Opinion |
|||
| % | % | % | % | |||
| 3/20/03 | 35 | 53 | 7 | 6 | ||
|
|
||||||
I especially love the technique of the "info dump"- when a freeper posts a thousand links about WMDs and Al Queda connections to "proove" that he had them and was tied to OBL. The obvious response to that technique is to tell the poster to pass it along to Bush and co. since they don't seem aware of this "proof."
Having said all that I will vote for Bush almost certainly despite the fact that he lied us into a war and I hate being treated like I am an idiot. Once the Democratic candidates start opening their mouths and start talking about what statist nightmares they intend for the country even those conservatives who never wanted this war will have no real choice but to vote for Dubya. Sorry- can't vote Libertarian- just not realistic.
I have two things to say in answer to your comment.
1. They understand the inaccuracies in their methods and maintain a minimum and maximum number. At one point, these were 2 to 1 with each other. As time is going by, they are moving closer together as they do more research. At the time I wrote my comment, the MINIMUM number was just over 6000. I never considered the maximim number.
2. Why isn't our government doing the counting. They have better access to data-they can do actual body counts. General Franks said bluntly at the beginning that "We do not do body counts". The only explanation for that is to hide the data from the people so they would not become enraged. We are left with nothing better than the amateurs doing the counting and debates over the accuracy. I believe the government should have done an accurate count, no matter how embarrassing. Having failed to do so, they will have to be embarrassed by the imperfect counts that are available. The anti-war fury would be unbearable if the counts were disclosed every day and pictures of the maimed were shown. In all the months of fighting, I have seen ONLY ONE picture of a maimed Iraqi. That is no accident. The media are keeping a lid on the consequences of the war. As usual, they are serving the government, whether it is a right or left government.
Then you will get just what you have now. A big government (liberal? fascist?) Republican who will lead us into more dangerous wars in his second term. How is that different than a big government (liberal? socialist?)Democrat? Both are totally unacceptable. The number of people who realize that will increase as we get closer to November 2004 and, this time, the Libertarian really has a chance-so long as you vote for your long term best interests and forget the "lesser of two evil" dead end policy.
If it should come to pass, by the time of the election, that it is obvious to everyone (except a few remaining Bushbots) that he lied intentionally-would that not count as a total discrediting of the man? And also of the party, if they keep on making excuses for him. I think that the Republicans would be best served in leading the investigation, and making sure it was honest. If it comes out that it was an intentional lie, so be it. They should dump him to save themselves.
Of course, they could do what Tony Blair is doing-blaming underlings for feeding him false information. Who knows, maybe the public will believe that.
Yes it would. But political reality is that such hearings will never come to pass before the election as Republicans control both houses- at least not open hearings. If the war is still dragging on with a 3-5 killings a week of our troops and the economy is still anemic or worse then Bush is gone. And then you will have hearings that might lay waste to the Republican party. Yes- it is a good idea for Republicans to lead such an investigation now. Will they? No.
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.