Had we been told then what America knows now (Iraq WMD)

GoGov.com ^ | July 4, 2003 | Russell Betts

[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.

[Mike4Freedom]

Were you willing to bet your family's lives on your certainty of Saddam's impotence?

Ah, the Bush doctrine of pre-emption. If in doubt, shoot first and search for excuses later. Is that the type of country you want to live in? I guess we learned if from the rogue police that shoot first if they think that someone is a drug user/dealer and then provide the drop gun as an excuse after the fact.

Pre-emption is wrong in both the individual and national case. It is wrong just because you just might be mistaken. That is why our highest law, the constitution, calls for due process. No one is to be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. I think that 6,000 dead Iraqis were also entitled to due process, or at least a little better evidence of wrong doing before we dropped bombs on them.

So YES, I would have taken the risk of doing nothing until I was sure I was attacking a nation that was actually going to do something to us.

[Mike4Freedom]

I thought we told you to get over it.

Sorry, my conscience won't let me get over it. Evil must be fought all the time or it wins by default. What our nation just did in Iraq is evil and we must, as a minimum, ensure that it does not happen again. I have suggested a constitutional amendment forbidding a pre-emptive attack. This might deter other nations from nuclear preparations, which appears to be their only defense from our insane policies.

[Monty22]

9/11 justified our taking out any enemy regime pre-emptively at any time, using any method.

QED. Period.

[Search4Truth]

It all comes down to this; if you kill Americans, no matter who you are or where you are, we are going to find you and kill you. To make that believable, we needed an example, Saddam was the best candidate.

Now when Bush draws his sword - fresh with the blood of our enemies on it - tyrannts the world over take heed.

[Consort]

Sorry, my conscience...

---

Maybe you should get off the conscience thing before it overwhelms you and takes a toll on your physical and mental health.

Evil must be fought...

---

It may be too late for you and you could become a threat to yourself and to others.

I have suggested a constitutional amendment...

---

What are you going to do if nobody listens to you?

[alnick]

Saddam gave money to Palestinian bomber families and did shelter known terrorists.

Also the stockpile of suicide belts found in Iraq.

[squidly]

Best short explanation I've read of the threat Saddam's WMD program posed is here. It's by Rolf Ekeus, the Swede who was Hans Blix's predecessor as chief weapons inspector in Iraq, 91-97. If somebody from the Bush administration said the same things Ekeus said, I might dismiss it as after-the-fact spin, but from Ekeus, who would know as much about Saddam's WMD as any non-Iraqi, and who owes no allegiance to the Dubya administration, these comments carry a lot of weight with me.

[Mike4Freedom]

9/11 justified our taking out any enemy regime pre-emptively at any time, using any method.

Really? Even one that had nothing to do with it?

I guess that France is next for the Iraq treatment. They did not agree with us, they own WMD's (the real, nuclear kind) and we don't like them. You can see that in the renaming of French Fries. Who knows what they might do. Let us attack them pre-emptively. They meet the criteria.

[alnick]

I actually had people asking me if they were two names for the same person.

Oh come on! Number one, I doubt that any American did not at that point in time know the difference between UBL and SH, and if you could have found one, I assure you, it was not the fault of the administration that this person was so uninformed.

[Search4Truth]

“I guess that France is next for the Iraq treatment. They did not agree with us, they own WMD's (the real, nuclear kind) and we don't like them. You can see that in the renaming of French Fries. Who knows what they might do. Let us attack them pre-emptively. They meet the criteria. “

You are becoming hysterical. It's compromising your reason. It is a behavior unbecoming of a man. Your Libertarian position is virtually indistinguishable from that of the Left's.

[Mike4Freedom]

It may be too late for you and you could become a threat to yourself and to others.

Yes,of course. Anyone who does not follow the government's line is a danger to the homeland, free speech be damned.

Yesterday, the Prez said that our actions in Iraq reminded him of the founding generations actions in the revolutionary war. More accurately, President George's actions remind me of King George's actions of that time.

Warrantless searches and detaining people without due process.
Gun control such as was attempted at Lexington and Concord.
Regulating trade and economic activity.
Out of control government spending
Bypassing trial by jury, habeus corpus and due process

With a little research, I could probably add to this list but you get the idea.

[alnick]

I think that 6,000 dead Iraqis were also entitled to due process, or at least a little better evidence of wrong doing before we dropped bombs on them.

Your concern about 6,000 dead Iraqis is proven to be false concern by the fact that the number of dead Iraqis would be far, far higher had we not taken SH out of power.

[Mike4Freedom]

Polls taken in March indicated that over 50% of the population thought that Saddam had engineered 9/11. That is not too surprizing, since the name of OBL had disappeared from the news at the time and only Saddam was mentioned. This is a classic propoganda technique.

And to set the record straight, I am not a liberal and could not tolerate any of the Demo candidates for president. I am a Libertarian and, as such, have no reason to show blind faith in Bush. I can look at the evidence and say that he was wrong without having to admit that I made a mistake in voting for him. I voted for Harry Browne in the election (though as a delegate to the Libertarian convention, I voted for another candidate).

You fellows are the one's that will have a problem next year. You will have to choose to vote for Bush, who will be a known liar for sure by then, a liberal Democrat that you hate, or a Libertarian.

Annual membership dues for the Libertarian Party is $25.

[BJungNan]

The more time goes by without finding anything, the more people will be forced into that conclusion.

If the democrats can make something of nothing, it will make a difference. They are trying.

[TLBSHOW]

More on Iraq Connection with 9-11

Shocking evidence that Iraqi intelligence played a hand in the 9-11 bombing is available, says Leonard Woolsey, former CIA director from 1993 to 1995. But investigators seem lackadaisacal about pursuing it.

Quoted in NewsMax.com, Woolsey notes that the two ringleaders of the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center were Abdul Rahman Yasin and Ramzi Yousef -- both believed to be Iraqi agents.

"Yasin... fled back to Iraq and was under the protection of the Iraqi government there for years," says Woolsey. He is still at large. Yasin's partner Ramzi Yousef was later captured in the Philippines in 1995. Yousef's laptop computer contained plans to hijack U.S. airliners and crash them into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and other U.S. landmarks.

Now serving a life sentence in a "supermax" prison in Florence, CO, Yousef could undoubtedly shed light on what really happened on September 11, 2001. Unfortunately, according to NewsMax, "Publicly, at least, the Bush administration has given no indication that it has pressed Yousef for more information on Iraq's role in his plot to destroy the World Trade Center."
http://www.richardpoe.com/blog.php

[BJungNan]

A bump for every word you've posted! The incredible thing is that the people who've been abusing you ...

Nobody is abusing him unless you consider disagreeing with someone's point of view abuse. Please, this is for serious discussion. I appreciate that you are on the other side of this issue but don't asign motives or emotions to the other side that are not there.

As for the person you are defending, it seem from reading over the posts, he offered an unsupported premis and just keeps debating from it.

[BJungNan]

I guess that France is next for the Iraq treatment. They did not agree with us, they own WMD's (the real, nuclear kind) and we don't like them. You can see that in the renaming of French Fries. Who knows what they might do. Let us attack them pre-emptively. They meet the criteria.

Now you are reachng for the obsurd. Certainly you can identify a difference between Iraq and France. Can you? I'm certain everyone else here on this thread can. Please, in honest debate, tell us if you can identify a difference between pre war Iraq and France that would tell you why we would not attack France.

You know, there are credible arguments that can be made why we should not have gone into Iraq. It seem, however, that those arguments do not lend themselves to an attack on Bush, thus you have no use for them. Please, tell me, is there some other explanation for the obsurdity of the statement you made above.

Did I misunderstand your comment?

[Consort]

...free speech be damned.

Free speech? In many real ways freedom of speech is a myth because it has been negated by other laws of the land.

The 1st Amendment right to free speech is a worthy ideal, but it will never catch on and, in fact, we are steadily moving further away from that ideal. Saying what you believe can get you in hot water, can inhibit your career potential, can get you ostracised, can get you fired, can get you sued, can get you labeled as a bigot / hater / intolerant / homophobe / etc, can lose you an election, can scar you for life, can get you dead,......

[Jennikins]

Thoughtful and well-said post. The war was determined to be over, according to President Bush, however what concerns me today, are our young military kids getting killed, bombed and shot at, and in temperatures of 115 deg. F. Add to that, a foreign country,where you never know who's friend or foe. The heat alone is enough to kill.