Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Had we been told then what America knows now (Iraq WMD)
GoGov.com ^ | July 4, 2003 | Russell Betts

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.


TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: iraq; wmd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 141-160 next last
To: iconoclast
Oh? Where would he be turned over? You sound like you believe that "Islam is a religion of peace" BS.

Nope. Just wanted to point out that not all Muslim countries shelter known terrorists. Do you disagree?

81 posted on 07/05/2003 2:11:18 PM PDT by optimistically_conservative (Why isn't Cathryn Crawford pictured at http://www.jerseygop.com/R_babes/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Mike4Freedom
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.

So, even though the vast majority of the world agreed that Hussein had WMD and was a threat, you, offering no evidence, choose to adopt a "I'm not convinced" stance. Even though the US Congress believed Hussein a threat and said so, you, offering no evidence, choose to side with those who have proven again and again to seek political advantage in every situation. Even though Bill Clinton offered the same assessment of the Iraqi situation when he chose to bomb, you, offering no evidence, choose to believe we are simply cowboys shooting first and asking questions later.

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.

Just pathethic. UN resolutions authorized us. US Congress resolutions authotized us.

82 posted on 07/05/2003 2:16:20 PM PDT by laredo44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Mike4Freedom
>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.

You do realize, don't you, that most of those Iraqi civilian casualties were never proven to be the result of American fire? Considering the mass graves found, it's not much of a stretch to say that Saddam might have been the one responsible for killing them.
83 posted on 07/05/2003 2:21:58 PM PDT by Sofa King (-I am Sofa King- tired of liberal BS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Sofa King; Mike4Freedom; iconoclast
Actually Mike4Freedom has significantly inflated the number if he means civilians, and if he means civilians plus military, he pulled it out of his arse.

And you're right that the number pales in comparison to those murdered by Saddam every year for the past 20 years.

But then, if you're feeling uncomfortable for having been opposed to the war, anything that would show Hussein to be more than a "two-bit despot" is counterproductive.
84 posted on 07/05/2003 2:27:25 PM PDT by optimistically_conservative (Why isn't Cathryn Crawford pictured at http://www.jerseygop.com/R_babes/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Mike4Freedom
"The more time goes by without finding anything, the more people will be forced into that conclusion. It is hard to imagine what the nation's thoughts will be by November 2004."

Study the results of the 1972 election, seven-plus years into a truly unpopular war.

Judging by the tone often in the media, we might conclude that Nixon got whipped by anti-war McGovern.

The War on Terror is far more popular than Vietnam.

Just as Vietnam was a battle in the cold war (which we largely won) Iraq is a battle in the war against terror.

If you search for ideological purity where war is involved, you'll often be missing the strategic elements.

For the US to knock down Afghanistan, and then position 150,000 troops in the middle of the muslim world in Iraq is a MAJOR element of the WOT story.

Islam & arabs IN GENERAL have managed to become components of "the enemy."

War is hell, innocent civilians always get hurt.

I was reminded recently that Isolationists don't delve deeply into the facts of history. The USMC song is "from the Halls of Montezuma to the Shores of Tripoli."

We have made it to 227 years, partly by being watchful and vigilent.

Abu Nidal, mastermind of the Achille Lauro ship incident, was living in Baghdad. Saddam provided safe harbor to terrorists.

On Sept. 20, 2001 Bush said that was not going to go unpunished.

Stand back from the tree, and you can see the forest.
85 posted on 07/05/2003 2:33:05 PM PDT by truth_seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Mike4Freedom
Mike, if we knew he had them in 98, shouldnt we be concerned as to their whereabouts now? In addition, finding the "smoking gun" that the liberals demand, was NOT our objective. It came down to "Comply with the UN resolution, or get your ass kicked" he chose not to comply and he got his ass kicked.
86 posted on 07/05/2003 2:34:35 PM PDT by cardinal4 (The Senate Armed Services Comm; the Chinese pipeline into US secrets)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Eva
Libertarian: a person who upholds the principles of absolute and unrestricted liberty especially of thought and action; Webster

Conservative: a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; Webster

Any Claim to Conservative ideals by any staunch Libertarian is a bald faced lie. Libertarians believe that individual freedom means that the government shouldn't be able to tell people what to do unless they agree with it as individuals.

What they continually forget is that the Government IS the people, and that we live in a Representative Republic so that the "general welfare" can be considered rather than being slaveishly subjegated to "individual rights", to do whatever they want, regardless of the majority opinion or societal impact.

87 posted on 07/05/2003 2:53:22 PM PDT by The_Pickle ("We have no Permanent Allies, We have no Permanent Enemies, Only Permanent Interests")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: optimistically_conservative
Actually Mike4Freedom has significantly inflated the number if he means civilians,

I got the number from www.Iraqbodycount.net.

88 posted on 07/05/2003 3:26:33 PM PDT by Mike4Freedom (Freedom is the one thing that you cannot have unless you grant it to everyone else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Sofa King
You do realize, don't you, that most of those Iraqi civilian casualties were never proven to be the result of American fire?

Sure, they all died from car accidents. It had nothing to do with all the bombs dropped on their heads.

Is that your best argument?

89 posted on 07/05/2003 3:28:49 PM PDT by Mike4Freedom (Freedom is the one thing that you cannot have unless you grant it to everyone else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: laredo44
UN resolutions authorized us. US Congress resolutions authotized us.

The UN Security council specifically held back on use of force authorization till after inspectors reported. Then they refused to give that authorization. That refusal was not a French veto but a lack of a majority vote. There was NO UN authorization.

Congress authorization was based on what now appears to be a false set of facts. Indeed, without the forged documents asserting uranium purchases, it would have failed, despite all the chem and bio talk. In retrospect, it appears all to have been false (maybe fraudulent, maybe stupidity).

90 posted on 07/05/2003 3:32:47 PM PDT by Mike4Freedom (Freedom is the one thing that you cannot have unless you grant it to everyone else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: iconoclast
I just wanted to see if you would actually puke.
91 posted on 07/05/2003 3:34:08 PM PDT by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: BJungNan
BTTT
92 posted on 07/05/2003 3:37:13 PM PDT by Fiddlstix (~~~ http://www.ourgangnet.net ~~~~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jennikins
Gently

1) They are not kids, they are pros and all are volunteers.

2) Granted, the heat is bad, but they know how to deal with it.

3) This is a war. . You NEVER are able to seperate all of the sheep from the goats. Goes with the territoy.

4) The 60 + troops we have had killed since 01 May have NT all been assasinated by locals. Some have died in accidents, which does not make it good, or them any less dead, but DOES mean that the bad guys are not as effective as we are being made to think. Lot more dead Bad Guys.

5) This is NOTHING like the 600 troops killed EVERY WEEK during Viietnam.

6) We are having some difficulty due to sabateurs and "werewolves", but we are still taking more names and kicking more butt than not.

7) I Saddam HAD WMDs, and I really believe we have found some and are sitting on the information, possibly for tactical purposes.

8) Sadam and his regime were just plain Evil, and were a threat to the entire region and to us. He SAID he would get us if he could, more than once.
File this under "preemptive strike"..

Freegards!

Tia

93 posted on 07/05/2003 3:37:51 PM PDT by tiamat ("Just a Bronze-Age Gal, Trapped in a Techno World!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: iconoclast
Mike I'm sure crap like this rolls right off of you. Isn't it amusing in a poignant sort of way that whenever you question these bush-bot's icons that, regardless of ones credentials or years of conservative posts, you become a liberal?

It is more than amusing. It is disappointing and frustrating. Libertarians and Conservatives agree on so much that I always felt right at home on FR. When the Iraq war came up, I became a pariah and a liberal. The majority here sees everything as us or them. You can only be a conservative (agreeing 100% with the paradigm) or you are a liberal. That is both blind to reality and dangerous for the nation. They will be voting for Bush, even when it has become obvious to everyone that he lied us into a war. What they really need to do is look for a third party candidate that can actually read the constitution and save this nation from tryanny (left or right, not much difference).

Old libertarian saying: When there is a boot in your face, it makes little difference if is a right boot or a left boot.

94 posted on 07/05/2003 3:41:12 PM PDT by Mike4Freedom (Freedom is the one thing that you cannot have unless you grant it to everyone else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Mike4Freedom
Sure, go ahead and ignore the fact that I mentioned the most likely cause in my post. The only thing you'll accomplish is to undermine your own credibility.
95 posted on 07/05/2003 3:41:32 PM PDT by Sofa King (-I am Sofa King- tired of liberal BS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Mike4Freedom
For you to believe that Iraq was no danger, you would have to believe that they had no WMD.

If Iraq had no WMD, Clinton lied repeatedly.
If Iraq had no WMD, the UN lied and falsified numerous international reports.
If Iraq had no WMD, then those thousands of Iraqis and Iranians must have died by spontaneous human combustion.

The reasonable conclusion is that they indeed did have them- but they have either been transferred elsewhere or they are still hidden. Your post is foolish in that it ignores the plain truth that CLinton and UN have said FOR YEARS that Iraq possesses tons (literally) of WMD. Look at the UN report yourself.

I respect you for posting your view, but you failed to address even one of the obvious facts that entirely rebutt your assertion. How about addressing them? Then you could have a discussion.

96 posted on 07/05/2003 3:47:12 PM PDT by Principled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mike4Freedom
Here's a tip Mike: when you accuse someone else of distorting the truth, it helps not to do it yourself.

He said "UN resolutions" not "The UN Security council"

Your indifference, however, betrays a pattern in your postings: you routinely gloss over important elements of the truth in favor of flowery speeches that don't address the facts.
97 posted on 07/05/2003 3:48:28 PM PDT by Sofa King (-I am Sofa King- tired of liberal BS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Mike4Freedom
You are a Libertarian and the rest of us here are just sheep? Do I have that right so far? You believe that we are simply to stupid to really understand what’s going on in politics. (You said as much in you profile page).

Yet your "only" offer of proof to back up your outrageous claims of civilian deaths is from a notoriously Left-Wing web site that includes as it researchers The Co-Founders of MOW (musicians opposing war) a guitar teacher, a PHD who was awarded a doctorate for his holistic critique of Mozart's Cosi fan tutte in 1989 and a couple of undergrads in International Relations along with a retired librarian and several members of Greenpeace and the Lawyer for PeaceUK.

And you have the gall to tell others to come up with a better argument? I would be laughing if you weren’t so sadly pathetic.

98 posted on 07/05/2003 3:48:58 PM PDT by The_Pickle ("We have no Permanent Allies, We have no Permanent Enemies, Only Permanent Interests")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Mike4Freedom
The Associated Press count of Iraqi civilian casualties was roughly 3,300 (from memory). The UNICEF count of children in Iraq dying as a result of the Oil for Food program,(more specifically, Saddam not spending the oil money on food), was about 5,000 children per month.
99 posted on 07/05/2003 3:52:58 PM PDT by squidly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Principled
C'mon, don't you know? Dubya came up out of Texas in 2000 and had this bright idea and said "Hey everybody, Saddam's got WMD." Prior to this, nobody ever thought any such thing about Saddam.
100 posted on 07/05/2003 3:54:49 PM PDT by squidly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 141-160 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson