Originally Posted By DouglasDubh The Iraq war is Saddam's doing. He's the one that continued oppressing his people, supporting terrorism, and pursuing WMD's, in defiance of the cease fire and the UN resolutions.
Originally Posted By YourPalEd <<<The Iraq war is Saddam's doing. He's the one that continued oppressing his people, supporting terrorism, and pursuing WMD's, in defiance of the cease fire and the UN resolutions.>>> The known traitor, and anti-american, george bush, started the iraq war. Everyone in the world will tell you so. Only an anti-american parasite, would lie and blame it on osama, who, i was recently told has been staying on cheney's wisconsin ranch, during the last year or so, after they moved him out of san diego. The coalition of one group of traitors, george bush, and the cabal in the white house.
Originally Posted By YourPalEd Oops, i think its wyoming, not wisconsin. Osama, and cheney, on the saudi oil payroll, has been moved to cheney's ranch in wyoming, some horse ranch or other. Maybe i am too honest. What do you think?
Originally Posted By ecdc "The Iraq war is Saddam's doing. He's the one that continued oppressing his people, supporting terrorism, and pursuing WMD's, in defiance of the cease fire and the UN resolutions." Bullfeathers. Saddam was boxed in and no threat whatsoever. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. Kim Jong Il is worse than Saddam, no? He's more of a threat, by any measure. Yet we're working with other countries and the UN to keep him in control. We could have, and should have, done the same thing with Saddam. Clinton kept Saddam boxed in with occasional bombing runs and working with other countries. All of a sudden Bush and Co. tell us he's a huge threat and you swallow it hook, line, and sinker. Too bad there's no evidence to support it.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Conservatives would love to have everyone think that iraq was a hotbed of islamic terrorism before we invaded. It wasn't. We made it that way.<< It isn't just conservatives who know that Iraq was, indeed, a haven for terrorists before the invasion. Here's what John Kerry had to say in his Senate speech of October 9, 2002: >>He [Saddam] has supported and harbored terrorist groups, particularly radical Palestinian groups such as Abu Nidal, and he has given money to families of suicide murderers in Israel.<< And here's Hillary Clinton the next day: >>He [Saddam] has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.<< One could legitimately argue that al Qaida was not there (although that point is still not settled), but it is simply wrong to claim that it was the US invasion that brought terrorists to Iraq in the first place.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> The Iraq war is Saddam's doing. << If you believe that, then you're arguing that the iraq war is unrelated to 9/11 and is not a part of the 'war on terror'. Unless perhaps you still think that saddam had anything to do with 9/11.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> ... but it is simply wrong to claim that it was the US invasion that brought terrorists to Iraq in the first place. << Not at all. If there were a handful of palestinian 'terrorists' within iraq before our invasion, it certainly doesn't compare to the situation post-invasion. And it couldn't be considered a 'hotbed'. So, ergo, we attracted the terrorists by turning iraq into a chaotic war torn nation with no control and command at the top.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Bullfeathers. Saddam was boxed in and no threat whatsoever. None. Zero. Zip. Nada... All of a sudden Bush and Co. tell us he's a huge threat and you swallow it hook, line, and sinker. Too bad there's no evidence to support it.<< How breathtaking is the Big Lie when stated so boldly. Saddam was, indeed, a threat to his neighbors and the rest of the world right up until the eve of the invasion. It did not take any great histrionics on the part of "Bush and Co." to persuade anyone-- it was common knowledge. But, as a refresher, read back over what the various Democrats in the Senate had to say on the eve of invasion. Hillary Clinton: >>Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people... if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.<< John D. Rockefeller IV: >>There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein is a despicable dictator, a war criminal, a regional menace, and a real and growing threat to the United States.<< John Kerry: >>It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world. He has as much as promised it. He has already created a stunning track record of miscalculation. He miscalculated an 8-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's responses to it. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending Scuds into Israel. He miscalculated his own military might. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his plight. He miscalculated in attempting an assassination of a former President of the United States. And he is miscalculating now America's judgments about his miscalculations. << Or, perhaps, you are counting Hillary, Rockefeller, and Kerry among the ranks of "Bush and Co.?"
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>And it couldn't be considered a 'hotbed'.<< Ah, I see. It wasn't a "hotbed" of terrorism. Perhaps it was just a comfy oasis in a troubled region. Or a pit stop. Or, or whatever you choose to term it. But the fact remains that Saddam did, indeed, harbor terrorists.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <If you believe that, then you're arguing that the iraq war is unrelated to 9/11 and is not a part of the 'war on terror'.> No, I'm not. Iraq under Saddam was a terrorist state.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> But the fact remains that Saddam did, indeed, harbor terrorists. << That's an arbitrary barometer that seeks to justify the iraq war after the fact. There are lots of nations that are far more egregious that we do less than nothing about. >> Saddam was, indeed, a threat to his neighbors and the rest of the world right up until the eve of the invasion. << Simply not true. He did not have a cohesive functioning military, and did not have sufficient material to launch a protracted attack on anybody - especially the U.S. But that's not what bush and his administration said - repeatedly. They portrayed him as an imminent threat - a clear and present danger. It wasn't true. Bush lied.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>That's an arbitrary barometer that seeks to justify the iraq war after the fact.<< No, it's a simple historical fact. Whether it is being used to justify anything after the fact has no bearing on it. The thesis here is "Bush Lied." >>He did not have a cohesive functioning military, and did not have sufficient material to launch a protracted attack on anybody - especially the U.S. But that's not what bush and his administration said - repeatedly. They portrayed him as an imminent threat - a clear and present danger. It wasn't true. Bush lied.<< Bush was not alone in this assessment of Saddam and his capabilities. But if you want to continue to believe this revisionist history, no amount of facts or proof will suffice. Bush did not lie.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Bush WAS alone in using it as a provocation of war. >> No, it's a simple historical fact. << Here are some more facts - Sen. Rockefeller of the Senate Select Committee on pre-war intelligence states that the committee found "that the bush administration's case for war in iraq was fundamentally misleading". That's senate talk for "bush lied". This same senate committee found - and clearly stated - that saddam did not harbor al qaeda operateve zarqawi. Hussein viewed zarqawi as an "outlaw" and ordered him to be apprehended. Bush on the other hand, just stated last month that saddam "had relations with zarqawi". The committee's report also stated that saddam and iraq had no known organizational ties to al qaeda. The report also stated that some of the intelligence sources were complete frauds. Now one conservative poster here has already dismissed this report as outright wrong. He has to - or he has to go back and revise all of his contentions that he's posted here for years. The senate committee is republican controlled and GOP majority. They have no political motivation to publish statements that question the president's integrity and honesty. And yet, there it is. People can choose to believe it or not, but why would the senate publish these statements if they didn't believe them to be true?
Originally Posted By ecdc "But, as a refresher, read back over what the various Democrats in the Senate had to say on the eve of invasion." Yet not one of these Democrats provides proof that Saddam was any kind of threat. Instead, they took the cowards way out and pandered to the right and a majority of Americans at that time by going along for the ride. Sad but true. Now, as for that evidence that Saddam was a threat to us...
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <That's an arbitrary barometer that seeks to justify the iraq war after the fact.> How can it be after the fact when the joint resolution mentioned it? <Sen. Rockefeller of the Senate Select Committee on pre-war intelligence states that the committee found "that the bush administration's case for war in iraq was fundamentally misleading". That's senate talk for "bush lied".> That's double-talk. Sen Rockefeller looked at the same intelligence that President Bush looked at, and came to the same conclusions he did. Now he wants to pretend he didn't, and only the gullible would believe him.
Originally Posted By ecdc It all still begs the question, what about all the other nasty dictators who torture their own people and are a threat to their neighbors. They've always been around and they always will be around. But apparently, Saddam was somehow special or different. Of course, we're not told what makes him so different.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Rockefeller looked at the intelligence bush PROVIDED at the time. Since then, they've had more time and opportunity to review all available data, and has come to the conclusion that not only was the bush administration's intelligence incorrect, but all the way to "misleading".
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> Of course, we're not told what makes him so different. << Real estate. Along with the third largest oil deposits on planet earth.
Originally Posted By DlandDug If this had been Bush's sole reason for invading Iraq, this would make more sense. But it wasn't. Further, what the Senate has to say NOW does not fundamentally change what was conventional wisdom THEN. Even Rockefeller said this on the eve of the invasion: >>Saddam’s government has contact with many international terrorist organizations that likely have cells here in the United States... Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East. And he could make those weapons available to many terrorist groups which have contact with his government, and those groups could bring those weapons into the U.S. and unleash a devastating attack against our citizens. I fear that greatly.<< Was Rockefeller lying then? Or was he (like Bush) making confident, unambiguous statements based on what he believed to be true?
Originally Posted By ecdc "Was Rockefeller lying then? Or was he (like Bush) making confident, unambiguous statements based on what he believed to be true?" Rockefeller, like so many others, was caught up in the "It's all about Saddam" hype. It was all Saddam, all the time in the media and in the Bush administration. An equally gloomy statement could be made about Kim Jong Il - but he's not the flavor of the day apparently; his starvation regime and very real nuclear weapons don't seem to warrant the attention that Saddam's fake nuclear weapons do. But the squeaky wheel gets the oil and the Bush administration pointed us to Saddam.
