Reasons Not to Invade Iraq by Bush Sr.

[Odee]

You idiot, Bush Sr. has said he would have gone the course and into Baghdad if he had had the support from the American people and Congress.  

As it was, the US was only there at the behest of Kuwait, who Iraq had invaded.  Had we continued on, the Islamic world would have seen that as an act of expanionism.

Face it, those people have been cutting each others throats for thousands of years because of "religious" differences.  Remove the secular from the government and you have hopes for peace.  Leave it in, and you have what we see now.

And FYI - WMD material components were located in several locations in Iraq.  The drive-by media just failed to expand on it when it was first reported, and the Demoncrats just keep their blinders on and ignore it.

[rpm]

Originally posted by Eagler
rpm, yep the dems are trying to do exactly that .. they all seem to have forgotten they voted on the war knowing exactly what everyone else did at the time..

You mean knowing exactly what Bush fabricated to suit his wants? Say, where are those stockpiles of WMD anyway? We did torture Saddam and get the info before he was hung, right?

[Eagler]

Originally posted by rpm
You mean knowing exactly what Bush fabricated to suit his wants? Say, where are those stockpiles of WMD anyway? We did torture Saddam and get the info before he was hung, right?

Yes, the same stockpiles the world believed he had and may even of had and moved. But keep trying to change history to meet the dems latest spew.

if we'd totured anyone, it'd just given the dems another agenda .. sort of like the Rice witch hunt they are starting up now...

[Odee]

Is it true the the Democrats do not understand their own Constitution, and Laws, and this is why the keep trying to re-write something that wasn't broken in the first place?

[Shifty]

How soon we forget.

Bill Clinton: "If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

Madeleine Albright, (Clinton Secretary of State): "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."

Sandy Berger, (Clinton National Security Advisor): "[Saddam will] use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has ten times since 1983."

Harry Reid: "The problem is not nuclear testing; it is nuclear weapons. … The number of Third World countries with nuclear capabilities seems to grow daily. Saddam Hussein's near success with developing a nuclear weapon should be an eye-opener for us all."

Dick Durbin: "One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that…Iraq…may acquire or develop nuclear weapons."

John Kerry: "If you don't believe…Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me."

John Edwards: "Serving on the Intelligence Committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons, it's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons."

Nancy Pelosi: "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons-inspection process."

[rpm]

Originally posted by Eagler
Yes, the same stockpiles the world believed he had and may even of had and moved. But keep trying to change history to meet the dems latest spew.

if we'd totured anyone, it'd just given the dems another agenda .. sort of like the Rice witch hunt they are starting up now...

If we'd tortured anyone? What pile of sand do you have your head buried in anyway?

Shifty, you REALLY don't want to play the quote game on this one.

[Shifty]

RPM I'm not playing a game.  Besides, I didn't say it, they did.

Here's some more., and by all means post yours as well. How's anybody going to know if you don't bring out what's been said. This forum boils down to usually two groups arguing over crap other people have done to us, and ours. Everybody loves to complain about this war, both sets of politicians sent our troops over there. Not just Bush. The biggest problem I have is one set thinks they can skirt their responsibiltiy on the war by blaming even their own vote on Bush.  Instead of concentrating on winning it.

This war has hurt my family already, believe me theres nothing you can post that's going bother me any more than these Washington jackholes have already.

RPM

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that 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."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

[rpm]

Sorry for your family's loss.

Since you seem to need to go down this road, buckle up...

President George W. Bush:
"We recently found two mobile biological weapons facilities which were capable of producing biological agents."
Source: President Talks to Troops in Qatar, White House (6/5/2003).

"We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them."
Source: Interview of the President by TVP, Poland, White House (5/29/2003).
(These statement were misleading because it claimed the purpose of the trailers was to produce biological weapons without disclosing that engineers from the Defense Intelligence Agency who examined the trailers concluded that they were most likely used to produce hydrogen for artillery weather balloons.)

"I strongly believe he was trying to reconstitute his nuclear weapons program."
Source: President Bush, Prime Minister Blair Discuss War on Terrorism, White House (7/17/2003).
(This statement was misleading because it failed to acknowledge the intelligence community's deep division on the issue of whether Iraq was actively pursuing its nuclear program. The statement also failed to mention weeks of intensive inspections conducted directly before the war in which United Nations inspectors found no sign whatsoever of any effort by Iraq to resume its nuclear program.)

"The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men -- the shock troops of a hateful ideology -- gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the 'beginning of the end of America.' By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation's resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed."
Source: President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended, White House (5/1/2003).
(This statement was misleading because by referencing the September 11 attacks in conjunction with discussion of the war on terror in Iraq, it left the impression that Iraq was connected to September 11. In fact, President Bush himself in September 2003 acknowledged that "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th.")

"But the risk of doing nothing, the risk of the security of this country being jeopardized at the hands of a madman with weapons of mass destruction far exceeds the risks of any action we may be forced to take."
Source: President Meets with National Economic Council, White House (2/25/2003).
(This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq posed an urgent threat despite the fact that the U.S. intelligence community had deep divisions and divergent points of view regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. As Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet noted in February 2004, "Let me be clear: analysts differed on several important aspects of these programs and those debates were spelled out in the Estimate. They never said there was an 'imminent' threat.")

Vice President Richard Cheney:
"In terms of the question what is there now, we know for example that prior to our going in that he had spent time and effort acquiring mobile biological weapons labs, and we're quite confident he did, in fact, have such a program. We've found a couple of semi trailers at this point which we believe were, in fact, part of that program."
Source: Morning Edition, NPR (1/22/2004).
(This statement was misleading because it claimed the purpose of the trailers was to produce biological weapons without disclosing that engineers from the Defense Intelligence Agency who examined the trailers concluded that they were most likely used to produce hydrogen for artillery weather balloons.)

"I continue to believe. I think there's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi government. We've discovered since documents indicating that a guy named Abdul Rahman Yasin, who was a part of the team that attacked the World Trade Center in '93, when he arrived back in Iraq was put on the payroll and provided a house, safe harbor and sanctuary. That's public information now. So Saddam Hussein had an established track record of providing safe harbor and sanctuary for terrorists. . . . I mean, this is a guy who was an advocate and a supporter of terrorism whenever it suited his purpose, and I'm very confident that there was an established relationship there."
Source: Morning Edition, NPR (1/22/2004).
(This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq was providing support to al Qaeda. In fact, the U.S. intelligence community had conflicting evidence on this issue and was divided regarding whether there was an operational relationship.)

"We did have reporting that was public, that came out shortly after the 9/11 attack, provided by the Czech government, suggesting there had been a meeting in Prague between Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker, and a man named al-Ani (Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani), who was an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague, at the embassy there, in April of '01, prior to the 9/11 attacks. It has never been -- we've never been able to collect any more information on that. That was the one that possibly tied the two together to 9/11."
Source: Transcript of Interview with Vice President Dick Cheney, Rocky Mountain News (1/9/2004).
(This statement is misleading because it describes a Czech government report of a meeting between Mohammed Atta and Iraq intelligence official Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani in April 2001 and states that there hasn't been more information on that, despite the fact that Czech intelligence officials were skeptical about the report; U.S. intelligence had contradictory evidence regarding this report, such as records indicating Atta was in Virginia at the time of the meeting; and the C.I.A. and F.B.I. had concluded the meeting probably didn't occur.)

"I don't want to talk about, obviously, specific intelligence sources, but it's now public that, in fact, he has been seeking to acquire, and we have been able to intercept and prevent him from acquiring through this particular channel, the kinds of tubes that are necessary to build a centrifuge. And the centrifuge is required to take low-grade uranium and enhance it into highly enriched uranium, which is what you have to have in order to build a bomb."
Source: Meet the Press, NBC (9/8/2002).
(This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq sought aluminum tubes for use in its nuclear weapons program, failing to mention that the government's most experienced technical experts at the U.S. Department of Energy concluded that the tubes were "poorly suited" for this purpose.)

"But we do know, with absolute certainty, that he is using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon."
Source: Meet the Press, NBC (9/8/2002).
(This statement was misleading because it failed to acknowledge the intelligence community's deep division on the issue of whether Iraq was actively pursuing its nuclear program.)

That's just a few of the quotes from Bush and Cheney. Do you want me to dig up the lies from Donny and Condi as well? I'm leaving Powell out of this because it's clear he wants nothing to do with the administration and it's games.

[Shifty]

Thanks RPM.


Maybe I'm not properly expressing myself.

I don't think invading Iraq was a good idea, at the time.

I felt we should have concentrated on Afghanistan in 2003.

I do think Bush has made some big mistakes on how he has conducted the war.

I don't think Bush invaded Iraq for any reason other than he believed it was the right thing to do. I'll never buy it was for Oil profits, or Haliburton. Maybe I'm just Niave.

I think everybody voted on the intel available.

I fail to see bad intel and mistakes as lies.

I fail to see how an American politician can vote to send his countrys young people to war, then turn around and attack the president, and do everything possible to harass, smear, and be-little him while he is trying to conduct the war.

I will never understand how Dems who are always harping about Bush being an ignorant hick, unitelligent, and un-sophisticated, can then claim they were tricked by him into voting for the war.

The people who voted to go to war owe it to our military, and our citizens to see it through to a successful conclusion. Not backstab and de-rail the effort at every chance they get. Personally I feel that if as much effort went into cooperating for the good of the country as goes into poking a stick in each others eye, the situation in Iraq would be better than it is today.

The very fact that our politicians can't unite to finish something both sides voted for gives the enemy of our service members more initive to keep fighting.

So I'll side with you. Bush got us in the war, agreed.

However the Dems are making the situation far worse by supporting, and ecouraging failure.

I don't hold Bush or the Dems responsible for my son.

I do however hold the Dems responsible for going to war and not having the guts to finish it.

As far as Thomas, he'll be the first to tell you.

He volunteered for the Army
He volunteered for Combat Arms
He's not a victim.
He's a Soldier.

RPM

At least we can agree on  Rosie.

[john9001]

democrats "when there was no war, i voted for war, now that there is a war, i will vote against war."

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by Odee
 Complete disaster???  Sadam's and his kin are gone, and the only disaster is being created by the Sunni, and Shia against fellow Islamists... with the occaissional UN, US, UK, etc troops caught.  Boy, there's a model of a compassionate religion for you.

 

Yo liberals...?

Who said I was a liberal?  My voter registration card clearly says "Republican".   I guess I'm just not brainwashed and can form a thought for myself without having to watch Fox News to tell me what to believe.


ack-ack

[rpm]

Originally posted by Shifty
Thanks RPM.


Maybe I'm not properly expressing myself.

I don't think invading Iraq was a good idea, at the time.

I felt we should have concentrated on Afghanistan in 2003.

I do think Bush has made some big mistakes on how he has conducted the war.

We are in 100% agreement so far.

I don't think Bush invaded Iraq for any reason other than he believed it was the right thing to do. I'll never buy it was for Oil profits, or Haliburton. Maybe I'm just Niave.

I think everybody voted on the intel available.

I fail to see bad intel and mistakes as lies.

Here's where you lost me. Bush wanted to march into Baghdad to prove he was a tough guy. I believe the term is "cowboy". He quit listening to anyone that wasn't in agreement with him, "my way or the highway".

I fail to see how an American politician can vote to send his countrys young people to war, then turn around and attack the president, and do everything possible to harass, smear, and be-little him while he is trying to conduct the war.

I will never understand how Dems who are always harping about Bush being an ignorant hick, unitelligent, and un-sophisticated, can then claim they were tricked by him into voting for the war.

Because his story fell apart. He had no exit strategy. He was like the dog that caught the car, "WTF do I do with it now?" We are not fighting terrorists anymore, we are caught up in a religious Civil War that has been going on for centuries.

The people who voted to go to war owe it to our military, and our citizens to see it through to a successful conclusion. Not backstab and de-rail the effort at every chance they get. Personally I feel that if as much effort went into cooperating for the good of the country as goes into poking a stick in each others eye, the situation in Iraq would be better than it is today.

The very fact that our politicians can't unite to finish something both sides voted for gives the enemy of our service members more initive to keep fighting.

So I'll side with you. Bush got us in the war, agreed.

However the Dems are making the situation far worse by supporting, and ecouraging failure.

I don't hold Bush or the Dems responsible for my son.

I do however hold the Dems responsible for going to war and not having the guts to finish it.

As far as Thomas, he'll be the first to tell you.

He volunteered for the Army
He volunteered for Combat Arms
He's not a victim.
He's a Soldier.


RPM

At least we can agree on  Rosie.

Again, sorry for your family's loss. It's tragic that our finest and bravest are taken by war.

It's even more tragic to ask more young men and women to walk into the situation we are facing and die. Who's son or daughter needs to die so Bush can save face. He's had 4 years to stablize the country. Do you honestly think we have to stay in Iraq until they are thinking our way?  Should we stay 2 more years, 5 more, 25 more... or is that considered setting a deadline and surrendering? Should we institute a draft to build forces to accomplish this?

Should we have stayed in South Vietnam? Were Nixon and Ford backstabbers and de-railers? What about Reagan's withdrawal from Lebanon? Guess he was just a coward at heart. There comes a point where you are no longer a stablizing force and you actually make things better by leaving.

Just because you don't agree with George W. Bush or his administration does not mean you do not support the troops or care about their well being. That is a neat little talking point thought up by Karl Rove to bully pulpuit with. It's also sickening to me that their supporters think they are somehow superior citizens and the only true backers of the troops.

Slapping a magnetic yellow sticker that was made in China on the trunk of your car does absolutely nothing to help the soldier in the field. It does keep a chinese sticker factory open and make you feel better about yourself. Now you can badmouth anyone that doesn't have one and know you are a moraly superior american.

These lousy democrats that hate the troops as you and others claim, are the same ones that forced the administration to provide body armour and upgrade humvees. Remember "you don't go to war with the equiptment you want"? Could you believe the SecDef did'nt want to provide troops with armour and equiptment and wanted to fight on the cheap? But when it looks good flying over, what do the grunts on the ground know anyway.

Good thing this administration is made up of non serving chickenhawks. They can run it like a business instead of a war. Unfortunately in business the worst that can happen is you get fired, in war the cost is much higher.

[Eagler]

Shifty
please thank your son for his sacrifice for my family and I

[Shifty]

 Bush wanted to march into Baghdad to prove he was a tough guy. I believe the term is "cowboy". He quit listening to anyone that wasn't in agreement with him, "my way or the highway".


I think this is a bit of an over the edge attitude. You don't agree with his conduct of the war, that I understand, and respect. He didn't quit listening to those not in agreement. He did what he thought was the right course of action. Just because somebody dissagrees with you, doesn't mean you have to pick up and run their course of action.

It's even more tragic to ask more young men and women to walk into the situation we are facing and die. Who's son or daughter needs to die so Bush can save face. He's had 4 years to stablize the country. Do you honestly think we have to stay in Iraq until they are thinking our way?  Should we stay 2 more years, 5 more, 25 more... or is that considered setting a deadline and surrendering? Should we institute a draft to build forces to accomplish this?

Again I agree, war is the ultimate tragedy. However how can any President expect to have any chance of stabilizing one of the worlds most unstable locations when his political rivals are attacking his efforts at every ooportunity? Do you not see that our lack of unity serves the enemy? I'm not saying love the man. However we have the chance for a new government every 4 years, you want change? That's where you get it.

Just because you don't agree with George W. Bush or his administration does not mean you do not support the troops or care about their well being. That is a neat little talking point thought up by Karl Rove to bully pulpuit with. It's also sickening to me that their supporters think they are somehow superior citizens and the only true backers of the troops.

Slapping a magnetic yellow sticker that was made in China on the trunk of your car does absolutely nothing to help the soldier in the field. It does keep a chinese sticker factory open and make you feel better about yourself. Now you can badmouth anyone that doesn't have one and know you are a moraly superior american.

Again I agree, you have to do more than buy a yellow sticker. Plus I'd go as far as to say the majority of Americans do nothing to support the troops at all. This is not meant as a slight. it's just our country is so prosporus that we can be involved in a shooting war and nobody has their life affected except those fighting it. There's no rationing, no scrap drives, none of the things you saw during WWII. There's more complaining than aything else.

These lousy democrats that hate the troops as you and others claim, are the same ones that forced the administration to provide body armour and upgrade humvees. Remember "you don't go to war with the equiptment you want"? Could you believe the SecDef did'nt want to provide troops with armour and equiptment and wanted to fight on the cheap? But when it looks good flying over, what do the grunts on the ground know anyway.

Good thing this administration is made up of non serving chickenhawks. They can run it like a business instead of a war. Unfortunately in business the worst that can happen is you get fired, in war the cost is much higher.

You'll have to show me where I said those lousy Democrats hate the  troops. I believe what I said was those Dems "That voted for the war" plus I never said they hated the troops. I said they are hurting the troops with their actions and I believe they are. Honestly I do remember the you don't go to war with the equipment you want statement. Like you I didn't like it ethier, however sadly it is what happens in most wars.

As far as the administration being made up of non seving Chickenhawks? That's the battle cry of some real heros like Bill Mahr I suppose? Prior military service was no big deal under Clinton.  Before you say he didnt declare war on anyone, remember he wasn't challeneged by things like 9-11 ethier. Had 9-11 happened 3 years earlier, I would have wanted the same support for President Clinton as I do Bush.

Plus do you want to tell members of this community that are Guardsmen or Reservist thier service doesn't count? Because that seems to be the rule, Bush's service doesn't count because he was in the Air National Guard.

In fact I think we could go a long way by throwing both the terms Lousy Troop Hating Democrat, and Non Serving Chickenhawk, in the same trash heap.
RPM Thank you for keeping the discussion civil.

Thank you Eagler I will tell him.

[john9001]

before the war only combat troops got body armor not the support troops, humv's were designed as a replacement for the jeep/utility vehicle, it was never designed as a combat vehicle. But it is now being used as one, thats why it has to be "up-armored".

when i was in the military my jeep did not even have doors on it, forget about armor.

but that is all bush's fault of course.