Since we all agree on this goal, the issue is: How can we best achieve it?
Excuse me, Mr. President, but no we do not "all agree" on this goal.
First, some ask why Iraq is different from other countries or regimes that also have terrible weapons. While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone -- because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place.
I'm certainly quivering in my boots just worrying about it.
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant, who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility towards the United States.
Wasn't this the same people that we promised to help? Remember... Kurds? Let's see... invading Kuwait somehow equates to "dominating the Middle-East?"
As a former chief weapons inspector for the U.N. has said, "The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime itself: Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction."
As would you if another country wiped out 40% of your army and then flew over your air space for eleven years.
In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq's military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and is capable of killing millions.
That's right and he can't wait to throw them at the U.S. just so we'll turn his pissant country into glass.
Every chemical and biological weapon that Iraq has or makes is a direct violation of the truce that ended the Persian Gulf War in 1991.
Careful with the legality Mr. Pres... I'm not so sure our occupation of Iraqi air space is legal either. Best just to skip past the whole legal argument and move on to the part where we get to drop bombs.
We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical and biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using UAVs for missions targeting the United States.
That's right boys and girls... Hussein has UAV's capable of transatlantic flight. Better start building those shelters. You know... the one's your grandparents used to hide in.
Over the years, Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than ninety terrorist attacks in twenty countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans.
Isn't Nidal in Iraq but not what one could call a "guest." AFAIK, he's in the desert somewhere. You know... out there with the Kurds.
And we know that after September 11, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists.
Of course they cheered. They don't like us. Remember that part about patrolling their skies for eleven years? As for the second part... right... If we can trace anything to Hussein, he knows his life is forfeit.
As President Kennedy said in October of 1962: "Neither the United States of America nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world," he said, "where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation's security to constitute maximum peril."
A Republican quoting a democrat is rich. Nevermind the fact that the threat was less than 100 miles away and not on the other side of the gawdamn planet.
The world has also tried economic sanctions and watched Iraq use billions of dollars in illegal oil revenues to fund more weapons purchases, rather than providing for the needs of the Iraqi people.
But the world has not seen if simply lifting the sanctions might have cleared up this mess.
The United Nations would betray the purpose of its founding, and prove irrelevant to the problems of our time. And through its inaction, the United States would resign itself to a future of fear.
Read: We don't need the U.N. We don't need sanction. We don't need consensus. We are now the baddest sob in the valley. Come get some.
Thank you, and good night.
Good riddance. I got out of the military because I disagreed with Desert Storm. Your daddy had a better case than this.
