Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Wanker on January 21, 2004, 08:08:44 AM
-
I don't understand why Bush just doesn't come right out and say that the administration was wrong about WMD, and get on with life? Isn't it just fueling the fire of opposition to continue to insist that there are WMD waiting to be discovered?
If I were him, I'd come clean, admit that they had made a mistake about the WMD, and then focus on the fact that Saddam was a bad guy, etc. I think the country would accept the explanation that certain intelligence led us to believe of the existence of WMD in Iraq, and that unfortunately, that intelligence was flawed.
The only reason I can think of that they are not doing this, is because either they still really believe there are WMD to find, or they purposely used the WMD as a rallying point for support, when in fact they knew they did not exist.
-
Why didn't Clinton level with the people when he was hitting Iraq? Oh, I see, because "he's no longer president and not accountable". :rolleyes:
In 1998 Clinton took to the airwaves and explained his authorization of non-U.N.-approved missile strikes against Iraq, using the very same arguments later advanced by President Bush. Yet the silence was deafening.
Clinton, Dec. 19, 1998: "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. . . . Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. . . . Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."
George W. Bush, Jan. 28, 2003: "Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks, to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons is to dominate, intimidate or attack. With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region."
Clinton: "Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. . . . Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability. . . . Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection."
Bush: "The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary, he is deceiving. From intelligence sources, we know for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites, and monitoring the inspectors themselves."
Clinton: "Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. . . . I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."
Bush: "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy and it is not an option. The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured."
Clinton: "The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties. . . . Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. . . . But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so."
Bush: "Sending Americans into battle is the most profound decision a president can make. The technologies of war have changed, the risks and suffering of war have not. For the brave Americans, this nation fights reluctantly because we know the cost and we dread the days of mourning that always come. We seek peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes, peace must be defended. A future lived at the mercy of terrible threats is no peace at all. If war is forced upon us, we will fight in a just cause and by just means, sparing, in every way we can, the innocent. And if war is forced upon us, we will fight with the full force and might of the United States military."
-
That's right, he's not president anymore.
Mr. Copy-Paste - you've already banged on about Clinton. You say he was untrustworthy then say "But Clinton did this..." in response to any criticism of Bush. If he was such a low-life, what relevance does he have now? If Clinton was such a liar, why do you use him as part of a counterpoint to accusations of Bush being a liar? You can't even see that you undermine your own argument from the first word... sorry... first press of the CTRL key.
Comeon, Ripsnort, I'm sure you can do better than that.
-
150 mortar shells loaded with mustard gas are not WMD. it's just redecueless.
-
Are these the ones that were recently taken to a proper lab and declared to not contain chemical weapons? There's a 500+ long thread around here about it...
-
john9001 is just doing his part to help overtake the Gen Forum :)
Almost there.
-
I think the biggest reason for them to continue along the WMD line, is that they still believe that those weapons exist.
-Sik
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
I think the biggest reason for them to continue along the WMD line, is that they still believe that those weapons exist.
-Sik
or rather want the american people to believe they exist...
-
I think that by refering only to "Programs" they are trying to distance themselves and hope it goes away.
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
I think the biggest reason for them to continue along the WMD line, is that they still believe that those weapons exist.
-Sik
I think they exist....and I think they exist in syria now. Of course I dont have any proof of that its just a gut instinct. I DONT however think the administration MISLEAD the country, I think the country had pretty much decided that Sadam was a bad guy and needed to go. People that think he was no threat keep in mind if he did have weapons.....just a hand full of envelope filled anthrax shut down govt buildings and post offices in the US
-
I think they exist....and I think they exist in syria now. Of course I dont have any proof of that its just a gut instinct.
How ironic.
-
Lets not forget that those envelopes were products of your own labs sent by someone in your own system.
The "if he did have weapons" is a pretty sad way to justify armed conflict.
-
That's probably why you are not a politician, banana. :)
The truth is a weapon all politicians, in all countries, fear. Politically, some things are better left unsaid.
Since 1/3 of the American people believe Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 terrorist act, and 1/4 of the American people believe Saddam Hussein actually used WMD during the invasion, not saying anything ensures their vote.
Never underestimate the power of stupidity. It's evident on Channel 1 at all hours of the day and night. :D
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I think they exist....and I think they exist in syria now. Of course I dont have any proof of that its just a gut instinct. I DONT however think the administration MISLEAD the country, I think the country had pretty much decided that Sadam was a bad guy and needed to go. People that think he was no threat keep in mind if he did have weapons.....just a hand full of envelope filled anthrax shut down govt buildings and post offices in the US
It was already proven those anthrax strains came from within the US. Most likely some wackjob holed up in a bunker.
-
Nobody likes to admit they were wrong. Just look at this board when it comes to the WMD topic. Now multiply that by a million because of this particular situation and it's consequences....global involvement, partisian politics, election year, etc.
And as somebody pointed out already....If half of the people still support you and believe there are WMD, why admit the truth? You only risk losing their support. Not very smart in an election year.
I don't think I'd admit it either until I absolutely had to. Maybe once I was out of office?
yowser
-
Originally posted by Dowding
How ironic.
do u guys really understand what the size of WMD cache is, they are looking for? i dont think u do. I think they said all the weapons they are looking for could fit inside 1 2 story building. now put that building in a place the size of California.
now u dont know what the building looks like, it could be above ground or below. none of the locals will tell u where it is.
now go find that 1 building, with only 200 people or less looking with you.
reports are Saddam had over 300 munitions dumps (huge),
so far we have only been able to complete looking at them
by 1/3 or less.
-
maybe what if bla bla bla......just because it hasnt happend means it wont happen. I love that attitude. And dont forget about the struggle of a peace loving dictator named sadam. He was put down by an oppressive militaristic regiem named the USA. HOW EVIL.
Does anyone have any proof that the stockpiles that may or may not have existed are or are not in syria.
I love how everyone now is an expert on this subject and knows EXACTLY what happend. If clinton had attacked Iraq it would have been just another news story (oops he did attack them) But since it is a republican behind the wheel it must be all about oil and big business and racist motivations and nothing else
-
they have also stated that the amount of munitions they though iraq had were false as well whels. Saddam was bluffing then entire time, and its sad that our intelligence didnt know. (or did know)
-
Only 200 people looking? The UN inspectors had a larger staff than that, I should think there are now thousands involved directly. If not, why not?
None of the locals will tell you? What about the high level people captured since last March? None of them would accept a multi-million dollar incentive and a beach house in Malibu for information leading to an arms cache?
I'm sure all these questions will be answered soon(ish).
-
I don't know what is worse- trying to deflect the blame for the 2003 invasion of Iraq on Clinton or any other past president or confirming by the cut&paste that the current Bush cabinet are all losers simply following in the steps of the loser administration they replaced.
-
Because WMD's where the whole reason for the invasion, not that Sadam was a "bad guy". WMD's were sold (con) to the world as the number 1 threat, etc. etc. Blair is having a very very hard time defending the Iraq war and WMD's.
I can see a vote of no confidence going against him soon. And that will be the end of UK's support for Bush. Followed by the gradual withdrawl of UK forces.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I think they exist....and I think they exist in syria now. Of course I dont have any proof of that its just a gut instinct.
Since your instincts are so accurate...Please tell me what next weeks power ball numbers are.
By the way... it doesn't bother you that every... every... bit of evidence that Powel went to the UN has since been proven completely and absolutely wrong.
There's WMD...
Look here's evidence A to prove it.
Everyone looks at A and turns out A is not WMD
oko Look here's evidence B to prove it..
Everyone looks at B, and nope B is not WMD
Look C is proof!
Nope C is not WMD.
Come on...
This Administration's track record for what they say is true and what has been proven to be true is 0!!!
100% wrong.
notice only the people on this BBS are saying there are WMD buried in the sand dunes...
That's not coming out of the White House anymore...
They've shut up... they aren't winning that lie.
now it's... Saddam was a BAAAD BAAAD MAN..
The world is a better place now!
That's an opinion... is it really a better place?
Can't prove that right or wrong - it's subjective.
500 Americans dead... 9000 wounded and mamed...
10 of thousands iraqis dead
Practically Martial Law in every US air port..
US economy in the toilet...
Sure... the world is a better place... for the oil companies.
Cha Ching!!
Cha Ching!!
Gas prices went up up because of the war and terror... notice they aren't going back down.... oil product is higher than pre-war levels... demand is moderate... yet... prices are still high.
Cha Ching!
Cha Ching!
Bend over Amereeeka!
Time to drill for more OIL!!
LOL
-
Originally posted by john9001
150 mortar shells loaded with mustard gas are not WMD. it's just redecueless.
lie, noone of mortar shells was loaded by mustard gas, today experts claim was no gas inside ;-)
and btw mortars shells are not WMD, its short range tactical weapon
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Because WMD's where the whole reason for the invasion, not that Sadam was a "bad guy".
Lol, wrong. Read on.
September 12, 2002 Address to UN (http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/09/12/bush.transcript/)
Several paragraphs on human rights. Regardless, to me it is enough that he jerked around the US and the world in not keeping the cease fire agreement. What should happen when a cease fire agreement is broken? Duh!
12 years was pleanty of time for Saddam to choose alternatives. Blame the enforcer, instead of the law breaker...yea that makes sense.
-
the Iraq people are angry that Saddam is being held as a POW, they want him tried as a WAR CRIMINAL
you poor misguided liberals
-
There won't be a vote of no confidence against Blair, apart from the general elections in 2005. But like I've said before, Blair's greatest strength is that the alternative is piss poor. He's an actor and a fraud but he's the best we've got. The shame.
Unless something catastrophic happens, I'd say Blair's position is fairly secure.
BTW, what many Americans don't realise is that Blair is not just taking a beating over Iraq. He's getting burnt over Foundation Hospitals, University top up fees and to a lesser extent the state of the railways. And I'd say the military aren't exactly ecstatic about the Strategic Defence Review either.
"Right you get less soldiers, and a bit more technology... apart from bullet proof vests and armoured vehicles. But shhh about that part. So where was I... oh yes... less soldiers... but we want troops in this country... and this one... and this one... and maybe this one if the US asks. Oh, and if the firemen go on strike again you will be expected to provide coverage again. We call it the SDR. And it's completely bonkers."
-
Originally posted by whels
do u guys really understand what the size of WMD cache is, they are looking for? i dont think u do. I think they said all the weapons they are looking for could fit inside 1 2 story building. now put that building in a place the size of California.
now u dont know what the building looks like, it could be above ground or below. none of the locals will tell u where it is.
now go find that 1 building, with only 200 people or less looking with you.
reports are Saddam had over 300 munitions dumps (huge),
so far we have only been able to complete looking at them
by 1/3 or less.
after allmost year after war, who will belive itys Saddam WMD, when they find couple canes of mustard gas?
anyway most fo countries have chemical weapon since early 20's XX century. So couple cans, shels, or whatever they find cannot be something too danger. Special when Saddam has no resources to reach any U.S state ;-)
lets face it, its conquer not liberation war
-
Originally posted by john9001
the Iraq people are angry that Saddam is being held as a POW, they want him tried as a WAR CRIMINAL
you poor misguided liberals
propaganda
-
Originally posted by Murdr
.................... Regardless, to me it is enough that he jerked around the US and the world in not keeping the cease fire agreement.
so next one is Brasil? for fingerprints case? lol
-
Originally posted by Nakhui
500 Americans dead... 9000 wounded and mamed...
The cost of lives shouldnt be minumized in any way. These casualties are for the entire war, and rebuilding. However this seems like a strange point to post on a board for a game that revolves around a war where many times more lives were lost in a single battle.
10 of thousands iraqis dead
As compaired to the hundreds of thousands murdered by their former goverment.
Practically Martial Law in every US air port..
Gee, doesnt that have something to do with 9/11/2001, and nothing to do with Iraq?
US economy in the toilet...
Gee, didnt that have something to do with 9/11/2001, and the bubble bursting on the over inflated tech market before the current administration. But then again if economic growth rates at a 20 year high give you this opinion, there is no pleasing you anyways.
-
Originally posted by Murdr
Lol, wrong. Read on.
September 12, 2002 Address to UN (http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/09/12/bush.transcript/)
Actually, Gixer is right. WMDs and supporting terrorists is the line that Bush sold the American public to gain approval for the war.
-SW
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Because WMD's where the whole reason for the invasion, not that Sadam was a "bad guy".
Wrong. Look up the text of a September 2002 Adress to the UN by Bush. Half was WMD related violations on UNSC resulotion and half was about Saddam's human rights violations...
-
Why not admit they were wrong?
1. Saddam was found how long after the war, and how? On a tip. If that person hadn't spoken to the right people, we might never have found him. And he was practically in plain sight.
2. SH was behaving as if he had weapons. Now you might say it was all a bluff, but there is a good chance he wasn't.
3. How will history view us if we go away without a good hard look and it's later found they were right there all along.
4. No one expected it all to be laying right out there on the sand dunes. It was always going to be a hard job.
Now it's real easy to believe that nothing existed prior to the war, especially if that's what you want to believe, but we are there, and we'd better be sure. If the worst that can be said is our intelligence was wrong, that's something to work on, but in the end SH was bucking UN mandates and was fairly well asking for a resumption of hostilities. That was stated as often as any reason to go to war against Iraq, despite the idiotic protestations of political partisans to the contrary. My gosh, it's a matter of public record, google it. You would have thought it was years ago and not this past spring.
-
why not level with the American people?
b/c Bush knows it will result in first class ticket to Crawford come January 2005 - and it won't be on Air Force One
strk
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Why not admit they were wrong?
1. Saddam was found how long after the war, and how? On a tip. If that person hadn't spoken to the right people, we might never have found him. And he was practically in plain sight.
Yes, you really belive he was found in December? How conveniant, just as the Election was starting up. I promise you, SH will never have the chance to utter a single word in a court, anywhere. He will be shoot dead or be blown up by the"IRAQ people", AKA CIA, or die in a heartattack in prison.
-
What IS it with you Scandinavians?
-
Originally posted by Dowding
There won't be a vote of no confidence against Blair...
Unless something catastrophic happens, I'd say Blair's position is fairly secure.
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/yp.jpg)
You can read about this "exclusive poll" on the UK Yahoo! home page, http://uk.yahoo.com/
OK, this alone isn't going to get him out of Downing Street, but there's still the Lord Hutton report to come. Did you see Panorama last night?
The last Labour government (and I really had high hopes that it was the last one) was ousted by a vote of no confidence. It's not unlikely that the Blair administration will suffer a similar fate, though probably not before winning the next election c2005.
-
Lord Hutton will reveal nothing that isn't already known. The government will be criticised for using a civil servant as a pawn in its game of trying to justify the debunked 45 minute WMD readiness claim, and the BBC will be criticised for supporting Gilligan far too vociferously.
Blair's reputation has already been damaged with regards to that situation.
-
WMD was the reason we were all told was the justification of the invasion...to simply ignore it and only push the humanitarian sideshow is pure nonsense.
This morning I announced that Australia had joined a coalition, led by the United States, which intends to disarm Iraq of its prohibited weapons of mass destruction.
John Howard 18/3/03
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Lord Hutton will reveal nothing that isn't already known. The government will be criticised for using a civil servant as a pawn in its game of trying to justify the debunked 45 minute WMD readiness claim, and the BBC will be criticised for supporting Gilligan far too vociferously.
Blair's reputation has already been damaged with regards to that situation.
You're probably right.
-
Originally posted by -tronski-
WMD was the reason we were all told was the justification of the invasion...to simply ignore it and only push the humanitarian sideshow is pure nonsense.
Absolutely true. OTOH, you have people saying it was the only reason, which is an outright lie.
-
Evil boys say: Clinton bombed Iraq because Monica sucked to loud.
And Bush bombed Iraq because he failed badly in Afghanistan. Does anyone ask about Bin Laden nowadays?
War is a perfect kind of distraction.
Ecke
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Absolutely true. OTOH, you have people saying it was the only reason, which is an outright lie.
it was the reason... that with out it... Congress would not have given their consent to go to war - Including Republicans.
The use of WMD within 45 minute WAS the only threat to US security...
Saddam being a malicious dictator to his people was not.
Saddam's violation of UN sanctions was not.
With out the WMD arguement... the Iraq war would have been a no go.
When Powel went to the UN to prove his case... he wasn't giving evidence of Sadam the mean bad guy... years of UN sanction violations... pictures of mass graves...
He went with what he called "evidence" of WMD... that was and is the only White House arguement capable of justifying the war.
-
"Yes" or "No"... did Bush speak of years of ignoring UN resolutions when stumping for action against Iraq? Simple question.
-
"Let me tell you what I know. When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for. That is, at the end of the first Gulf War, we knew what he had. We knew what was destroyed in all the inspection processes and that was a lot. And then we bombed with the British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it. But we didn't know. So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say you got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions."
Bill Clinton, 7/22/03, Larry King Live
-
Better safe...then "60,000 dead" sorry.
-
Originally posted by banana
I don't understand why Bush just doesn't come right out and say that the administration was wrong about WMD, and get on with life? Isn't it just fueling the fire of opposition to continue to insist that there are WMD waiting to be discovered?
If I were him, I'd come clean, admit that they had made a mistake about the WMD, and then focus on the fact that Saddam was a bad guy, etc. I think the country would accept the explanation that certain intelligence led us to believe of the existence of WMD in Iraq, and that unfortunately, that intelligence was flawed.
The only reason I can think of that they are not doing this, is because either they still really believe there are WMD to find, or they purposely used the WMD as a rallying point for support, when in fact they knew they did not exist.
Cause he's a banana :D:aok
-
Originally posted by Kieran
"Yes" or "No"... did Bush speak of years of ignoring UN resolutions when stumping for action against Iraq? Simple question.
Simple Question... Does Bush wear Boxers or Briefs.
Certainly that has more relevance than the point your trying to make.
The debate wasn't about UN Sanctions being ignored... that was the rhetoric used to convince the UN to authorize the war - which it didn't.
The argument changed after the UN said no... and then it became 45 minutes or less to convince the congress.
The issue that was debated in Congress and the only issue, was if Iraq may have WMD capable of striking US interests in 45 minutes, that justifies pre-emptive war.
The White House provided intelligence briefs to select congressional members to support their point of view - even Hillary Clinton saw this information and voted for the war.
Now it turns out that intell was bunk.
Furthermore, there are over 100 citations of Bush/Powel/Chenney/Rumsfeld claiming AQ/Iraqi link, in press releases and interviews, prior to and during the war. These statements also have bearing on the decision being debated in congress because it would have given direct 9/11 cause and effect to justify war.
Now the administration has back away from those statements and are professioning no AQ/Iraq link... well frankly because they can not prove it.
Yet they were strongly persuasive and diligent in using those statements while they were seeking justification.
You know if all of this were to be put into a court of law... Bush and his boys would be cited for contempt of court, purjuring... and obstruction of justice.
But then politics doesn't fall under the same scrutiny.
Americans have no memory nor clue of the real issues involved.
Just like MTv... 5 seconds of this... 5 seconds of that... flip/flop... on to the next program.
-
Executive Summary
So let's accept that 3 reasons were presented as justification for the invasion, then look at the scoreboard:
1. Saddam Hussein was hiding WMD and WMD development programs/material in violation of numerous UN resolutions. Saddam Hussein tried to import tons of uranium and was able to deliver WMD with 45 minutes.
Hussein did expel the inspectors, but they re-entered and found no hidden caches of weapons, but destroyed some old and unusable machinery that could have been used for weapons development. No WMD have been found and no workable development systems have been found.
Saddam Hussein did not try to import tons of uranium - that report turned out to be false.
Since no WMD have been found, none could have possibly been delivered in 45 minutes and the veracity of that report has been called into question.
2. Saddam Hussein was harboring and providing aid and facilities for training terrorists and therefore a threat to the United States.
No links to Al Queda, Osama bin Laden or terrorists planning on attacking America have ever been found and the Admistration has admitted such.
3. Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator and the Iraqis should be free from his rule.
Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator.
Governments and politicians do not act out of moral outrage against atrocities or out of a sense of humanity. If that were true, then the millions of people tortured and murdered in Sudan, Somalia and other nations (far beyond those who suffered under the thumb of Hussein) would have expected a full U.S. invasion also. Why not? The answers are right in front of us.
A) The WTC attackers were predominately Saudis, as Osama bin Laden is. His support came from deep within the Saudi culture and community. The U.S. is not about to give up Saudi oil even though more Saudi links can be found to WTC and no links can be found to Hussein.
B) Saudi Arabia and Venzuela provide the bulk of oil imports to the U.S. and the U.S. is no more independent of imported oil than it was during the oil embargo of the 1970s. Venezuela is a political and economic powderkeg and risky provider.
C) Iraq has the world's 2nd largest oil reserves and French and Russian companies had signed agreements with Hussein to become the distributors and handlers of Iraqi oil after the UN sanctions were lifted. German companies were also set to provide oil production facility construction and refurbishing.
The current adminstration was not going to let that happen. The contracts are now null and void since Hussein is no longer in power. If you think that this was not about oil for America, then you do not understand what makes America tick and you do not understand politics and power.
America is not opening up to poor Iraqi victims of Hussein because of some moral outrage. Americans are not collecting money and goods, holding 'Save the Iraqis' telethons and "Iraqi Aid" concerts. I continually hear and see people call the victims 'ragheads' and other derogatory terms. It is pure hypocrisy.
Every American family is comitted to pay about $1,000 for the invasion of Iraq - so far.
It has nothing to do with revenge for WTC because Hussein had nothing to do with it.
It has nothing to do with WMD because no WMD have been found.
It has nothing to do with making America safer since Americans are now scutinized, investigated, tracked, photographed, searched, wiretapped and even held in prison in legal limbo against the very ideals that made America great - The Constitution and balance of judiciary, executive and legislative branches.
By forfeiting the very ideals of democracy to bureaucrats and those who sustain their position by fear, Americans have forfeited their future and the respect of those who admired the original, beautiful ideals of America.
Wearing a flag pin on your lapel does not show your patriotism. Your actions to participate in your nations future by protecting and defending the constitution with your heart and soul are the only true patriotic acts. The invasion of Iraq was not an an event that Americans should feel pride about as something that made America safer or protected America from attack. It did neither.
The Revolutionary War was fought by revolutionaries who sacrificed their lives and fortunes for an idea. Who today would be willing to give up their fortunes to defend their freedom? Sadly, you wouldn't give up a thing, but prefer to just allow your freedom to be stolen by those promising false security.
President Truman once made a comment, and I can't remember it verbatim, but something to the effect that he pitied the average person who believed what they read in the news to be the true reasons for decisions and actions by governments.
-
The only problems with your scenario are:
1. I was alive last year
2. I watched the news
3. I listened to what was said by both sides.
Seemed to me Bush, Powell, Rumsfield, Rice, all the cabinet members made a habit of running down the laundry list of offenses. I am not arguing which reasons motivated Congress to vote one way or another; I am stating as a fact the Bush administration did indeed discuss more than WMD.
Of course this game of saying the president only said one thing started almost immediately after the war ended. The weaker minded of the left gobble it up without question, the stronger minded know they have been dishonest when they say such things. A precious few acknowledge the truth.
-
Where would the weight of spiel and rhetoric lie though, Kieren? With WMD or humanitarian concerns?
I think you're being dishonest when you say WMD was an equal consideration alongside Saddam's record on human rights, if that is indeed what you are implying. WMD was the major concern, its proliferation was the central consideration. We both know that.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Where would the weight of spiel and rhetoric lie though, Kieren? With WMD or humanitarian concerns?
I think you're being dishonest when you say WMD was an equal consideration alongside Saddam's record on human rights, if that is indeed what you are implying. WMD was the major concern, its proliferation was the central consideration. We both know that.
That's the thing, and it's my fault for not being clear; I am not saying that at all. Most definitely Bush stupidly made WMD the cornerstone of his case against Iraq. It is however unfair to say it is the ONLY thing he said, which is what the vast majority of people opposed to him are saying.
I would have been for the war regardless of WMD, because it was an inevitability. Better sooner than later in my mind. But that doesn't mean I give Bush a pass for being dishonest, IF it is proven he has been dishonest. Election is in November, IF the Dems can provide a viable candidate by then (big IF), I would happily vote for the Dems if proof of WMD cannot be found. Maybe even if they are. Not happy with Bush at the moment, that's for sure.