While Democrats seized on the new report by Charles Duelfer to bolster their case that invading Iraq was a mistake, Cheney focused on portions of the report that were more favorable to the administration's case. While saying that Saddam's weapons program had deteriorated since the 1991 Gulf War (news - web sites) and did not pose a threat to the world in 2003, the report did say that Saddam's main goal was to get international sanctions lifted. "As soon as the sanctions were lifted he had every intention of going back" to his weapons program, Cheney said. So, is Cheney insane? Hell no. He's just plain evil; somebody who salivated over Iraq's massive oil fields. What's insane would be to give that man a second term. As a voter and somebody with at least a modicum of knowledge of international affairs, SURELY you can see what's wrong with his deceitful logic? For those of you who haven't figured it out yet, the United States has veto power in the UN. Those sanctions COULD NEVER be lifted, unless the USA agrees to lifting them. So what Cheney has done has traded the lives of 1060 Americans (and surely to be more if he is allowed to return to power) and 200 billion dollars for the convenience of not having to say NO in a United Nations chamber. Please, Republicans, I beseech you. Stop supporting this Cheney madness that is wreaking death upon our soldiers and causing colossal hatred of America in this world. Vote for John Kerry. He might not be your ideal candidate, but he is leaps and bounds better than what sits in the White House now.
At least Dick Cheney can think and speak at the same time. Who cares if he lies? He sounds better than George W.
I don't exactly agree with Cheney myself. There is a big difference in lifting sanctions and enforcing sanctions. The problem was the enforcement. As was said before, the effect of the sanctions had greatly eroded after '97, the enforcement was the key, not simply having them in place. Once again, I point you to the Oil for Food scandal. That's the key and that's where the problem is. The Iraqi government by name may not have been funding terrorism, but it is highly likely Saddam himself was with the billions he was stealing. He was also purchasing weapons, missile components, etc. that were banned (from our friends in France, Germany, Russia, and China, I might add) Connections have been made, investigations are underway, the only hold-up is the UN allowing access to the documents that will get to the bottom of this. You know as well as I do the proof has shown the UN guy heading the program was on the take, heck, even the UN has acknowledeged it.
Do the words "oil for food" ring a bell? Or are you intentionally disregarding that little item just to make a poltical point? I think you know as well as anybody that those sanctions never needed to be lifted...every major player with a chip in the game except the U.S. was either skirting said sanctions or outright ignoring them...all in the name of illicit profit. So, to put it mildly, you're being disingenous. Leaps and bounds better? And as he's never been President and has a less than stellar Senate career, you would know this how???!!! Please Rex, I beseech you...go pound sand.
Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees. I'm breaking my embargo against Bush supporters (because this is an important point) to ask this question: You have GOT to be kidding, right? In the face of a thorough weapons inspections report that said quite explicitly that Saddam had neither WMDs nor programs to produce them you have the temerity to assert that "the effect of the sanctions had greatly eroded after '97"? Astounding. Absolutely astounding. We invaded on a weapons of mass destruction basis. If Saddam was purchasing those things, as you insinuate, then where are they? Why did Mr. Duellfer say there is no evidence for them? Also, there is no evidence, as Mr. Duellfer reported, that Saddam was funding terrorists, so on what do you base your assertion of a likelihood? Wake up, please. Your countrymen are dying in Iraq in a needless war.
Bush based his decisions on a Clinton holdover in the CIA. If this is the kind of ignorance dem's hire for critical positions, its best we keep as many dem's out of Washington as possible.:thumb:
i was a bit bored, so i will write a review of the free speech alley regulars: liberals: crawfish: seems too smart to believe what he says. possibly only says it because he has been brainwashed or he wants to be a trouble maker. when i say he may be too smart to believe what he says, it isnt so much an endorsement of his intelligence as it is a condemnation of his cripplingly stupid statements. takes the positions you might take if you were 14 and a girl and believed everything you saw on MTV. rex: thinks very highly of himself. is taking the positions of a too-smart intellectual liberal, although he really doesnt have it in him to do a good job with that role. isnt above taking an extremely emotionally charged cheap shot lie at his opponents if it is politically expedient. red55: a much more reasonable liberal. has bought into the ideas of the current liberal non-fox media. probably could be convinced to be conservative and support bush if a particularly eloquent person tried to convert him. possibly is a contrarian only because there are so many conservatives. he isnt as knowledgeable as he likes to think. LSUGradin99: seems like honest and nice guy who has unfortunately been fooled by democrats. conservatives: jsracing: mindlessly takes the conservative side of everything. the conservative version of crawfish-lite. disagreements with him often bring up personal bragging and allegations that the opposition is a "keyboard hero". way too defensive. sourdoughman: what jsracing would be if he were 500 times friendlier and less defensive. politically a really poor man's jetstorm. ashgeaux/marcmc99: they should date, i read their posts almost interchangeably and agree with 91.2% of it. ashgeaux has apparently been working pretty hard to stay informed. jetstorm: above arguing. old school reagan conservative. puts too much faith in religion and israel. would be right on on almost everything, but like alot of republicans, social conservatism and religion stands in his way. getting brainwashed as a child can ruin a great mind. sabanfan: what red55 would be if he were conservative. what jetstorm would be if he was more argumentative and his opinions were stated more poorly. social conservatism based on delusional religious beliefs. homophobe. tirk/marinetiger: only difference is one is more likely to post pictures of chicks. never say anything that is wrong, but rarely say anything particularly interesting either. iststl: not religious, but not psyched about arguing it. a respectable conservative, but so much more interested in baseball that you would barely know it. gman113/uscpuke: pretty much right about everything, as far as i can recall. bengal b: is probably right about everything except religion, but prefers food and one-liners to FSA. mesquitetiger/lsugrad00: bandwagon riders. Crip*TEAM KATT: combination bandwagon jumper and superfriendly sourdoughman type.
So Rex after analyzing all the information you believe Saddam was not "funding terrorists"? Saddam himself is proud that he supported the families of suicide bombers. These are bombers that kill innocent women and children. When the US invaded Afghanistan, al-Zarqawi sought and received safe harbor in Baghdad. It was clear (at least to me) that Saddam wanted to harm the US and had the money to do it. No; he could not sail his army over here and hit us, but what he could do is to supply the money and/or material to motivated individual groups to strike us. That is a win/win situation for him. Deniability in the UN, but bragging rights amongst terrorist. The list could go on and on but the bottom line is that all terrorist are not named al-Qaida. Either you are a terrorist are you are not. And if you harbor terrorist you are on their side, not ours. Your statement that this is a needless war is too broad, which parts are needless? Our soldiers dieing? Their police dieing? The freeing of 25 million people from a brutal dictator? Installing a free and democratic society in a country that has known little freedom? Granted hind sight is 20/20 and things could have been done differently, but I for one am glad the terrorist shot RPG missiles into the Sheraton in Baghdad this morning versus the Sheraton in Baton Rouge. How bout you? :usaflagwa :laflagwav :lsug:
Guess Rex is still reading so I'll help him out and give him another summary from the report. One thousand pages. Keep reading, Rex. http://www.washtimes.com/national/20041007-014021-1051r.htm Syria was Iraq's "primary conduit for illicit imports" from late 2000 until the start of the U.S. invasion last year, according to the report, which also maintains that the Iraqi Intelligence Service set up front companies to buy prohibited arms from a Syrian totaling $1.2 billion. "The central bank of Syria was the repository of funds used by Iraq to purchase goods and materials both prohibited and allowed under U.N. sanctions," the report says. And "With the infusion of funding and resources following acceptance of the oil-for-food program, Iraq effectively shortened the time that would be required to re-establish [chemical weapon] production capacity," Mr. Duelfer said. "By 2003, Iraq would have been able to produce mustard agent in a period of months and nerve agent in less than a year or two." Mr. Duelfer said it is "still difficult to rule" on whether Iraq had a mobile biological-weapons production effort, but he noted that Iraq secretly destroyed stocks of biological weapons in 1991 and 1992, after having denied to weapons inspectors that it had such a program.
