http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/30/sprj.nirq.wmd/index.html make up your mind Dubya. You made the call to invade Iraq, you are responsible. This seems like a ploy to blame somebody else for your shortcomings over the WMD issue. The world is a better place with Saddam gone, no question about that, but they do not seem anywhere NEAR the high risk for starting a nuclear war as you had the American public think. maybe the UN was right on this one after all.................... :dis: :dis: :dis: :dis: :dis: :dis:
then again maybe the UN is a weak puppet organization, that would have talked forever while Sadaam continually broke resolution agreement over and over again. If he had no weapons he would have been more forthcoming. And if he was just trying to "test" us to see how far we would go, I think he has his answer now doesn't he? I personally don't care if he had them or not, the point is if you can't follow the rules and your nation has been under sanctions for years, and you don't care because you're the dictator and only the people are suffering, then you need to be taken out. Taken down, shot, hung, blown up whatever. The UN set forth rules for Sadaam to follow NOT the Iraqi people. When will you peace thumpers quit harbinging on us invading Iraq? The IRAQI People WELCOMED U.S. Troops. We didn't invade anybody, we freed a nation, a culture, a once proud people located in the cradle of civilization. We gave them back the right to elect whoever they want, esentally to be a light to the rest of the Arab nations around them. I personally don't care if Saddam has match sticks, he is gone and another tyrant is out of office. 1. No Iraqi women are being Raped because their father said something anti Sadaam in a market somewhere. 2. No Iraqi athletes, what's left of them, are being beaten and thrown in cesspools because they didn't win a game. 3. No new fresh Shite mass graves are being made jsut because they don't agree with Bath party politics. the list is longer, you get my idea. Question for you? Why have a UN if they are going to issue warnings and sanctions but never back it up? Saddam laughed at the UN. The UN hates Bush YET he is the ONE man who may have saved their credibility. the UN is talking with North Korea on a limited basis now and while that isn't much it is more than they were willing to do before. I know if I was a despot in some 3rd world country, and I was watching what happened to Sadaam, who was esentially RAPING his land and people, I'd be a TAD worried now. Try to look at the big picture, war is ugly, the worst thing imaginable, but without it, you'd be marching with a goose step right now. Thank God for the BLOOD of heroes.
Most of the world thought the same as Bush on Iraq having WMDs including your boy Clinton. There was just a disagreement on how to deal with it. If as you say the world is a better place without Saddam than how is the UN right? I guess it is right to be spineless and not back up and enforce your own resolutions. If Bush made a mistake it was even going to ask the UN for anything about Iraq the right to enforce was already there.
Even Bush has to face reality. We now know that those in the UN and others who saw no need for war were right. Saddam had no military power, no WMD, no nuclear threat, and was not helping Al Qaida. The best case public relations scenario for the Bushies is that he was duped by a massive intelligience failure. But he says he has "complete confidence" in the intel community and says no investigation of it is necessary. Think about it: According to him, we went to war because we thought we were about to be attacked by Saddam Hussein, but now that it is evident that that was not true, we should all just forget about it, and move on. I guess we should just say, "oops" and let it go. And further more we should have complete confidence in the intel community because Bush says we should. I am sure his little goosesteppers here will fall into line behind him and support his position. We had to spend six years and hundreds of millions of dollars investigating Whitewater, which resulted in nothing substantial, but we should NOT investigate going to war over false accusations or a massive failure of our intel community. Welcome to the right wing world of the Wizard of Oz. We all know why Bush wants no investigation. He is afraid the American people will find out that he slanted the evidence the way he wanted, ignored all evidence that said he was wrong, and lied to them to scare enough of our citizens into supporting his war. Now we are going to spend hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq, which will all be borrowed to be paid for by future generations for decades to come just to keep a lid on the place, get hundreds more American troops there killed, and tie down over one third of the US Army's fighting power until Bush decides what to do. Moral of the story: if it comes down to the CIA's reputation or Bush's re-election, the CIA loses; if it comes down to hundreds more American soldiers dying in Iraq or Bush's re-election, the soldiers must go; if anything comes between Bush and his re-election, it has to go.
You can't blame the president for faulty intelligence. He was mislead by our intelligence agencies, even David Kay is saying this now. I think we can all agree that Iraq is a safer place today than yesterday, (except Cottonbowl) We are currently fighting Al Qaida in Iraq and I think by the end of the year we will have Bin Laden and Al Qaida will be just about finished. I don't care about the weapons issue myself, Despite what the Dems think. I realize that is was more important to get the terrorists and thier camp out of Iraq, I'm sure Al Qaida was there and is there now compared to what some are saying. At least 1 Dem was smart enough to realize how important the war on terror was and is endoursing president Bush next year. Ed Koch........
I know irritable bowel does not have the capacity to know any better, but I am not sure if Mesquite just wants to read the sound-byte because that is what he wants to believe and does not read all of Kay's stuff, or he is knowingly just propagating the sound-byte mentality most Democrats have been doing since this war in an attempt to just get Bush out of office. The hypocrisy of the Democratic stance is evident in Clinton's own beliefs and statements when he was president. Just because Clinton did not have the balls to stand up to Saddam should not mean his intel on Iraq should not be looked down upon as well by Democrats. Kay's information has been posted numerous times in this area. It seems illogical or just political to just focus on one item and forget the rest of it. Here is another summary of some of Kay's findings, most of which has been posted in Free Speech Ally before in other threads using in Kay's own words. link
Now it has come out is that some intelligience analysts before the war complained that the civilians in the Bush administration kept questioning why the intel people would not say that Al Qaida and Saddam Hussein were allied and working together. The report in the Washington Post today says that the intel people never buckled and therefore NEVER TOLD Bush and Cheney that Saddam was helping Al Qaida. Well now the question is, "if they didn't tell those two right wing nuts that, then why did Bush and Cheney insist before the war that one reason to attack was because Saddam and Al Qaida were allies?" The question continues: why does Cheney insist even now that Saddam and Osama were allies? If the intelligience people were not reporting that, then why did Bush and Cheney tell the American people they were? It sounds like the same story as the nuclear arms and the State of the Union Speech. The CIA told Bush months before that they did not believe the story that Saddam was trying to get nuclear weapons. Bush told the American people he was. No wonder Bush does not want an independent report. He lied and exaggerated the truth to scare Americans into supporting war.
