that because Saddam had some sort of conjectural "intent" to develop weapons systems after UN sanctions were lifted, that that was enough justification for a war. They would have you believe that because Saddam MIGHT have been trading oil for proscribed missile parts (and I emphasize MIGHT because intelligence agencies can't find any missiles) that that was enough justification for a war. Let us remind the right that the war was not sold upon such suspicions. The war was sold upon certainty. Let us remind the right that Bush said "no doubt" of Saddam's WMDs when he had no evidence for them. Let us remind the right that Dick Cheney said, in no uncertain terms, that Saddam was "reconstituting his nuclear weapons program" when he had no evidence of it. Let us remind the right that Colin Powell said Saddam was refining aluminum tubes to build nuclear weapons when in fact our scientists told him they could not be used in that fashion. Let us remind the right that we were not sold this war because we suspected Saddam was acquiring conventional missile parts, but nuclear weapons capabilities. Mr. Duelfer's contention that Saddam had an intent to restart WMD programs once the UN sanctions were lifted ignores the obvious point that there was no reason for those sanctions to EVER be lifted as long as Saddam and his sons were in power. But aside from that obvious fact, Mr. Duelfer's contention is pure speculation, not supported by any evidence from Saddam or anyone else. Let us also remind the right that John Kerry did not vote for a war, but voted to give George Bush the authority to wage one if necessary, contingent upon UN approval and inspections. UN inspectors were going wherever they wished, and were finding no substantial violations of weapons restrictions, but where some missiles were found of questionable legitimacy were dismantled hastily by Saddam. Let us also remind the right there was no legitimate hurry to launch this war, and that we have bombed 40,000 people to death and lost 1060 soldiers forever and maimed 10,000 others on the basis of manufactured evidence, while changing our national posture from one of defense to one of warfare on mere speculation. Would Americans have agreed to a war if they knew Saddam had no WMDs, no programs to build them, but was bribing a few corrupt UN officials to acquire conventional military equipment? I think not, and I'm sure you think not, too, but would never admit it.
i have favored taking baghdad since the 1991 war. so for me the war came over a decade after i approved it.
Rex... What happened to you on the other thread you started a few hours ago? You plead with people to wake up and converse because our soldiers are dying. You even forgo your embargo to converse with those that might have a different opinion than yours because this was such and important topic, then you disappear. What gives?
I have a life, and I had things to do. I would have posted my rebuttal there, but it looks like that thread got off onto something unrelated.
Rex does not want to argue with a bunch of rented mules. What's the point? You can't even admit W. lied to America. W. used the WMD's as his #1 reason to invade Iraq. Now he's up chit creek with no paddle.
He also said the sanctions were deterioating and had been for years. I heard a clip from his testimony where he said if it wasn't for 9/11 the sanctions would be gone. Not because we lifted them, but because other countries were already breaking them. He didn't vote for the Gulf War and now believes it was a great well planned victory. He also wanted a pre-emptive strike on Iraq in '98 and didn't care if we were alone. His votes don't matter and what he says doesn't matter. 10 years and 17 Resloutions is not rushing to war. I agree with martin this should have been done in '91.
After you kill thousands of Americans you probably work a little harder to hide. W gave up on finding him and invaded Iraq. 10:1
