What if Bush was Right?

[desflood]

Mark Brown questions his beliefs (www.suntimes.com/output/brown/cst-nws/brown01.html)

[desflood]

dammit!

[NeoConIV]

Here ya go...

-------------------------------------
What if Bush has been right about Iraq all along?

February 1, 2005

BY MARK BROWN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

Maybe you're like me and have opposed the Iraq war since before the shooting started -- not to the point of joining any peace protests, but at least letting people know where you stood.

You didn't change your mind when our troops swept quickly into Baghdad or when you saw the rabble that celebrated the toppling of the Saddam Hussein statue, figuring that little had been accomplished and that the tough job still lay ahead.

Despite your misgivings, you didn't demand the troops be brought home immediately afterward, believing the United States must at least try to finish what it started to avoid even greater bloodshed. And while you cheered Saddam's capture, you couldn't help but thinking I-told-you-so in the months that followed as the violence continued to spread and the death toll mounted.

By now, you might have even voted against George Bush -- a second time -- to register your disapproval.

But after watching Sunday's election in Iraq and seeing the first clear sign that freedom really may mean something to the Iraqi people, you have to be asking yourself: What if it turns out Bush was right, and we were wrong?

It's hard to swallow, isn't it?

Americans cross own barrier

If you fit the previously stated profile, I know you're fighting the idea, because I am, too. And if you were with the president from the start, I've already got your blood boiling.

For those who've been in the same boat with me, we don't need to concede the point just yet. There's a long way to go. But I think we have to face the possibility.

I won't say that it had never occurred to me previously, but it's never gone through my mind as strongly as when I watched the television coverage from Iraq that showed long lines of people risking their lives by turning out to vote, honest looks of joy on so many of their faces.

Some CNN guest expert was opining Monday that the Iraqi people crossed a psychological barrier by voting and getting a taste of free choice (setting aside the argument that they only did so under orders from their religious leaders).

I think it's possible that some of the American people will have crossed a psychological barrier as well.

Deciding democracy's worth



On the other side of that barrier is a concept some of us have had a hard time swallowing:

Maybe the United States really can establish a peaceable democratic government in Iraq, and if so, that would be worth something.

Would it be worth all the money we've spent? Certainly.

Would it be worth all the lives that have been lost? That's the more difficult question, and while I reserve judgment on that score until such a day arrives, it seems probable that history would answer yes to that as well.

I don't want to get carried away in the moment.

Going to war still sent so many terrible messages to the world.

Most of the obstacles to success in Iraq are all still there, the ones that have always led me to believe that we would eventually be forced to leave the country with our tail tucked between our legs. (I've maintained from the start that if you were impressed by the demonstrations in the streets of Baghdad when we arrived, wait until you see how they celebrate our departure, no matter the circumstances.)

In and of itself, the voting did nothing to end the violence. The forces trying to regain the power they have lost -- and the outside elements supporting them -- will be no less determined to disrupt our efforts and to drive us out.

Somebody still has to find a way to bring the Sunnis into the political process before the next round of elections at year's end. The Iraqi government still must develop the capacity to protect its people.

And there seems every possibility that this could yet end in civil war the day we leave or with Iraq becoming an Islamic state every bit as hostile to our national interests as was Saddam.

Penance could be required



But on Sunday, we caught a glimpse of the flip side. We could finally see signs that a majority of the Iraqi people perceive something to be gained from this brave new world we are forcing on them.

Instead of making the elections a further expression of "Yankee Go Home," their participation gave us hope that all those soldiers haven't died in vain.

Obviously, I'm still curious to see if Bush is willing to allow the Iraqis to install a government that is free to kick us out or to oppose our other foreign policy efforts in the region.

So is the rest of the world.

For now, though, I think we have to cut the president some slack about a timetable for his exit strategy.

If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to require some serious penance.

Maybe I'd have to vote Republican in 2008.

[desflood]

:) Gracias. Never done this before, must have messed up somehow

[violentkitten]

well shit when does it end? there are plenty of countries to be liberated around the world.

[2centsworth]

Article show signs that there are still democrats who are intellectually honest. Whether Bush is right or wrong, at least someone on the left is considering the possibility that Bush is right.

[FromWayDowntown]

It's purely an ends-justify-the-means argument. And those arguments tend to be pretyt dangerous.

The stated basis for invading Iraq was the government's possession of weapons of mass destruction. As a result of our beliefs in that proposition, we concluded that it was time for the Iraqi people to be liberated from the regime of Saddam Hussein. But, importantly, liberation was an positive effect of our invasion; it was never the justification.

As time has passed and the search for WMD's has borne no fruit, the Administration has converted the effect into a justification. Certainly, I think you'd have to be pretty jaded to think that the the vote on Sunday was a negative thing. It's wonderful that the Iraqi people are free and chose to exercise that freedom by going to the polls. But to say that Sunday's vote was the primary goal throughout this process is an effort in revisionist history.

It's also, I think, dangerous to say that what happened Sunday is the stamp of approval for foreign policy decision-making on a going forward basis. Exporting democracy by example is one thing; exporting democracy at gunpoint is something else. The development of pretextual reasons for violating national sovereignity only to justify such invasions by the happy consequence of new democracies is imperialistic at best.

[Nbadan]

It's also, I think, dangerous to say that what happened Sunday is the stamp of approval for foreign policy decision-making on a going forward basis. Exporting democracy by example is one thing; exporting democracy at gunpoint is something else. The development of pretextual reasons for violating national sovereignity only to justify such invasions by the happy consequence of new democracies is imperialistic at best.

Agreed. I thought Thomas Freidman said it best recently when he said something to the effect that we are not nation-building in Iraq, this assumes that there is already a workable political structure in place to reform, but we are nation-creating, or putting in a completely new political process were it has never existed before and where it is still uncertain if the majority of Iraqis are willing to die to protect. Remember that the civil forces, trained by the U.S., have been woeful in protecting the interm government.

[2centsworth]

FromWayDowntown,

Well reasoned. WMD's was absolutely the reason why the public accepted the invasion.

But I think you'll agree the Bush lied argument is intellectually dishonest.

I saw a Clinton speach where he made the same exact arguments, WMD's, to justify his policy of regime change in Iraq. Regime change was and is official US policy approved by an overwhelming majority of both Republicans and Democrats in 1998.

BTW, IMO Establishment of a Democracy in the middle east was Bush's primary goal in the fight against terrorism.

[Hook Dem]

Agreed. I thought Thomas Freidman said it best recently when he said something to the effect that we are not nation-building in Iraq, this assumes that there is already a workable political structure in place to reform, but we are nation-creating, or putting in a completely new political process were it has never existed before and where it is still uncertain if the majority of Iraqis are willing to die to protect. Remember that the civil forces, trained by the U.S., have been woeful in protecting the interm government.
Infancy, even as a democracy, is difficult Dan! Things rarely fall into place overnight. However, the cornerstone has been laid and there will no doubt be growing pains. Give it a fair amount of time and then if things haven't improved, you can declare it a failure if you want.

[FromWayDowntown]

FromWayDowntown,

Well reasoned. WMD's was absolutely the reason why the public accepted the invasion.

But I think you'll agree the Bush lied argument is intellectually dishonest.

I saw a Clinton speach where he made the same exact arguments, WMD's, to justify his policy of regime change in Iraq. Regime change was and is official US policy approved by an overwhelming majority of both Republicans and Democrats in 1998.

BTW, IMO Establishment of a Democracy in the middle east was Bush's primary goal in the fight against terrorism.

I said nothing about Bush lying -- I only said that his justification for invasion proved to be wrong. Now, I will say that rather than admitting to the faulty justification in the first instance, the Administration simply changed the rhetoric used to justify the invasion. So, rather than justifying a disregard for sovereignty by relying upon a protectionist rationale, the Administration started talking about how wonderful it would be to have a democratic Iraq. That's political expediency, pure and simple.

Like I say, the consequence of a democratic Iraq should be a happy consequence of an invasion, but it should never have been a justification for invasion in the first place. Were it a justification, Hitler's invasions in Europe could have been justified under the same rationale (albeit for the purpose of exporting a distasteful form of government in our eyes). Never minding that, we would have to invade every non-democratic country to follow our own precedent. Why should Iraqis be any better off than North Koreans or Iranians or even Cubans or Chinese for that matter?

[JoeChalupa]

I was wondering how long it was going to take before somebody posted this.

[JoeChalupa]

Article show signs that there are still democrats who are intellectually honest. Whether Bush is right or wrong, at least someone on the left is considering the possibility that Bush is right.

I wish some on the right would consider the possiblity that Bush was wrong.

[2centsworth]

I wish some on the right would consider the possiblity that Bush was wrong.

We do all the time. No one attacks their own more than the republicans.


Fromwaydowntown,

Enough with Hitler comparisons. I was starting to take you seriously.

[Hook Dem]

http://tinypic.com/1il89j

[JoeChalupa]

We do all the time. No one attacks their own more than the republicans.


Fromwaydowntown,

Enough with Hitler comparisons. I was starting to take you seriously.

Huh? Perhaps I've been reading different posts than you have.
Yonivore bends over backwards to support his beloved Dubya.

Then again nobody attacks their own more then democrats do so I guess I see your point.

[whottt]

It's hard to swallow, isn't it?


Bush was and is right about the middle east and combatting terrorism...it's the only reason I support him...Watching this Author reason out what many of us have expected all along...it's kinda cute actually, it's like watching a toddler take his first steps...


But he still misses out on the bigger picture of how bringing Democracy to Iraq will impact the entire middle east, including the countries who do sponsor terrorism...but he'll get that eventually. In any case, the Democratic Party is not the intellectually superior party any longer. It's also not the party of action any longer, and I'd argue that it's not even the party of sympathy and humanity any longer...

It's the party of fear, cynicism and little else.

Bush is right on this one thing, incredibly right, totally right. Those who doubt are wrong. Now apologize, and then pretend Bush is an Arab/Terrorist and swallow.

[GoldToe]

Bush was and is right about the middle east and combatting terrorism...it's the only reason I support him...Watching this Author reason out what many of us have expected all along...it's kinda cute actually, it's like watching a toddler take his first steps...


But he still misses out on the bigger picture of how bringing Democracy to Iraq will impact the entire middle east, including the countries who do sponsor terrorism...but he'll get that eventually. In any case, the Democratic Party is not the intellectually superior party any longer. It's also not the party of action any longer, and I'd argue that it's not even the party of sympathy and humanity any longer...

It's the party of fear, cynicism and little else.

Bush is right on this one thing, incredibly right, totally right. Those who doubt are wrong. Now apologize, and then pretend Bush is an Arab/Terrorist and swallow.

How can you say those who doubt reasons for the war are wrong when nothing, including the issue of WMD or ties with Iraq and 9/11, has been proven right?

One can always argue that spreading freedom is the correct thing to do but it doesn't always make it right.

The Republican party is no longer the party of fiscal responsibility since Bush has gone on the biggest spending spree in history, and spare the Iraq war excuses.

[FromWayDowntown]

We do all the time. No one attacks their own more than the republicans.


Fromwaydowntown,

Enough with Hitler comparisons. I was starting to take you seriously.

Uh, it was an analogy used simply to question the strength of the underlying logical proposition, AND it was conditioned on an acknowledgement that Hitler's campaign was undertaken for more sinister and less politically-attractive motivations. Ultimately, though, each endeavor has proven to be one aimed at spreading a political ideology -- it's pretty hard to ignore that fact.

For the record, I AM NOT COMPARING THE SITUATION IN IRAQ WITH ANY ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN BY THE NAZI PARTY UNDER ADOLF HITLER.


But he still misses out on the bigger picture of how bringing Democracy to Iraq will impact the entire middle east, including the countries who do sponsor terrorism...but he'll get that eventually. In any case, the Democratic Party is not the intellectually superior party any longer. It's also not the party of action any longer, and I'd argue that it's not even the party of sympathy and humanity any longer...

I don't dispute the overall positive impact of the birth (whether forced or not) of democracy in Iraq. The question, as I see it, is whether an ends-justify-the-means rationalization of the invasion. I think that type of logic tends to be dangerous, but I may be alone in that concern.

If the ends justify the means, then what should stop us from developing pretexts to support invasions of other nations with despotic leaders?

[whottt]

How can you say those who doubt reasons for the war are wrong when nothing, including the issue of WMD or ties with Iraq and 9/11, has been proven right?



Fact 1: Usama Bin Laden cited the suffering of Iraqi babies under the UN sanctions, in justifying the 911 attacks. Those sanctions have long been a source of Arab anger at the US...even though those sanctions were UN sanctions championed by the Arab countries themselves. This was a powerful terrorist recruting tool. IOW the peaceful solution was actually a terrorist recruiting tool.

Fact 2: Those sanctions were the left and UN coalition solution, the same coalition that wouldn't allow Bush 1 to take out Saddam in the Persian Gulf War. A unifying point that was honored by Bush 1 and resulted in the death of thousands of Anti-Saddam Iraqis.

Fact 3: Even the much cited Dueffler report(parts of which were popular with the left) makes it clear that once those sanctions were lifted he was going to once again pursue WMD(if he didn't have them already).

What it means: Going into Iraq not only ended the legitimate suffering of Iraqi children under the corrupt OFF program, it also took away a major recruiting point for terrorists.

Reason #2 why we needed to take out Iraq:

Fact 1: Usama Bin Laden cited the presence of infidel US troops in Saudi Arabia as justification for the 911 attacks. The presence of US troops in Saudi was probably the single most powerful terrorist recruting tool at the disposal of Usama.

Fact 2: US troops were maintaining a presence in Saudi for two reasons, both Iraq related. #1.They were enforcing one side of the no fly zone in Iraq. #2. Saddam originally had designs on going into Saudi Arabia and the US military served as a deterrent to Saddam's expansionist plans.

What it means: With Saddam no longer in power the US no longer had to maintain such a large military presence in Saudi Arabia(something proved by the fact that we have been streadily downsizing our Saudi presence).


Those are two major ties between Iraq and 911 as well as terrorism...

The WMD and Saddam sponsoring terrorism were never the main reason, nor were they claims made only by the Bush admin.

Tons of world and US leaders have said Saddam was a threat and needed to be removed from power...including Bill Clinton and Jaques Chirac. Everyone thought he had WMD...including Senators Kennedy and Kerry.

Remember, Kerry sat on the Senate Intelligence commitee for a decade...any intelligence failures for 911 point to him and Clinton's appointed director more than they do to the Bush admin.

I could go on...

I could mention the fact that the oprssive human rights conditions under the despotic rulers of the mid-east provide hard line Islamists with an endless supply of ignorant recruits. Putting two Democracies on the side of the most threatening Islamic country puts tremendous pressure for Democratic reform on all the mideastern shitholes.

I could also mention that Saddam was paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, encouraging the practice...the Palestinian Israeli conflict being terrorists 3rd main recruiting tool.

I could also mention that it was discovered that Saddam gave the PLO million, if not billions of dollars.




One can always argue that spreading freedom is the correct thing to do but it doesn't always make it right.

Only a person who lives in a free country, or is in a position to opress others in a non free country, would make that claim...

Why do you think we have more Arabs immigrating to the US than the other way around?




The Republican party is no longer the party of fiscal responsibility since Bush has gone on the biggest spending spree in history, and spare the Iraq war excuses.

I won't spare the Iraq excuses because I have seen the justification for this way for a long long time...It will aid in the war on terror, it will make a change for the better in the middle east. Foresight...

I could have told you the Iraqis were going to embrace this election...in fact I did so many times in arugments prior to it....if we didn't have the support of the majority of Iraqis...#1.We'd have a hell of a lot more dead than we do. #2.We wouldn't be fighting a guerilla war...and if the majority supported the terrorists, our ground forces would be getting routed guerilla style.

[whottt]

I don't dispute the overall positive impact of the birth (whether forced or not) of democracy in Iraq. The question, as I see it, is whether an ends-justify-the-means rationalization of the invasion. I think that type of logic tends to be dangerous, but I may be alone in that concern.

If the ends justify the means, then what should stop us from developing pretexts to support invasions of other nations with despotic leaders?

Technically we have had the right to go into Iraq since 1993 when Saddam violated the conditions of the cease fire by firing on US and British planes enforcing the no fly zone. We were technically at war once he did that.

Iraq was in a weakened state...

Those of us that get the big picture realize that terrorism isn't located and bred in anyone place in the mid-east...it's bred in the culture of cruelty and medevil style rule, it's bred by the leaders of the Arab countries that feel Israel is a threat to their rule...it's bred in what Arabs feel are wrongs and trespasses on the part of the US...wrongs that are no longer valid(although you could say they will find new ones)...We also realize that going into Iraq gives us a killing field for potential terrorists...those terrorists that are dying in Iraq will never commit a terrorist attack in the US.


There are three schools of though on solving the problems with terrorism....

The first...
Go and kick the living shit out of some terrorist ass...sending a message to those leaders that covertly sponsor it...as well as to the terrorists themselves...

Haven't you ever noticed that terrorists actually hate their own governments more than the US? Yet they do not usually commit attacks agains their own countries...why? Because they don't respect liberal ideals...they respect power. And those rulers keep terrorism out of their own countries by threats of violence against those terrorists and or channeling their hatred towards Israel and the US...not by going to the bargaining table with them.

The second...
Appease them...let them dictate to us the terms for peace...

Well I don't know if you have ever listened to any of these guys talk..but they don't want to sit around and sing kumbayah with us...if they were that type, they probably wouldn't target women and children.

They pretty much want to kill all the infidels...beginning with the liberals, specifically the gay ones and liberated women...

The third...
Pretend it's not a real threat...


What do you want to do FWDT?
Kick ass?
Suck dick?
Stick our heads in the sand?

I know which one I choose...and obviously Iraq was the best place to start.

#1.They were weak.
#2.They were a recruiting tool for Saddam.
#3. They were in violation of the terms of the cease fire at the end of the Persian Gulf War...and had been for a decade.

[GoldToe]

Fact 1: Usama Bin Laden cited the suffering of Iraqi babies under the UN sanctions, in justifying the 911 attacks. Those sanctions have long been a source of Arab anger at the US...even though those sanctions were UN sanctions championed by the Arab countries themselves. This was a powerful terrorist recruting tool. IOW the peaceful solution was actually a terrorist recruiting tool.

Fact 2: Those sanctions were the left and UN coalition solution, the same coalition that wouldn't allow Bush 1 to take out Saddam in the Persian Gulf War. A unifying point that was honored by Bush 1 and resulted in the death of thousands of Anti-Saddam Iraqis.

Fact 3: Even the much cited Dueffler report(parts of which were popular with the left) makes it clear that once those sanctions were lifted he was going to once again pursue WMD(if he didn't have them already).

What it means: Going into Iraq not only ended the legitimate suffering of Iraqi children under the corrupt OFF program, it also took away a major recruiting point for terrorists.

Reason #2 why we needed to take out Iraq:

Fact 1: Usama Bin Laden cited the presence of infidel US troops in Saudi Arabia as justification for the 911 attacks. The presence of US troops in Saudi was probably the single most powerful terrorist recruting tool at the disposal of Usama.

Fact 2: US troops were maintaining a presence in Saudi for two reasons, both Iraq related. #1.They were enforcing one side of the no fly zone in Iraq. #2. Saddam originally had designs on going into Saudi Arabia and the US military served as a deterrent to Saddam's expansionist plans.

What it means: With Saddam no longer in power the US no longer had to maintain such a large military presence in Saudi Arabia(something proved by the fact that we have been streadily downsizing our Saudi presence).


Those are two major ties between Iraq and 911 as well as terrorism...

The WMD and Saddam sponsoring terrorism were never the main reason, nor were they claims made only by the Bush admin.

Tons of world and US leaders have said Saddam was a threat and needed to be removed from power...including Bill Clinton and Jaques Chirac. Everyone thought he had WMD...including Senators Kennedy and Kerry.

Remember, Kerry sat on the Senate Intelligence commitee for a decade...any intelligence failures for 911 point to him and Clinton's appointed director more than they do to the Bush admin.

I could go on...

I could mention the fact that the oprssive human rights conditions under the despotic rulers of the mid-east provide hard line Islamists with an endless supply of ignorant recruits. Putting two Democracies on the side of the most threatening Islamic country puts tremendous pressure for Democratic reform on all the mideastern shitholes.

I could also mention that Saddam was paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, encouraging the practice...the Palestinian Israeli conflict being terrorists 3rd main recruiting tool.

I could also mention that it was discovered that Saddam gave the PLO million, if not billions of dollars.





Only a person who lives in a free country, or is in a position to opress others in a non free country, would make that claim...

Why do you think we have more Arabs immigrating to the US than the other way around?





I won't spare the Iraq excuses because I have seen the justification for this way for a long long time...It will aid in the war on terror, it will make a change for the better in the middle east. Foresight...

I could have told you the Iraqis were going to embrace this election...in fact I did so many times in arugments prior to it....if we didn't have the support of the majority of Iraqis...#1.We'd have a hell of a lot more dead than we do. #2.We wouldn't be fighting a guerilla war...and if the majority supported the terrorists, our ground forces would be getting routed guerilla style.

Dude, even you don't really believe some of your own "so called" facts do you?

Damn right Bush sold this war on the fact of WMD and bad intelligence suggesting Iraq had ties to 9/11 which have NEVER been proven.

You just don't get it and never will.

Now I know why I don't come in here often.

[Yonivore]

Huh? Perhaps I've been reading different posts than you have.
Yonivore bends over backwards to support his beloved Dubya.

Then again nobody attacks their own more then democrats do so I guess I see your point.
Just on his foreign policy.

I've frequently criticized his immigration policy and the war on drugs and government growth programs. They're just not hot topics in this forum.

I bend over backwards in support of the President's foreign policy and war effort because I think he's right. And, I've yet to see on scintilla of evidence to persuade me otherwise.

[whottt]

Dude, even you don't really believe some of your own "so called" facts do you?


Damn right Bush sold this war on the fact of WMD and bad intelligence suggesting Iraq had ties to 9/11 which have NEVER been proven.



What a fucking pompous brainwashed liberal ass you are...

Hey fucker explain these comments:


"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

There you have just about every Bush hater saying the same thing Bush did...

The focus on WMD being the sole justification was entirely a media contruct..

And you are wrong...the justification to go into Iraq was via a UN resolution that was only kept from being enacted by countries being bought by Saddam via the OFF. We had the right and the justification to go into Iraq WMD or no. And looking at the state of Iraq's infrastructure, and it's geographical proximity to Iran...it was the right country to start off with.




You just don't get it and never will.

Now I know why I don't come in here often.


Then don't...it's not like we have a shortage of dumbasses parroting the same fucking trumped up BS propaganda from the election...

Get that weak, old, and thoroughly disproven shit the fuck out of here.

[exstatic]

Remember that the civil forces, trained by the U.S., have been woeful in protecting the interm government.
That's the kicker. If they're not willing to fight and die to keep their democracy, we shouldn't do it for them. That was the huge mistake of Vietnam. If they country in question isn't willing to foot the bill, I'm perfectly willing to bring our boys home, and let them go down the tubes.

[sbsquared]

Whott - thank you for posting all those quotes! I mentioned the same thing in another thread, but didn't have the time to go back and find them. It's funny how the liberals don't have any thing to say when faced with cold, hard facts!

BTW - it's also quite telling that all the naysayers that said the Iraqi elections would never take place or that there would be such a low turnout that they would be meaningless, have been strangely silent since Sunday! They won't even give a quote when specifically asked - a la Jimmy Carter and George Soros!

[CommanderMcBragg]

I see Whott still gets his panties in a wad.

[Hook Dem]

That's the kicker. If they're not willing to fight and die to keep their democracy, we shouldn't do it for them. That was the huge mistake of Vietnam. If they country in question isn't willing to foot the bill, I'm perfectly willing to bring our boys home, and let them go down the tubes.
I will agree with you if they do not do it in due time but we must get them up to speed before we can expect that to happen. The election should bolster some confidence and go on from there. Was there not a lot of uncertainty before the masses came out to vote? Did you learn to crawl before you learned to walk?(and I'm not talking about walking on water)

[Hook Dem]

Whott - thank you for posting all those quotes! I mentioned the same thing in another thread, but didn't have the time to go back and find them. It's funny how the liberals don't have any thing to say when faced with cold, hard facts!

BTW - it's also quite telling that all the naysayers that said the Iraqi elections would never take place or that there would be such a low turnout that they would be meaningless, have been strangely silent since Sunday! They won't even give a quote when specifically asked - a la Jimmy Carter and George Soros!
Those quotes that Whottt posted are always dismissed as "old shit" and "under different circumstances" but the fact remains that they were said. Isn't it funny that you can ignore them when it is convenient? If anyone is to be blamed for Iraq, there is plenty of blame to go around. That talking point needs to be put to rest!

[FromWayDowntown]

Technically we have had the right to go into Iraq since 1993 when Saddam violated the conditions of the cease fire by firing on US and British planes enforcing the no fly zone. We were technically at war once he did that.

Then why didn't Bush advance that as the rationale underlying the invasion. Re-read his January 17, 2003 speech. He makes it abundantly clear, I think, that the purpose for invading Iraq is to disarm its leadership. He also makes it clear, I think, that liberation of the Iraqi people is a happy consequence of that invasion.

You can cite to many different reasons for supporting the invasion, but the fact of the matter is that Bush cited only one reason: the pressing need to divest Saddam of WMD's. Relying on breaches of the no-fly zone is, again, an exercise in justifying an invasion by revisionist history.


Iraq was in a weakened state...

Sure. I absolutely agree. But on the street, beating up on those who are in a weakened state is called either opportunism or bullying. In international politics, neither is particularly endearing.


Those of us that get the big picture . . . .

Nice generalization about those who might disagree with you. After all of teh whining about so-called liberal elitism, we get this?


. . . realize that terrorism isn't located and bred in anyone place in the mid-east...it's bred in the culture of cruelty and medevil style rule, it's bred by the leaders of the Arab countries that feel Israel is a threat to their rule...it's bred in what Arabs feel are wrongs and trespasses on the part of the US...wrongs that are no longer valid(although you could say they will find new ones)...We also realize that going into Iraq gives us a killing field for potential terrorists...those terrorists that are dying in Iraq will never commit a terrorist attack in the US.

My argument here has nothing to do with the specifics of how we fight the war on terror. My argument, in response to the article posted in this thread, is simply that concocting reasons to invade countries and then reveling in the happy consequence of exporting democracy is not a particularly strong foreign policy if you give a damn about national sovereignty and other such high-falutin' ideals. Pardon me for caring about respecting the rights of other nations!!!


There are three schools of though on solving the problems with terrorism....

The first...
Go and kick the living shit out of some terrorist ass...sending a message to those leaders that covertly sponsor it...as well as to the terrorists themselves...

Haven't you ever noticed that terrorists actually hate their own governments more than the US? Yet they do not usually commit attacks agains their own countries...why? Because they don't respect liberal ideals...they respect power. And those rulers keep terrorism out of their own countries by threats of violence against those terrorists and or channeling their hatred towards Israel and the US...not by going to the bargaining table with them.

The second...
Appease them...let them dictate to us the terms for peace...

Well I don't know if you have ever listened to any of these guys talk..but they don't want to sit around and sing kumbayah with us...if they were that type, they probably wouldn't target women and children.

They pretty much want to kill all the infidels...beginning with the liberals, specifically the gay ones and liberated women...

The third...
Pretend it's not a real threat...


What do you want to do FWDT?
Kick ass?
Suck dick?
Stick our heads in the sand?

Look, I'm decidedly in favor of protecting our homeland. I lost a good friend on 9/11. I would prefer that I not lose any others. But, those concerns don't detract from the fact that we live in a multi-national world. It seems to me that we demand that other nations respect our borders and sovereignty, but are willing to ignore the same when we feel threatened. Again, I'm not sure that's a good foreign policy. But, I'm also not an ends-justify-the-means kind.

So, if we think (or can propose that) a nation poses some amorphous terroristic threat to our homeland, we are justified in invading and deposing the government and can such an invasion be justified by happy results?

Would we be justified in invading other nations with despotic dictators for the sole purpose of bringing democracy elsewhere?

Aren't we being inconsistent if we don't conduct such invasions? If the people of Iraq deserve our beneficience, why don't the people of North Korea, Iran, China, or Cuba?

I'd honestly like to hear the other side's responses to those questions.

[office handle]

i think most americans are down with having a war if it involves killing some non-white folks half a world away.

[office handle]

Would we be justified in invading other nations with despotic dictators for the sole purpose of bringing democracy elsewhere?

seeing as how that has become the retroactive reason for the iraq invasion, i suppose that is now the standard. its a shame that iran seems to be next on the list with the administration proceding down the same path that they did with iraq. perpetual war for perpetual peace is quite disconcerting.

you know, if bush just said that he fucked up but that its a good thing that iraq is on the path now to being a democracy i think most people could handle that.

[Hook Dem]

i think most americans are down with having a war if it involves killing some non-white folks half a world away.
The mere fact that you believe that makes you a sicko.

[JoeChalupa]

I've asked myself that very question...What if Bush was right?

It's at that instant that I wake up in a cold sweat screaming.

[office handle]

its just like back in the day when we opted to nuke japan not once but twice

[whottt]

Does anyone else find Marcus pathetic?

I guess he is counting on the short memories of libs(see the fact that they have forgotten all the Democratic leaders and Bush critics saying the same thing Bush said about Iraq and WMD, for proof of this) to not remember his position in this past election.

You should start using your Extra Stout nick, it has more credibility...and the blood dong nick is more entertaining.

Oh wait..maybe it's not Marcus...Maybe someone else is capable of making 95 posts in a single day :majorfuckenrolleyes

[Hook Dem]

Does anyone else find Marcus pathetic?

I guess he is counting on the short memories of libs(see the fact that they have forgotten all the democratic leaders and Bush critics saying the same thing Bush said, for proof of this) to not remember his position in this past election.

You should start using your Extra Stout nick, it has more credibility...and the blood dong nick is more entertaining.

Oh wait..maybe it's not Marcus...Maybe someone else is capable of making 95 posts in a single day :majorfuckenrolleyes
BINGO!!!!

[office handle]

so i cant point out that this war wasnt about "spreading democracy" to begin with, even though ive never changed that position?

btw...extra stout isnt mine. but im glad you see me behind every handle

[office handle]

oh good hook dem came in with the authoritative quote of whottt. hopefully he posts a few of those spam mails he gets. i dont get enough of those from my old ass uncle already.

[whottt]

btw...extra stout isnt mine. but im glad you see me behind every handle

It's entirely possible that nic doesn't belong to you...I just assumed it was without putting a lot of thought into it.

As for why I see you behind every handle...perhaps it's because you have 6.3 billion nicks and frequently use them to get your own back in arguments.

The funny thing is that you haven't got a fucking clue what my second nic is... and if you only knew how truly owned you are :). But thanks for the laughs, sincerely.

[Hook Dem]

oh good hook dem came in with the authoritative quote of whottt. hopefully he posts a few of those spam mails he gets. i dont get enough of those from my old ass uncle already.
Don't be jealous kiddo, you'll grow up someday(if someone doesn't squash you first). :lol

[office handle]

ive never used a handle to back up the argument of another.

as for you using multiple handles, whatever floats your boat. if you need to use it to back up your longwinded diatribes bully for you

[office handle]

Don't be jealous kiddo, you'll grow up someday(if someone doesn't squash you first). :lol

yeah, we cant have any dissent because hook dem and his fellow rednecks wont tolerate that

[whottt]

ive never used a handle to back up the argument of another.

as for you using multiple handles, whatever floats your boat. if you need to use it to back up your longwinded diatribes bully for you

LOL! Don't goad me into telling you, you won't like it.

[office handle]

as for you using multiple handles, whatever floats your boat.

[whottt]

Too bad you lack the skill to pick other people's secondary nicks off...

I know, I know, mutiple nicks are meaningless to you...that's why you have 6.5 billion of them, all put to noble and honorable use.

[office handle]

the same use as your two handles or whatever

[whottt]

shit

[office handle]

.

[Hook Dem]

yeah, we cant have any dissent because hook dem and his fellow rednecks wont tolerate that
Lighten up and take one of these! http://tinypic.com/1izntz

[whottt]

Yawn!

[‌‌‌]

marcus bryant is a mental bitch

[office handle]

assuming so, then the person who worries about him and follows him around like a pit bull puppy near death is a special individual indeed.

[‌‌‌]

nobody is worried about you and following you around

and i hate pit bulls

[Kori Ellis]

:rolleyes

[home handle]

nobody is worried about you and following you around



except for when you typed that, i suppose. late.

[Hook Dem]

:rolleyes
Exactly! :lol

[hοme handle]

honeybear you better not have been rolling those eyes at me or ill be forced to make a new handle

[hοme handle]

Exactly! :lol

stop laughing at me hillbilly.