Quote:

MisterJLA said:
Jesus Christ could come down from Heaven, and tell everyone He too thought that Hussein had WMD, and whomod would still try to spin the blame on Bush.

Pathetic.



I don't care if you bring me quotes from God himself. As with G-man you think that merely showing me what Democrats think, as if I'm somehow in total agreement and in lock-step with them, is supposed to somehow counter my opinions?

Don't tell me about Sadaam's WMD's and how EVERYONE knew he had them.

PROVE IT!

That's all I ask.

You guys keep sidestepping the issue of Bush declaring that Sadaams WMD's were an imminent threat to America and instead choose to focus on everyone who said he had them to begin with. The issue is that we went into an unprecedented preemptive war based on assertions to the certainty of WMD's and about how we knew exactly where they were and assertions to the certainty of the likes of Al Queda getting them from their pal Sadaam.

Since we all know after all that the Iraq War was was all part of the War on Terror and according to the opinions of about 70% of American's was a direct result of 9/11 and Sadaams direct involvment and/or link to it.

Hey, if G.I's stumble across a cache of nuclear or biological weapons out in the desert somewhere, then guess what??

YOU WERE RIGHT!!!

(well, at least the part about Sadaam having them, anyways.)

There is no shame is saying so despite some peoples partisan stoked assumptions to the contrary. Again, just prove that going to war in Iraq and going to war immediately and urgently was needed because the safety of America and the American people couldn't wait, not even a few months. Those were the assertions made after all.

And then once more I'll say, the PROOFS presented to the American people as to the neccesity of immediate preemptive war were not all those 90's era quotes from the Clinton Administration and old intel. The proofs presented during the SOTU adress and for the past year or so were secret meetings in Prauge, Uranium from Niger and a whole host of evidence that made war, immediate war, the only sane and logical conclusion.

Remember, all of this is why we urgently and sharply diverted the War on Terror from finding and punishing those responsible for 9/11, namely Osama Bin Laden (remember him?) to attacking Iraq. Our immediate safety was at stake!

To get back to the long list of quotes, I think you guys feel that a bunch of Democrats asserting WMD's not only backs Bush up but it discredits me as well. haha. Poor pathetic whomod. It's ironic that of all people, George Will backs up my own opinions on all this foolishness.

Quote:

The Bush Doctrine At Risk

.......To govern is to choose, almost always on the basis of very imperfect information. But preemption presupposes the ability to know things -- to know about threats with a degree of certainty not requisite for decisions less momentous than those for waging war.

Some say the war was justified even if WMD are not found nor their destruction explained, because the world is "better off" without Saddam Hussein. Of course it is better off. But unless one is prepared to postulate a U.S. right, perhaps even a duty, to militarily dismantle any tyranny -- on to Burma? -- it is unacceptable to argue that Hussein's mass graves and torture chambers suffice as retrospective justifications for preemptive war. Americans seem sanguine about the failure -- so far -- to validate the war's premise about the threat posed by Hussein's WMD, but a long-term failure would unravel much of this president's policy and rhetoric.

Hussein, forced by the defection of his son-in-law, acknowledged in the mid-1990s his possession of chemical and biological weapons. President Clinton, British, French and German intelligence agencies, and even Hans Blix (who tells the British newspaper the Guardian, "We know for sure that they did exist") have expressed certainty about Iraq's having WMD at some point.

A vast multinational conspiracy of bad faith, using fictitious WMD as a pretext for war, is a wildly implausible explanation of the failure to find WMD. What is plausible? James Woolsey, Clinton's first CIA director, suggests the following:

As war approached, Hussein, a killer but not a fighter, was a parochial figure who had not left Iraq since 1979. He was surrounded by terrified sycophants and several Russian advisers who assured him that if Russia could not subdue Grozny in Chechnya, casualty-averse Americans would not conquer Baghdad.

Based on his experience in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, Hussein assumed there would be a ground offensive only after prolonged bombing. U.S. forces would conquer the desert, then stop. He could manufacture civilian casualties -- perhaps by blowing up some of his own hospitals -- to inflame world opinion and could count on his European friends to force a halt in the war, based on his promise to open Iraq to inspections, having destroyed his WMD on the eve of war.

Or shortly after the war began. Hussein, suggests Woolsey, was stunned when Gen. Tommy Franks began the air and ground offenses simultaneously and then "pulled a Patton," saying, in effect, never mind my flanks, I'll move so fast they can't find my flanks. Hussein, Woolsey suggests, may have moved fast to destroy the material that was the justification for a war he intended to survive, and may have survived.

Such destruction need not have been a huge task.

In Britain, where political discourse is far fiercer than in America, Prime Minister Tony Blair is being roasted about the missing WMD by, among many others, Robin Cook, formerly his foreign secretary. Cook says: "Such weapons require substantial industrial plant and a large workforce. It is inconceivable that both could have been kept concealed for the two months we have been in occupation of Iraq."

Rubbish, says Woolsey: Chemical or biological weapons could have been manufactured with minor modifications of a fertilizer plant, or in a plant as small as a microbrewery attached to a restaurant. The 8,500 liters of anthrax that Hussein once admitted to having would weigh about 8.5 tons and would fill about half of a tractor-trailer truck. The 25,000 liters that Colin Powell cited in his U.N. speech could be concealed in two trucks -- or in much less space if the anthrax were powdered.

For the president, the missing weapons are not a political problem. Frank Luntz, a Republican pollster, says Americans are happily focused on Iraqis liberated rather than WMD not found, so we "feel good about ourselves."

But unless America's foreign policy is New Age therapy to make the public feel mellow, feeling good about the consequences of an action does not obviate the need to assess the original rationale for the action.

Until WMD are found, or their absence accounted for, there is urgent explaining to be done.



Poor pathetic George Will.

You see, it's you guys' unwavering devotion to anything Bush says, despite it being discredited, and following the daily and weekly talking points from Rush and Hannity to a T! That makes me think lesser of you guys' opinion. You guys can't even entertain what I (or Will ) am saying. All that matters is Bush and yourselves must come out right and I must come out completely and entirely wrong because i'm a "lib" and that is the "lib" position and the libs are wrong and the libs are weak and the libs libs libs....

I really don't think it's because i'm not making sense or i'm presenting my case poorly. I think that's been pretty much predetirmined by some of you, as a matter of fact. Bush= right. The "libs"=wrong.

Once more to end this posting, the issue isn't that all the Clinton inel that said Sadaam had WMD's. The issue is that we went to war and as a direct result thousands of Iraqi's died and and that we sent hundreds of U.S. and allied troops to their deaths under shaky if not outright false premises. Because we were under such immediate danger that even Osama could wait. And it had NOTHING to do with rape rooms, torture chambers or any of the post-no WMD justifications. And you know it.






Last edited by whomod; 2004-01-23 7:24 AM.