What if George Bush was right?

[km gresham]

Back in the days of slavery in the US many good people convinced themselves that the slaves really preferred to be slaves - they didn't want freedom - wouldn't know how to handle it.

It seems that there are still many of those people who think that people in the middle east don't want freedom either. They may have been wrong. And George Bush was right.



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.

[Garrett Lowell]

I don't see it as Bush (or anybody in the U.S.) being right or wrong. I see it as the Iraqi people making their own statement. At this point, it needs to stop being about Bush and start finally being about the Iraqi people.

[km gresham]

It's been about the Iraqi people the entire time. And the American people. George Bush had the strength of will to keep going when every critic was telling him it was useless. I think he deserves a great deal of credit for the election in Iraq. The people deserve more, but had we and our alies not gone there and fought for the freedom of the Iraqi people there would have been no vote.

[huisjen]

It's been about money, oil, and revenge the whole time.
See John, I told you your mom is whacked.

Dan

[km gresham]

That's not very polite. But, I don't expect better. Actually, I won't say you're "whacked" - just wrong. smile.gif

[dmede]

Originally posted by km gresham:
It's been about the Iraqi people the entire time. And the American people. George Bush had the strength of will to keep going when every critic was telling him it was useless. I think he deserves a great deal of credit for the election in Iraq. The people deserve more, but had we and our alies not gone there and fought for the freedom of the Iraqi people there would have been no vote.The election is certainly a very good thing, a step in the right direction. I don’t think many critics of Bush would say otherwise. But does it make all the errors, oversights and lies go away? No.

There were no WMDs. There were no terrorist ties. There was no threat to the US in Iraq, Those were the reasons for going to Iraq as stated by Bush in the earliest days of this war. Only after each of these was found wrong did the message change to the people of Iraq and their liberation as our foundation for this war. A great thing has happened in Iraq and it could be a catalyst for even more change in the region. But I still would not support his actions there.

I want Osama and Al Queda. Remember them? They guys who killed thousands in the US a few years back. Bush has so far failed in the war on terror in my opinion.

[ 02-01-2005, 01:53 PM: Message edited by: dmede ]

[km gresham]

Were there any mistakes and missteps in any other wars we fought? Does that make them less successful or less worthwhile because the people making decisions and prosecuting the war were fallible?

As long as humans are the ones making decisions and taking action there will be mistakes. That is not reason enough not to do our best to make the world better for oppressed people and safer for everyone.

[huisjen]

So, now that we've made Iraq safe ( :eek: ) for democracy , what do you propose for our invasion of Sudan?

Dan

[LeeG]

GWs re-election is validation of the invasion of IRaq.
The successful battle into Bagdad is a validation of the decision to invade and links to Al Qeada.
The election repudiates the soft bigotry of low expectations.
yee ha!

[LeeG]

Maybe we should invade Syria and Iran because elections in Iraq occured?

[Donn]

Cliche Alert!

..soft bigotry of low expectorations

http://www.razzies.com/images/logo2.jpg

[km gresham]

How many countries has the US liberated in the last 100 years? Did they all have oil? If not, why did we liberate them?

I expect we'll continue doing so when the situation calls for it and we are able to do so. Unless people in positions of power decide that the oppressed like it that way, which is definately easier.

[High C]

Originally posted by huisjen:
It's been about money, oil, and revenge the whole time.
See John, I told you your mom is whacked.

DanAnd you had the nerve to tell another member that he had some "emotional growing" to do?
:rolleyes: Pretty rude...

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by km gresham:
How many countries has the US liberated in the last 100 years? Did they all have oil? If not, why did we liberate them?
A good many of them had fruit and/or a government we didn't like. Our not liking a government is remarkable in that we generally like any government that lets us exploit it's population/resurces without hinderence.

The next time Shrub is right will be the first time!

I find your mention of slavery interesting, given your belief that the government should have a say in how you use your reproductive organs. ;)

[dmede]

Yes Karen, thats true. There have been many stratigical errors in war. And intelligence errors and simple errors of humanity.

I do not count being lied to by my president an error. Additionally some errors are so gross they can not be considered part and parcel of doing war.

Your post asked the questions: What if George Bush was right?
Right about what Karen? Was he right when after all of his motivations for going into Iraq were trounced he sumoned up the idea of liberating Iraq for liberties sake?

He may be right that democracy in Iraq will be a good thing for the middle east but he is only right by default, by simply being the man in charge while this is happening. This is not why he went there Karen and you know it. These ideas were slowly put out there to eventually replace the initiall reasons for invasion. so good a job have they done that no one rememberrs why we went in the first place and now people like you go online and tell everyone what a good job he's doing. Bull****.

[Domesticated_Mr. Know It All]

Originally posted by huisjen:
It's been about money, oil, and revenge the whole time.
See John, I told you your mom is whacked.

DanI can tell you've been hanging around with that Dutch Rub fella. :D
Whacked!?! :rolleyes:

[High C]

No war for fruit! :D

[LeeG]

cliche alert?

Is the soft bigotry of low expectorations what happens when spitting into the wind?

[dmede]

Originally posted by km gresham:
How many countries has the US liberated in the last 100 years? Did they all have oil? If not, why did we liberate them?

I expect we'll continue doing so when the situation calls for it and we are able to do so. Unless people in positions of power decide that the oppressed like it that way, which is definately easier.oil is not the only strategic reason for going into another country. don't be so simple.

that goes for you too Dan.

[ 02-01-2005, 03:00 PM: Message edited by: dmede ]

[Dan McCosh]

I suppose the cynical response is that even a broken clock is right twice a day. The election hardly validates Bush's decisions, as the US invasion of Iraq was not based on Bush's decision to remove a dictator and set up a democratic government. The war has cost hundreds of thousands of lives, and the country is still in a state of near anarchy. At least some of this is the result of Bush's decisions. The election was a demonstration of the individual bravery and the essential goodness of the Iraqi people. It's been a year or so since the same thing happened in Afghanistan, and so far the main result is a flourishing drug trade. One would like to see a truly democratic government emerge, with the kinds of checks and balances essential to long-term stability. Bush has destabilized and failed to support such governments, notably in Bolivia. I still think what is happening in Iraq is well out of his control, and if the hoped-for goverment emerges it will be in spite of, not because of, his decisions.

[Bob Smalser]

There were no terrorist ties. There was no threat to the US in Iraq... That just flat-out ain't so. See end of the Iraqi Elections thread.

And there certainly were WMD...we just don't know where all of them are right now, as it is highly unlikely they weren't all destroyed to please old Hans Blix.

[ 02-01-2005, 03:18 PM: Message edited by: Bob Smalser ]

[Alan D. Hyde]

That doesn't necessarily follow, Dan. The early U.S. thrived in part based on the trade in rum, in slaves, and in tobacco.

Does that mean that with our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution that we weren't moving forward?

No, it does not. Wherever you start, a step in the right direction is still a good thing.

Alan

[LeeG]

Bob, yes various US interests are at risk in various parts of the world that is not the same thing as saying the threat justifies invasion. We didn't invade Yemen after the USS Cole attack but we did use a UAV fired missle against a few individuals in Yemen,,but we didn't invade Yemen. Hmmm,,different responses for different threats.
Al Qaeda operatives were arrested in Pakistan,,but Pakistan wasn't invaded.

[dmede]

Originally posted by Bob Smalser:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> There were no terrorist ties. There was no threat to the US in Iraq... That just flat-out ain't so. See end of the Iraqi Elections thread.

And there certainly were WMD...we just don't know where all of them are right now, as it is highly unlikely they weren't all destroyed to please old Hans Blix.</font>[/QUOTE]I respect the hell out of you Bob, you are who I listen to the most on the other WB forums, but you are wrong here.

Weve been over this in the media enough that I would expect everyone to know that the only terrorist activity in Iraq before the war was some evidence that Sadam may have sought contact with al qaeda. There was no terrorst activity in Iraq, no home base, no cells, no joint activity between Iraq and Ossama. See the 911 commisions report on said subjects. They went out of thier way to comment on this fact.

WMD search was offically ended by Bush with nothing found. Not a thing. Some items of duplicitous use, such as certrufuges and aluminum tubes are not a WMD program and not enough to go to war over. That is an imutable fact of this presidency. The search is over, we found nothing.

Spell out the Iraqi threat to US citizens in concrete terms to me and I will listen. He had no ability whatsoever to affect us here. he was more concerned with Iran that the US regardless of what his rehetoric said.

[dmede]

From the 911 report (section 10.3 phase 2 and the question of Iraq):

Responding to a presidential tasking, Clarke’s office sent a memo to Rice on September 18, titled “Survey of Intelligence Information on Any Iraq Involvement in the September 11 Attacks.” Rice’s chief staffer on Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, concurred in its conclusion that only some anecdotal evidence
linked Iraq to al Qaeda.The memo found no “compelling case”that Iraq had either planned or perpetrated the attacks. It passed along a few foreign intelligence reports, including the Czech report alleging an April 2001 Prague meeting between Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer (discussed in chapter 7) and a Polish report that personnel at the headquarters of Iraqi intelligence in Baghdad were told before September 11 to go on the streets to gauge crowd reaction to an unspecified event.Arguing that the case for links between Iraq and al Qaeda was weak, the memo pointed out that Bin Ladin resented the secularism of Saddam Hussein’s regime. Finally, the memo said, there was no confirmed reporting on Saddam cooperating with Bin Ladin on unconventional
weapons.

[Alan D. Hyde]

dmede, how the hell can you tell Bob what he saw, when HE was there and YOU were not???

Alan

[High C]

Originally posted by dmede:
...WMD search was offically ended by Bush with nothing found. Not a thing...The search is over, we found nothing....So we failed to find the smoking guns, and that means they didn't exist? That proves they weren't moved out of the country? That proves they weren't buried in the desert? That proves they weren't destroyed? Remember the 14 month buildup to war?

This is not solid thinking. This is opposing a President so deeply that you're not thinking clearly. Makes no sense...

We need to find out what became of those weapons.

[dmede]

Alan and High C.

Those are both old defensive arguments. Post with real answers please. If there are WMDs in any numbers that might have been a threat they should have been found by now. The burden of proof was on us before the war began. It was our reason for going there so where are they?

I am not in opposition to Bush, but his (him and his administraions) manner of conducting this conflict. Bush made some very good decisions immediatly following the 911 attacks.
Rather I find it amazing how much people will tow his line right now and how much you will argue with me about it in the face of actual fact. I think many here support him so much they are not thinking clearly.

pot, kettle, black... you know.

[Alan D. Hyde]

dmede, we are talking about a question of fact, and Bob was there, himself, in person, and is telling us what he saw.

I'd say he's a reliable witness, and his testimony matches that of other reliable witnesses I know.

Unless you're convinced that Bob and these other individuals are liars, there's nothing else to be said.

Alan

[Donn]

With all due respect, dmede, this is the best example of not thinking clearly, so far:


"Spell out the Iraqi threat to US citizens in concrete terms to me and I will listen." You're aware, of course, that it really makes no difference if you listen or not. The deed is done. The die is cast. As Alan likes to say, "The rivers of history wash the dung out of the gutters now and then." :D

[ 02-01-2005, 05:12 PM: Message edited by: Donn ]

[dmede]

Originally posted by Alan D. Hyde:
dmede, how the hell can you tell Bob what he saw, when HE was there and YOU were not???

Alanby the way Alan, Bob was there in '93. A lot of things could have happend to those munitions in the folowing years. It matters not what was there then but what is there now. Bush didn't say we are going to war becasue Sadam had WMDs 7 or 8 years ago. He said we were going becasue he has them now.

thats it, im tapped. you guys can have at me now, i may chime in later. whatever you do, please go read the report. get your news from unbiased sources - Fox is not an unbiased source by the way ;) and always read the actual document they refernce in any article you feel strongly about before quoting that article.

[Bob Smalser]

Weve been over this in the media enough that I would expect everyone to know that the only terrorist activity in Iraq before the war was some evidence that Sadam may have sought contact with al qaeda. There was no terrorst activity in Iraq, no home base, no cells, no joint activity between Iraq and Ossama. See the 911 commisions report on said subjects. They went out of thier way to comment on this fact.
Selective listening by the media.

I read the 9/11 report, and it is inconsistent with their other findings linking Al Qaida with Khobar, which definitely had an Iraq connection.

Al Qaida had a fully-staffed liaison office in Baghdad....that certainly was in the media when those folks were captured.

Al Qaida operatives had free transit through Iraq and undoubtedly some government support, as they reconned US targets from Iraq.

The terrorist training camp on the Iranian border ...also reported by the media...was an Al Qaida ally...not pure Al Qaida but certainly supporting them in and from Iraq.

I was there...I saw it...I touched it...it wasn't some fairy tale.

[dmede]

Don I stand by that request. you guys say over and over again that he was a threat, spell it out.

How was Sadam going to affect me? What was the threat? Better yet, what was the threat that superseaded the threat posed by a free Ossama, a N. Korea with nukes or an Iran with a burgeoning nuclear program?

L I S T the threats, concrete and realistic. Site peer reviewed evidence that can be found and read.

I'll start you off, he controlled the 3rd largest oil supply in the world. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraq.html

[Chris Coose]

What if George Bush was right? The dubbya apologists can believe nothing else.
I don't have a clue as to why you'd ask the question.

[Donn]

Originally posted by dmede:

I'll start you off, he controlled the 3rd largest oil supply in the world. Not any more!
:D

[dmede]

Bob, unlike most of the people I get into it with here, you are my superior in many ways. So in deference to you as someone who's opinion I respect I would like to clarify my point regarding WMDs and Iraq.

I have no doubts about what you saw or handled while in Iraq. I have no doubts about Sadams desire to do us harm or hide his ability to do so from us. I do have doubts about the veracity of the claims made regarding his ability to do us harm prior to this invasion.

I am not questioning the presence of WMDs in the first gulf war, nor do I believe that Sadaam did as he said with them. It’s not a question of whether he ever had them but what evidence did we have when the administration told us they were there now. My concern is that our government made false assumptions about those WMDs (and terrorist ties) and started a new war based on those assumptions. What they believed, what they told us about Iraq, it's WMDs and it’s terror links has thus far proved to be wrong. A fair look at the evidence will bear this out.

I don’t think I can be any clearer than that. This isn’t Bush bashing and I am not saying there were never any WMDs. I am saying there was no credible connection between Sadam and Al Qaida. And I am saying our claims regarding WMDs in this war were speculative at best.

And Donn, "controlled" was the past tense word in my post that would indicate he no longer does tongue.gif

[Donn]

"I am saying there was no credible connection between Sadam and Al Qaida. And I am saying our claims regarding WMDs in this war were speculative at best." Yeah? So? :confused:

[LeeG]

Donn, there's tenuous control by anyone over Iraqs oil given their need to import refined oil for domestic consumption...two years after securing the fields and refineries. So there :rolleyes: (in the spirit of clear communication)

[ 02-01-2005, 06:58 PM: Message edited by: LeeG ]

[Donn]

Ok, it wasn't about the oil. So?

[LeeG]

your mother wears army boots? :D

[Donn]

Actually, she wears Marine Corps boots.

Semper Fi! tongue.gif

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

And there certainly were WMD...we just don't know where all of them are right now Sure We do... They're stored at Jimmy Hoffa's private island, along with the Easter Bunny :rolleyes:


What if George Bush was right? This isn't something that rational people will have to consider very often. ;)

[ccoffer]

There is no more more pathetic a sight than seeing otherwise good people root for evil out of pure spite.

It ain't in the water. It is in the mind.

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

Hmmm very cryptic... but does it have a meaning?

[LeeG]

no mind, no meaning

[George.]

Originally posted by km gresham:
How many countries has the US liberated in the last 100 years? Did they all have oil? If not, why did we liberate them?
In how many countries did the US install and prop up corrupt dictators in the last 100 years? I bet they outnumber the ones the US "liberated" and turned into democracies...

Does that mean the US is "evil?" No. That is the rethoric of the manipulators, aimed at the ignorant. All it means is that the US, like any other great power, acts in its national interest, with little more than rethorical concern about the effect this will have upon the people of other nations. When that national interest calls for installing a democracy, as in Germany, France, Japan, and maybe Iraq, great. When it calls for propping up a corrupt dictatorship, as in Iran, Brazil, Indonesia, the Phillipines, South Vietnam, Chile, and probably Iraq, too bad.

Of course those with a Manicchean view of international relations may disagree, as may those who are more persuaded by rethoric than substance... ;)

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Quite so.

Meanwhile, we seem to be hearing less about "the oil for food scandal"...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4224661.stm

[LeeG]

Hold on there,,I think if we find those missing guards they will be around the missing WMD!

"Salaries were paid to 8,000 guards at one ministry when the existence of only 600 guards could actually be confirmed"

[km gresham]

It's still in the news, ACB, you just have to look for it - the usual media outlets are averting their eyes.

Annan met with UN reform pointman Yevgeny Primakov in Moscow when Oil-For-Food scandal broke
CFP ^ | January 31, 2005 | CFP

Did United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan hightail it to Moscow to check in with his handpicked UN reform man Yevgeny Primakov within weeks of William Safire’s New York Times expose on alleged scandal in the Oil-For-Food Program?

The first of Safire’s groundbreaking Oil-For-Food investigative stories ran in mid-March, 2004.

Here’s Annan’s Moscow itinerary as documented by The Russian Federation: "Annan arrived in Moscow on Sunday, April 4, 2004 where he had an early working dinner with Evgeni (sic) Primakov, former Prime Minister of the Russian Federation."

On the following day, Annan visited the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, where he laid a wreath before visiting with current Federation President Prime Minister Mikhail E. Fradkov and attending a Model United Nations Conference involving 1,800 high school and university students from all over Russia.

While in Moscow, Annan also met with President Vladimir Putin, Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov and Secretary of the National Security Council, Igor Ivanov.

In other words, Annan met with Primakov, holding only the status of former Federation president before anyone else--including President Vladimir Putin.

While Paul Volcker, who leads the Oil-For-Food probe, has been investigating Annan in the comfort of his own Turtle Bay office, ex-KGB spymeister, Primakov remains under the probe’s radar screen.

And here's a link to another story.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/cRosett/?id=110006145

[LeeG]

Karen,but I bet he wore the right outfit,,,but seriously,,It took me a year to figure out some of the whys and wherefores about Shia and Sunni Islam in Iraq before I discovered that it's only a fraction of the picture describing different groupings/allegiances in Iraq,,i really don't understand the ins/outs of the Iraq oil for food program other than the condemnation has a partisan slant to it with the graft appearing to originate in Iraq with the oversight a US AND UN responsibility. The partisan condemnation doesn't appear to apply to the clear attempt by the US to have Al Baridai ousted or condemn the bugging of his UN offices (somehow this is ok?).
I guess if bad deals happen under the UN it's bad but if it happens under the US Bringing Democracy To The Middle East it's ok,,,even when the money is ours.

[ 02-02-2005, 08:49 AM: Message edited by: LeeG ]

[George.]

"Salaries were paid to 8,000 guards at one ministry when the existence of only 600 guards could actually be confirmed"8000 guards? Rubbish! There are 125,000 trained guards in Iraq, and they are just about finished taking over security from the Americans. I know it is true because President Bush said so himself during the campaign...

[LeeG]

the real pisser is what happens next when all the Iraqis voting are thinking they are voting for self-determination and one more step to pushing US forces out,,and Allawi/misc. ministers have to explain to the little people that will only occur when they feel safe to do so,good time to open a radio network in Iraq.

[George.]

A question: when they say US forces will begin to leave, does that include those four military bases out in the middle of the desert that were among the first things the occupying forces established? Or would the neocon's great idea be to keep those strategic bases, and simply take troops off Iraqi streets and hope the Iraqis are satisfied with that?

[LeeG]

"the next few months are critical"

[Garrett Lowell]

A question for your question, Jorge. What does the term "begin to leave" suggest to you?

[George.]

Honestly? That they'll bring home a handful of troops, have a bunch of photo-ops with them, and still try to keep tens of thousands of troops in Iraq for the long term. And that any Iraqi government that tries to kick out those bases will find itself overthrown as quickly as you can say French West Africa. ;)

[Garrett Lowell]

It's my opinion that, once the first of our troops leave, the Iraqi people (and the American people, along with the rest of the international community) will push even harder for the pull out of the remaining forces.

[LeeG]

couple of competing interests here,,,we can't have all the F-22s,new systems,destroyers,ABM systems, Future Combat Systems, AND existing global committments AND an ongoing occupation costing $150Billion/year using 40%reservists as active forces. Something has to give. Seems to me that lobbiests and domestic economic interests will eventually say "the pie is finite guv'na,,if the choice is keeping the domestic war machine profitable or security/democracy for Iraqis,,well you gotta decide who ensures you can stay in power,,it aint the Iraqis". Infantry don't have quite the economic opportunities as fancy new systems.
Until the insurgents allied with the former regime see a better option than continueing chaos we're pretty much looking at sitting in the bases protecting ourselves while watching Iraqis chew themselves up.

[ 02-02-2005, 01:50 PM: Message edited by: LeeG ]

[rbgarr]

For the sake of argument, let's assume that there are/were WMDs in Iraq and they've either been buried or shipped out. Let's also assume that the Iraqis will at some time in the future ask us to leave.

Will we leave (entirely) or will we seek to maintain some kind of military presence/bases there? I suppose it depends to a certain extent on how cooperative the relationship between the US and Iraqi government becomes.

I've always wondered how the end game will play out.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

History may provide a clue.

Does the name "Habbaniya" ring any bells?

Read on...

http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/opsrep.html

[Alan D. Hyde]

I believe that the present administration will behave honorably, and consistant with U.S. long-term enlightened self-interest ( long-term, the malaria would cost more than the swamp drainage will ).

We'll Iraq leave when asked.

And, we'll help Iraq when needed--- IF asked.

Alan

[ 02-02-2005, 02:01 PM: Message edited by: Alan D. Hyde ]

[Bob Smalser]

Originally posted by Andrew Craig-Bennett:
History may provide a clue.

Does the name "Habbaniya" ring any bells?

Read on...

http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/opsrep.html
The complete failure of all efforts by peaceful means to persuade the Iraqi Forces to withdraw made it necessary to use force to secure their withdrawal and it was eventually decided to attack them without issuing an ultimatum.

Hmmmm....sounds familiar, Andrew.

[LeeG]

Originally posted by High C:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by dmede:
...WMD search was offically ended by Bush with nothing found. Not a thing...The search is over, we found nothing....So we failed to find the smoking guns, and that means they didn't exist? That proves they weren't moved out of the country? That proves they weren't buried in the desert? That proves they weren't destroyed? Remember the 14 month buildup to war?

This is not solid thinking. This is opposing a President so deeply that you're not thinking clearly. Makes no sense...

We need to find out what became of those weapons.</font>[/QUOTE]High, it's time to take the route that Donn has taken,,the "so what?" route. As in "yeah, turns out there were no WMD,,so what?" Karen skips over to that position but jumps back so she's kind of just fun.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-cia1feb01,1,4146281.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

Current and former intelligence officials described it as a highly unusual step for the CIA.

"It's stunning that they would actually put on paper a reversal" of previous intelligence estimates, said one intelligence official who had seen the document.

Richard J. Kerr, a former senior CIA official who was hired by the agency last year to conduct an internal review of its prewar analysis, said he couldn't recall the agency ever issuing such a revisionist report on any subject.

"But the situation is rather unique," Kerr said, noting that Iraq's postwar reality had made the agency's failings obvious. "Ordinarily, you're never proven wrong in a clean, neat way."

The report is based largely on findings by the Iraq Survey Group, a CIA-led team of weapons experts that searched the country for more than a year without finding clear evidence of active illegal weapons programs.

U.S. intelligence officials have long acknowledged that the prewar assessments were flawed. David Kay, the former head of the search team, told Congress last January, "We were almost all wrong."

But other officials' statements have been more qualified. In a speech at Georgetown University last February, then-CIA Director George J. Tenet said that "when the facts of Iraq are all in, we will neither be completely right nor completely wrong."

The new report from the CIA, which is dated Jan. 18, retreats from the agency's prewar assertions on chemical weapons on almost every front. It concludes that "Iraq probably did not pursue chemical warfare efforts after 1991."

The report notes that its new conclusions "vary significantly" from prewar judgments "largely because of subsequent events and direct access to Iraqi officials, scientists, facilities and documents."

A note in the report describes the document as the second in a "retrospective series that addresses our post-Operation Iraqi Freedom understanding of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and delivery system programs."

A Jan. 4 report focused on Scud missiles and other delivery systems. Intelligence officials said future reports would revise the agency's claims that Iraq had stockpiles of biological weapons and was rebuilding its nuclear weapons program. Those allegations were a centerpiece of the Bush administration's case for war with Iraq.

[George.]

Originally posted by Alan D. Hyde:
I believe that the present administration will behave honorably, and consistant with U.S. long-term enlightened self-interest ...:D :D :D

You mean they will now change their M.O.?

No wonder you don't believe in statistical correlation... you don't believe that past track record is an indicator of future intent!

[Alan D. Hyde]

They have stumbled on occasion, but they are walking toward the light...

Alan

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Originally posted by Bob Smalser:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Andrew Craig-Bennett:
History may provide a clue.

Does the name "Habbaniya" ring any bells?

Read on...

http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/opsrep.html
The complete failure of all efforts by peaceful means to persuade the Iraqi Forces to withdraw made it necessary to use force to secure their withdrawal and it was eventually decided to attack them without issuing an ultimatum.

Hmmmm....sounds familiar, Andrew.</font>[/QUOTE]Habbaniya was the remote base through which Britain exercised indirect control over Iraq, which was nominally independent. It might be compared with, say, the USAF's Wheelus Field in Libya in the 1960's.

But this was May 1941, when the Axis was at the height of their powers in Europe.

The Iraqis had required the closure of Habbaniya to flying. The base was wholly dependent on air support, so this was in effect an ultimatum.

Hitler wanted oil - and had support from Vichy Syria and the elements in Syria and Iraq that later formed the Baath parties.

Britain was in no position to mess about. Had we lost Iraq we might have lost the War.

[LeeG]

Originally posted by Alan D. Hyde:
They have stumbled on occasion, but they are walking toward the light...

AlanDoes this mean you are acknowledging the release of the CIA report that refutes prior statements that Saddam had WMD which in effect supports the UN and other intelligence reports that did not provide Rice and GW the basis to say "HE HAS WMD"

from the above article

" The new report from the CIA, which is dated Jan. 18, retreats from the agency's prewar assertions on chemical weapons on almost every front. It concludes that "Iraq probably did not pursue chemical warfare efforts after 1991."

The report notes that its new conclusions "vary significantly" from prewar judgments "largely because of subsequent events and direct access to Iraqi officials, scientists, facilities and documents."

[Donn]

Sheesh! Lee, you really are a one trick pony, aren't you?

Here you go. Full compliance.

Bush lied.
Rummy Lied.
Rice lied.
Wolfy lied.
There was no honest justification for invading Iraq.

Now, what are you going to do about it? tongue.gif

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

We cite Luke, 15.7, Donn. :D

[LeeG]

Donn, you stayed out of this whole mess over a year ago as it was obvious the administration was cooking the intel. It's folks like Karen and HighC who still hold the flame for WMD.
You were honest a few threads ago by saying "so what?"...indeed...so the GW administration has gambled our integrity and lost. The goal was invasion and it was achieved. There's a rational for invasion,,the fact that the administration couldn't state it tells as much about us as it does about the gov't. And tells the world we are less trustworthy than before to mean what we say.

I'm a material guy,,is it four sheets of ply or five? Does it cost under $500 to repair the brakes ? Something as specific as "WMD" or "sniper attacks" or "anthrax poisoning" requires that they actually exist,,and not be as vague as "encourage democratic change".
In some cases there were white lies,,but mostly a willingness to mislead,,if someone can mislead about the basis for war,,golly,,what else is possible,,a blowjob?

[dmede]

Originally posted by Donn:
Sheesh! Lee, you really are a one trick pony, aren't you?

Here you go. Full compliance.

Bush lied.
Rummy Lied.
Rice lied.
Wolfy lied.
There was no honest justification for invading Iraq.

Now, what are you going to do about it? tongue.gif Wow, a bush suporter in touch with reality. A rare thing around here it seems.

[dmede]

Lee your exactly right. They wanted an invasion and they got one, justifications be damned. I don't have as much an issue with us being there as I do those who continue to harp on the dead issues of WMDs, terrorist ties etc.

All proven false and yet they blindly tow the line. It's sad and a little amazing to watch.

[Donn]

All that and no answer to a short question?

I'm the neoist con, and the rightest winger. I just admitted abject deceit.

Surely you can do something about it.

[Donn]

dmede...I've let this one go a feu times now, but it's just two mulch to bare.

"they blindly tow the line"

That would be toe the line. Towing the line is a sort of trolling. Folla? :D

[dmede]

"Now, what are you going to do about it?"

Thats not a question, its a taunt. But if you are serious, I am doing something about it rigth now, everytime I engage in a discussion with someone who doesn't know the facts I'm doing something. Might be as usefull as headbutting a brick wall around here but I'm doing it anyway. Making sure republican dupes aren't the only voice on the floor, thats what I'm doing.

edited to add: spelling is not my first concern here, reality is. again you resort to an old, tired and ineffective defensive ploy. you want to criticize my clothes too? how bout my nose, its big and funny looking. try harder.

[ 02-02-2005, 07:41 PM: Message edited by: dmede ]

[LeeG]

dmede, Donn has always been a realist. I think he's been around a lot of reality. I became fascinated with "WMD" as a highschool student for various reasons,,the threat of technology of man-made armageddon is fascinating. So when we have to invade another country to prevent our being attacked by specific technologies, not intentions, not gardening implements, not a sexually transmitted disease but singular discrete technologies that can cause mass destruction,,well damn it they better be there.
Not maybe,,but really.

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

I'm the neoist con, and the rightest winger. I just admitted abject deceit.

Donn has been out of touch with reality for a while too. :rolleyes:

[shamus]

Alan D Hyde-

Aren't you coming on a bit strong with the 'how dare question Bob, Bob wos there' line? I once asked Bob a question about that stuff and here is his reply..

Originally Posted by Bob Smalser:

Well...thankyou for your confidence, but fortunately I also said I didn't know squat about the inspection business....

....my operation was merely where they got paid, obtained their pogey bait (sundries) and got to use a proper gym, chapel and library. We cut a small airstrip for them to zip down in a little Swiss cropduster-type they had.

But I never saw or heard of anything that fancy...having used a spectrometer once or twice and having a rough idea how they work, the one you describe sounds like science fiction.

[High C]

Originally posted by LeeG:
...It's folks like Karen and HighC who still hold the flame for WMD...And don't forget to include House minority leader Nancy Pelossi in your ridicule, who in response to tonight's state of the union speech, said: "The greatest threats to our homeland security are the tons of biological, chemical, and even nuclear materials that are unaccounted for or unguarded."

Why did she say that, Lee? Why, dmede? Are you going to tell her the facts? :rolleyes: Is she an ignorant Republican hayseed like Karen and I? What do you wise guys know that the House minority leader doesn't know?

You'd better keep up with the party line, fellers. You're singing the wrong song.

[ 02-03-2005, 12:20 AM: Message edited by: High C ]

[LeeG]

High, the whole issue of WMD was that there was a factual basis for invading Iraq, you posted earlier to the effect they must be there because they were there, etc. The Kerr CIA report says they weren't there, a public correction is very unusual,,and they did just that. There are still materials from former Soviet countries requireing dissasembly and recycling/destruction just as we have chemical weapon stocks from the 40's-60's that have yet to be destroyed. I believe Pelosi was refering to materials in those countries.

[George Roberts]

Democracy is not freedom. They are different.

How minorities in Iraq are treated will determine if the end justified the process.

In the US minorities, indians and slaves, were not treated well for hundreds of years.

While hopeful, I am unwilling to say that Iraq minorities are going to be treated well.

[High C]

Originally posted by LeeG:
...There are still materials from former Soviet countries...I believe Pelosi was refering to materials in those countries.Oh, I see. In the middle of a long diatribe about Iraq, Ms. Pelossi suddenly speaks of Soviet weapons, without identifying them as such.

Now I understand... :rolleyes:

[dmede]

She's absolutly right High C. But thats not what we are talking about here is it?

You know damn well this is in regard to WMDs in Iraq, the specific threat posed by Sadam and his regime. What Pelosi mentioned is on greater scale. Are you reading any of whats been put down here at all? Have I once disputed WMDs existence in the world and thier great risk to global security? Stay on the issue and stop trying to defend yourselves by derailing the topic.

What was the threat in Iraq???? Which one on of the justifications for going to war there has panned out?

[LeeG]

I can understand lumping words and ideas into the same hopper. It probably took half way through the war before some folks learned that Iranians don't think of themselves as Arabs,,but that's ok,,we control the horizontal and vertical of our own tvs.

[LeeG]

Originally posted by High C:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by LeeG:
...There are still materials from former Soviet countries...I believe Pelosi was refering to materials in those countries.Oh, I see. In the middle of a long diatribe about Iraq, Ms. Pelossi suddenly speaks of Soviet weapons, without identifying them as such.

Now I understand... :rolleyes: </font>[/QUOTE]There's a pretty good book by Judith Miller and a couple of other authors about chem/bio facilities in Soviet Georgia, while she was a booster of the neo-con hype it's got some worthwhile context for the reality of "WMD". Kind of like if you knew someone who would freak out about guns,,but knew nothing about them this book is readable and gives chem/bio weapons a reality that is something other than what Saddam does.
here you go,,context

One-hundred percent of containers coming into our ports or airports must be inspected. Today, only 3 percent are inspected.

One-hundred percent of chemical and nuclear plants in the United States must have high levels of security. Today, the Bush administration has tolerated a much lower standard.

One-hundred percent communication in real time is needed for our police officers, firefighters and all of our first responders to prevent or respond to a terrorist attack.

Today, the technology is there, but the resources are not.

One-hundred percent of the enriched uranium and other material for weapons of mass destruction must be secured. Today, the administration has refused to commit the resources necessary to prevent it from falling into the hands of terrorists.

[High C]

Originally posted by dmede:
She's absolutly right High C. But thats not what we are talking about here is it?It's not? :confused:

We're not talking about the fact that there are Democrats who now actually claim that there were never WMDs in Iraq, and that President Bush made the idea up? Of course that's what we're talking about. The Dems just ran an entire Presidential campaign based on nothing else. Lee and others here parrot the same thing every day.

You wildly proclaim that the existance of Iraq's has been proven false and then observe how sad it is that some of us are too blind to see it as you do. I'm pointing out that on the very same day you make this claim, Nancy Pelossi announces that she doesn't see it your way either. Nor did an endless list of Washington Democrats, UN officials, and world leaders before the war started. And spare is the "Soviet" connection, Lee. :rolleyes:

Explain it to Pelossi. Enlighten her.

[ 02-03-2005, 03:14 PM: Message edited by: High C ]

[Alan D. Hyde]

On Monday morning, it's easy to out-think the quarterback.

But it only impresses the rubes...

Alan

[LeeG]

HighC,,read this, the CIA has now made a public revision of what Tenet called a slam dunk,,,180degree reversal. This shows how far some parts of the gov't will go to restore integrity. Consider for a moment that the democrats and republicans spin means NOTHING when talking about FACTS. Like how many ozs. of water are in a glass,,you could say it's half full or half empty but if it's 4oz then THAT IS WHAT IT IS.
I'm not sparing anything,,there was in the former Soviet Countries facilities for making chem/bio weapons that vastly exceeds what Iraq was purpoted to have, let alone what it did have. We are processing fuel rods from former Soviet countries because WE wanted to get it out of uncertain hands and because those countries were strapped for the funds to dispose of those materials.
Pelosi was also talking about domestic protection, first responders, etc.
There's got to be a reason with all our billions of resources and smart people could get it so wrong,,just like there's a reason people could continue in addictive behaviour even when it's so very destructive. Group-think aint a river.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-cia1feb01,1,6296401,print.story?coll=la-headlines-world&ctrack=1&cse t=true

Current and former intelligence officials described it as a highly unusual step for the CIA.

"It's stunning that they would actually put on paper a reversal" of previous intelligence estimates, said one intelligence official who had seen the document.

Richard J. Kerr, a former senior CIA official who was hired by the agency last year to conduct an internal review of its prewar analysis, said he couldn't recall the agency ever issuing such a revisionist report on any subject.

"But the situation is rather unique," Kerr said, noting that Iraq's postwar reality had made the agency's failings obvious. "Ordinarily, you're never proven wrong in a clean, neat way."

[LeeG]

Alan, you are speaking of Richard Kerrs report?

[High C]

Originally posted by LeeG:
HighC,,read this, the CIA has now made a public revision of what Tenet called a slam dunk,,,180degree reversal...RIGHT!!! Everybody knows that, but some of us are having a very hard time understanding what it means.

Tenet, and Annan, and Clinton, and Bush, and Bush, and Kerry, and Pelossi, etc etc etc etc...ALL had reason to believe that it was a slam dunk. Clinton waged war against Iraq for it. The UN threatened to do so. GW Bush actually acted on it, forcefully, unlike Clinton's half hearted video game approach.

Whatever the outcome, weapons not found, weapons moved, buried, eaten, whatever, GW Bush did not make this up!!!

As Alan pointed out, the time frame of things is critically important. Monday morning quarterbacking is for chumps. The real quarterbacks are preparing for the next play. Don't get left behind discussing meaningless trivia. Maybe dedicate your next thousand posts to considering what we should do to help secure Iraq, promote democracy, freedom and opportunity in the Middle East, and protect the US from further terrorist threat.

[Paulyboy]

1. Big business is now an immediate, globally interactive entity. Every "big business" is codependent on a lot of other ones to survive and prosper.
2.
war is as much business driven as it is an act of national righteousness.It ALWAYS HAS BEEN.
3. Religion is big business, and more prople have died in "religious" wars than all others combined through history....My Gods better than your God, my God's better than yours, My gods better cause he's my God, My God's better than yours....
4. Middle eastern culture is almost always at right angles to our cultural beliefs. We need to realize that .

[dmede]

No high its not. go back and start from the begining. It will be a good attention span excercise.

Here is what this is about (Bush Oct. 7 2002):"In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq's military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of killing millions.

We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas. Saddam Hussein also has experience in using chemical weapons. He has ordered chemical attacks on Iran, and on more than forty villages in his own country. These actions killed or injured at least 20,000 people, more than six times the number of people who died in the attacks of September the 11th.

And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons. Every chemical and biological weapon that Iraq has or makes is a direct violation of the truce that ended the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Yet, Saddam Hussein has chosen to build and keep these weapons despite international sanctions, U.N. demands, and isolation from the civilized world."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

Where did all of that go High? Its why we went there, where is it?

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

Ssshhhh... it's a secret. God's word is never changing. ;)

[High C]

Originally posted by dmede:
...Where did all of that go High? Its why we went there, where is it?I've asked the same question here many times. Where do you think it went?

[Jim H]

Originally posted by LeeG:
High, the whole issue of WMD was that there was a factual basis for invading Iraq,Hindsight is 20/20.


Originally posted by LeeG:
There are still materials from former Soviet countries requireing dissasembly and recycling/destruction just as we have chemical weapon stocks from the 40's-60's that have yet to be destroyed. I believe Pelosi was refering to materials in those countries.It's a moot point isn't it? You've spent the last year trying to argue that chemical & biological weapons are not WMD and their presence in Iraq was not a threat. Now you want us to believe that they are WMD and thier presence anywhere else, other than Iraq, poses a threat. That's a pretty neat trick.

Why worry about inspecting shipping containers when you can walk anthing you want over the Canadian border into the U.S.? Who will be inspecting all of the shipping containers in Canada?

Round and round he goes, where he'll stop no one knows, it's Lee!

[Jim H]

From the 1998 Stae of the Union speech:




Together, we must confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons and the outlaw states, terrorists, and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. The United Nations weapons inspectors have done a truly remarkable job finding and destroying more of Iraq's arsenal than was destroyed during the entire Gulf war. Now Saddam Hussein wants to stop them from completing their mission.

I know I speak for everyone in this chamber, Republicans and Democrats, when I say to Saddam Hussein, "You cannot defy the will of the world," and when I say to him, "You have used weapons of mass destruction before. We are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again." What's changed since then?

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

Ummm... George Bush's lies became more obvious?

[Donn]

I get the biggest kick out of the illiterate bozos on this forum who start their posts with "Umm."

[Jim H]

Originally posted by Peter Malcolm Jardine:
Ummm... George Bush's lies became more obvious?I hate to break it to you but that was Bill Clinton's "State" speech.

[Jim H]

Originally posted by Donn:
I get the biggest kick out of the illiterate bozos on this forum who start their posts with "Umm."I like it when they are reduced to "I know what I am what are you?" tone. It takes me back to when I was 5 or so.

[BrianW]

Jim,

That was classic! Ya should of waited a bit, and caught a whole mess of Bush-haters with that one. smile.gif

[Nora Lee]

It is time for this administration to accept the fact that they were wrong and work to make things right, bring our troops home, let the newly liberated Iraq evolve, in their new found freedom!

The US does not need to micro-manage, Iraq we can't even manage our our government...let us dwell on domestic policies for a while...we have sent so many jobs overseas...our healthcare system stinks,our schools are failing to prepare the next generation properly (despite No Child Left Behind), and Social Security is going bankrupt according to our President. And heaven forbid we women should have the right to make decisions about our own bodies! We need to protect our borders...not just from illegals but from those who wish to do destruction in our own hometowns.

I say charity begins at home...we need to take care of business here at home. Ifeel for the Iraqis, I am sorry that they have the threats to their homes and families.

But I also want to protect our own families...I know for a fact that our household is surely not the success we were in the 80's, our income has shrunk, we are no longer "upper middle class" with the health issues and the state of employment my husband is in, we are more like the working poor, just about keeping our heads above water, perhaps giving up our dream of restoring a lovely wood boat and doing the cruising that we have dreamt of for years. This in the Land of the Free and Home of Opportunity?

We have worked our entire lives and are reaching retirement age, and we are worrying how we are going to manage. We have had to use our retirement savings to pay for healthcare , as I am uninsurable due to previous existing conditions...I am not happy to say that we will probably become a bit of a burden to our son. Not from lack of planning but from a lot of extenuating circumstances.

Don't mean to whine but this is our reality...our son is in the Marine Reserves and will gladly serve if and when he is called...I am proud of his decision to go into the reserves, but I am reluctant to have him be sent to a country that does not want us there, and do a job that we should not be doing.

His father did two tours in Vietnam, the 1st he believed in what he was there for, the second however he felt we never should have been over there, what a waste of our young people, our most valuable natural resource...I was almost ill when the "W" introduced the parents of a recently departed soldier, how can they rationalize the death of their son???? Did he die to for God and Country or for oil and the almighty dollar!

Until our legislators are willing to send their own children and grandchildren to defend America's freedom around the world, I think that Congress should not authorize the $$$$ to keep this fiasco going.

Put the money that we are spending on the war into programs to benefit our citizens!

God Bless America! Pray for Peace!

Nora Lee

[Garrett Lowell]

U.S. to Pull 15,000 Troops Out of Iraq

Link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61910-2005Feb3.html)

[km gresham]

I bet if you posted every one of clinton's speeches on Iraq and Saddam Hussein without saying who was speaking, 100% of liberals would swear it was George Bush. ;)

But it was different when a democrat was saying Saddam had WMD and was a threat. After all it was that bastion of integrity bill clinton speaking. :rolleyes:

Only 15,000, Garret?! Think that will shut up Teddy, the swimmer, Kennedy? Quagmire! :eek: ;)

[ 02-04-2005, 08:02 AM: Message edited by: km gresham ]

[LeeG]

JimH,,you are doing a fine job of removing enough modifiers from reality to make a cartoon of the issue. Yes hindsight is 20/20. Bananas are yellow too! There was enough uncertain intelligence to make the administrations pronouncements of certainty a falsehood. If I buy a boat but don't get it inspected and the keel falls off is it hindsight to say "well, you didn't get it inspected" ?

What is a moot point? It's not a moot point that US integrity is for s**t if we say we're invading iraq for X and X turns out not to be the case with plenty of evidence that the administration was seeking intelligence of a particular flavor. Come on, you have no response to Chalabis input, no response to the nearly unprecedented release by the Kerr report that pretty much says the CIA product used by the prez was 180 degrees off,,,while other intelligence agences retained the degrees of uncertainty.
You are less than honest mischaracterizing my position. Scrap metal showing up in Jordan or Syria is not a "WMD",,15yr old 155mm shells are not "WMD", poor records are not "WMD", while a million tons of conventional ordnance could be a "WMD" that's not what Rice was refering to when she spoke of mushroom clouds on the Potomac.
So when I answer High that there are materials in former SOviet countries you misquote me saying they are WMD.
You are not being honest,,being conservative does not mean twisting peoples words.

[Alan D. Hyde]

Nora, in simple terms, the swamp drainage, though expensive, is cheaper than the malaria.

And, 90% of the Iraqi people DO want us to help, although, once on their own feet, they also DO wish to run their own country. There's been no indication we won't leave when the situation's stabilized and let them do just that.

Read Max Boot's The Savage Wars of Peace for some interesting and illuminating historical insight. There's precious little of that to be found in the main stream media, or in the speeches of Senators in Teddy Kennedy's camp...

Alan

[Jim H]

Originally posted by BrianW:
Jim,

That was classic! Ya should of waited a bit, and caught a whole mess of Bush-haters with that one. smile.gif :D Target fixation :D I'm out of practice.

[dmede]

Originally posted by km gresham:
I bet if you posted every one of clinton's speeches on Iraq and Saddam Hussein without saying who was speaking, 100% of liberals would swear it was George Bush. ;)

But it was different when a democrat was saying Saddam had WMD and was a threat. After all it was that bastion of integrity bill clinton speaking. :rolleyes:

Only 15,000, Garret?! Think that will shut up Teddy, the swimmer, Kennedy? Quagmire! :eek: ;) I hate to have to point out the obvious here, but Clinton didn't take us to war based on what he may have believed or said about Saddam or his WMDs. Bush did. Again this is about Bush's speeches (and actions) regarding Saddam and his WMDs. This is about how Bush was wrong in each of his major reasons for going into Iraq.

The question of this post is "what if George Bush was right". He wasn't. He was dead wrong. Bush did not go to war to make the Iraqi people free. He went to war to stop a perceived threat posed by Saddam, his stockpiles of WMDs and his links to terrorism.

Karen I bet if you posted all of Bushes speeches regarding Iraq from 9/11 to the "official" end of action in Iraq you would find his overwhelming message was Saddam has WMDs and terrorist links and that both pose a direct threat to the US. But if you ask most supporters of the war now they think he just wanted to liberate the Iraqis and bring democracy to the middle east.

Clinton is a dead horse, if you stopped beating it long enough to look around you would realize you have been duped into a major misdirection of our national anger over 9/11.

[Gerald]

Nora, in simple terms, I agree with you.

>>>>>>And, 90% of the Iraqi people DO want us to help<<<<<<<<<<

Alan ....... could you please point out where you got the 90% figure? I would be interested in reading how the facts were accumulated and then factored.
Gerald

[Alan D. Hyde]

Where, Gerald? From conversations with National Guardsmen who have been over, and are now back...

Alan