[...] Here is some more gems: [...]

Like or Dislike: 0  0

[...] Here is some more gems: [...]

Like or Dislike: 0  0

WMD’s was not the only reason we went to war in Iraq and Bush never said it was the only reason…his ties to terrorists, his refusal to comply with the cease fire, his constant attacks on our jets, the fact that he thumbed his nose at the UN over 17 times, AND his possession of WMD’s (as the recent tapes have proven he had):

War foes have long asserted that Saddam halted his WMD programs in the wake of his defeat in the first Gulf War in 1991. Saddam’s abandonment of WMD programs was confirmed by subsequent U.N. inspections.

Again, not true. In a tape dating to April 1995, Saddam and several aides discuss the fact that U.N. inspectors had found traces of Iraq’s biological weapons program. On the tape, Hussein Kamel, Saddam’s son-in-law, is heard gloating about fooling the inspectors.

“We did not reveal all that we have,” he says. “Not the type of weapons, not the volume of the materials we imported, not the volume of the production we told them about, not the volume of use. None of this was correct.”

….in a post 9/11 world none of this could stand taken as a whole. To say otherwise your just being dishonest with yourself to give your hatred for Bush justification (not talking to you Redhand, just the lefties).

I definately feel that the Iraq war was the needed 2nd step and it has done much to further our victory against terrorism.

Plus if we had not invaded he would have completely reconstituted his WMD programs when inspectors left, as Clinton was so afraid he would do:

Example 1: “Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.”

Example 2: “Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas, or biological weapons.”

Example 3: “And so we had to act and act now. Let me explain why. First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.”

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Here’s an unnamed Pentagon official:

“This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991,” the official said, adding the munitions “are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war.”

Okay, pal, could you kindly show us those weapons too, then? Or are you waiting to declassify those until 2013?

I hate to say it, but I can kinda see the “unnamed Pentagon official’s” point of view. This conflict was sold to the American people by the Administration with “mushroom cloud over NYC” type rhetoric. The idea was that the “WMD” posed an imminent threat to us. We had to act immediately and preemptively to protect ourselves, etc.

This find doesn’t really match the rhetoric, bad as it is. It looks like local terror munitions designed for killing Kurds and Iranians. As we know, Saddam used this stuff against both groups.

Of course he was obliged to destroy it, and didn’t, but would we have gone to war just for this? Frankly, I doubt it.

Then there’s the Administration’s curious de-emphasis on the find. Why the hell was this info classified to begin with? If it was that important, one would think the Bushies would have seized on it ages ago, to prove that the WMDs existed all along.

So, I consider the find interesting, but not a standalone justification for this conflict.

While I’m very right of center in my views, I’m still not convinced that Iraq was the essential second step we needed to take in the GWOT. I would have been much happier had we directed most of our energies into killing bin Laden and intimidating those sick Mullah F*cks in Iran (who do have a covert nuclear weaapons program up and running).

Of course, now that we’re in so deeply in Iraq, we have no choice but to see it through. The cut-and-run Democrats nausiate me.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Curt,

Please check out this article by Rick Moran, which says it all about the Democrats and the mess they just made of themselves over the Iraq War Resolution(s). It is a brilliant analysis!

http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/06/22/democrats-go-out-with-a-whimper-on-iraq/

Eh hem…but then, so are you guys…brilliant that is! Sheez. Am I in trouble now?!

Just sayin’

Carol

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Talk about total denial. Surf over to Huff&Puff and ready the comedy. They’re as bad as Kos after getting caught with his hand in the political money cookie jar. Don’t like our canidiate, we’ll pay you to support him. Kind of smells like the entire dim-wit bunch and their lack of morals doesn’t it?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I’m of a similar mindset as Riehl World View. It hasn’t been that important to me and there have been reports of wmds for the past few years, if not the stockpiles we thought Saddam probably had at his disposal. At this point, it’s a moot point. Saddam was a danger, we had all the legal and moral authority we needed, and we’re there now, so deal with it.

And to zenseless and the libs trackbacking to this, the Iraqi War Resolution from 2002 specified nothing on the production dates of those wmds.

JOINT RESOLUTION 114

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq’s war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;…

…Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;…

…Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;…

…Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

…Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Sorry to harsh your high, folks, but

The lawmakers [Santorum and Hoekstra] pointed
to an unclassified summary from a report by the
National Ground Intelligence Center regarding
500 chemical munitions shells that had been
buried near the Iranian border, and then long
forgotten, by Iraqi troops during their eight-year war with Iran, which ended in 1988.

This shells were there when Saddam was STILL OUR FRIEND (they were then when Rummy was shaking his hand). So even if they fell into the wrong hands they are utterly useless. You could roll in that sarin and it would do nothing to you. So fantasize all you want, but this is utterly worthless, it porves nothing except Santorum is a desperate fraud

Like or Dislike: 0  0

“Didn’t The Democrats Say There Was No WMD?”

Yes they did.

But that turned out to be a lie, just like everything else they said…

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Squiggler has an important point that is always skipped over by the left. We gave Saddam a peaceful and honorable way out without war. HE is the one that chose war. In fact, I honestly think that the reason we weren’t as prepared for “winning the peace” as we were for “winning the war” was that we really expected Saddam to take the peaceful option. We didn’t really expect to have to “win the peace” or thought we would blow that bridge when we got to it.

Betwen the lines in the interview with Hewitt is a message that there is more, maybe lots more than hasn’t been located and some recently translated documents seem to back that possibility up.

Like or Dislike: 0  0