I am a democrat. However, unlike many, I appreciate discussions like this, and am open to truth, wherever it my come from. I have found many of the comments here convincing and will leave feeling more informed.
The only argument that I have ever made against the war, was the timing. I have always felt that it was a bad time to thin US forces, by spreading them out over 2 fronts. History has proven this to be a bad idea. Many of the greatest wars in human history, where lost by leaders who made similar decisions.
However, I myself, am not a military analyst. Nore am I any type of brilliant military tactician. So, admittedly, my opinion is not of the highest caliber.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

He’s not looking for truth, he’s looking for attention, good or bad, it’s attention and he obviously craves it. Classic troll. But, I appreciated all the info you all refreshed us with.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Sadly, there are people who prefer to politicize the war by playing gotcha games with half quotes, misquotes, and misrepresentations. The US govt (D and R) needed to promote a war with Saddam when the leaders saw a threat and authorized the war. However, numerous investigations have found that President Bush and the Bush Admin did not DELIBERATELY mislead America or the world. Those people actually believed what they said. On the opposite side of the coin, we have Democrats who in equal or greater fervor promoted, authorized, supported, funded, and demanded invasion, but when it became politically expensive, they opposed the war using lies, distortions, half quotes, misquotes, and mischaracterizations. For example…

opponents of the war say that the Bush Admin deliberately misled people into thinking the invasion would be fast, pay for itself, and almost bloodless. That’s been investigated, and no bi-partisan investigation has found that any misleading was done intentionally. BUT opponents of the war who have time and again demanded investigations of the Bush Admin have never been investigated themselves despite they’re deliberate exaggeration of the war’s duration, it’s dollar cost, and its cost in blood. They tell us we’ll be in Iraq forever so as to colonize it for oil, yet, the Bush Admin has been withdrawing forces since last September. They tell us that 2-3million Iraqis have died, but the number is barely 100,000 over 5yrs, with most of those casualties coming not from Americans, but from Al Queda suicide bombers, insurgents, criminals, and fmr regime loyalists. They tell us the war has cost 2-3 trillion dollars, and never fail to add the cost of the war in Afghanistan AND the war on terror into the cost of the Iraq War (DNC ads recently admitted it’s been about $500bn over 5yrs/$100bn yr). We’re told that the Bush Admin exaggereated claims of WMD (which were almost identical or less than the UN’s claims as late as 3/6/03), and that there were no ties at all to Al Queda. Both of those accusations have been found false: the ISG found there was a WMD threat-just not in the form of stockpiles, and the latest IPP report shows (as did the 1998 UBL indictment) that Iraq and Al Queda formed an alliance and cooperated on several occasions starting in 1993.

SO, why believe the proven lies from the left rather than the proven truths? Again…
Why do you ignore the pictures? What kind of evidence are you looking for?
-captured documents
-captured audio tapes
-detainees
-opinions from Democrats who saw the same or more intelligence?

What are you looking for?
What’s it gonna take to get opponents of the war to open their mind to the idea that they’ve been more misled from the DNC than from the Bush Admin?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

To supplement Salvage’s abbreviated versions of the truth, here’s the entire bit from the July 12th, 2004 speech at the Oak Ridge Nat’l Laboratory.

Three years ago, the ruler of Iraq was a sworn enemy of America, who provided safe haven for terrorists, used weapons of mass destruction, and turned his nation into a prison. Saddam Hussein was not just a dictator; he was a proven mass murderer who refused to account for weapons of mass murder. Every responsible nation recognized this threat, and knew it could not go on forever.

America must remember the lessons of September the 11th. We must confront serious dangers before they fully materialize. And so my administration looked at the intelligence on Iraq, and we saw a threat. Members of the United States Congress from both political parties looked at the same intelligence, and they saw a threat. The United Nations Security Council looked at the intelligence, and it saw a threat. The previous administration and the Congress looked at the intelligence and made regime change in Iraq the policy of our country.

In 2002, the United Nations Security Council yet again demanded a full accounting of Saddam Hussein’s weapons programs. As he had for over a decade, Saddam Hussein refused to comply. In fact, according to former weapons inspector David Kay, Iraq’s weapons programs were elaborately shielded by security and deception operations that continued even beyond the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom. So I had a choice to make: Either take the word of a madman, or defend America. Given that choice, I will defend America every time. (Applause.)

Although we have not found stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, we were right to go into Iraq. We removed a declared enemy of America who had the capability of producing weapons of mass murder, and could have passed that capability to terrorists bent on acquiring them. In the world after September the 11th, that was a risk we could not afford to take.

Today, the dictator who caused decades of death and turmoil, who twice invaded his neighbors, who harbored terrorist leaders, who used chemical weapons on innocent men, women, and children, is finally before the bar of justice. (Applause.) Iraq, which once had the worst government in the Middle East, is now becoming an example of reform to the region. And Iraqi security forces are fighting beside coalition troops to defeat the terrorists and foreign fighters who threaten their nation and the world. Today, because America and our coalition helped to end the violent regime of Saddam Hussein, and because we’re helping to raise a peaceful democracy in its place, the American people are safer. (Applause.)

Only a limited mentality like Salvage and the Knoxville reporter to whom’s article he linked, could read “we have not found” and interpret it as there were “no” WMD.

Then again, Salvage is the type of guy who could show up late to an Easter egg hunt, and declare there never were any hidden eggs because he didn’t find any.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Uh yeah it does. See the lack of WMD? Means that there aren’t any WMD and that means no threat.
See how that works?

In a short sighted way, you’d be right. However, that’s like saying a man convicted of multiple murders (all using a .45cal pistol) is innocent despite the fact that he’s:
1) telling you he’s going to kill you
2) has a .45cal pistol in front of him
3) has a bag of powder, a box of shells, and a pile of .45cal bullets on the table in front of you

-Saddam threatened the US almost every day-often w chemical or biological attack
-Saddam had plenty of delivery means available (including, and most dangerously, his ties to Al Queda groups)
-UN inspectors found all the materials, equipment, and personnel ready to restart wmd programs at a moment’s notice (and Saddam himself said he was preparing to restart his programs).

Another analogy…if you like to smoke a little weed, and every few months for the past 12yrs cops come into your house w dogs and they take your weed….wouldn’t it be smart to find a way to get a little MJ w/out having it stockpiled around your house? How about if you could grow it in 2hrs? That’d sure get rid of the problem posed by dogs/inspectors. That’s what Saddam did w his wmd. He converted his programs to go from making stockpiles to making rapid restart stuff. It’s not complicated or crazy. It’s purely logical. Someone does something to you again and again for 12yrs, you find a way around it.

Oh, and the bit about “illegal”…nope. Sorry. It would only have been illegal if the invasion was done unilaterally, solely for regime change purposes, and under a UN resolution that didn’t authorize force (like UN1441), BUT it was done under UN 678 and 687 which did authorize force, were still in effect, and if the UNSC objected…they’d have at least put out a statement of objection. They didn’t.

The occupation (of course) is completely legal under UN1483sec1-4 which not only authorize the US and Coalition presence and use of force, but specifically mandate it.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Round and round and round and round he goes.

You still haven’t produced one shred of proof for your position.

You’ve been proven wrong on repeatedly on this thread, yet you persist.

It’s becoming almost embarrassingly apparent that no amount of reality will crack your shell.

Oh, well.

As Tater Salad says: “You can’t fix stupid.”

Like or Dislike: 0  0

>That doesn’t mean there wasn’t a WMD threat

Uh yeah it does. See the lack of WMD? Means that there aren’t any WMD and that means no threat.

See how that works?

>or a myriad of other reasons to invade

Alas those are all illegal and are tantamount to war crimes under both American and International law.

See invasion to change the regime to one you like? That’s illegal and that’s why the Bush Administration pushed the WMD angle so hard, no other motive was legal.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Right. “stockpiles” That doesn’t mean there wasn’t a WMD threat or a myriad of other reasons to invade. You’re the one that put up false and misleading quotes claiming there’d be stockpiles-not us. We supplied quotes listing “unaccounted for wmd” (the stuff Pres Clinton talked about in 2003).

I guess I was wrong. Here I thought we had someone interested in forming their own opinion by looking at facts, not half truths and spin; a human-not a lemming.

http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/06/06/sen-intel-committee-releases-another-report-to-show-bush-lied-about-saddam/

Like or Dislike: 0  0

“Although we have not found stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, we were right to go into Iraq,”

President GW Bush

The End.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I think-if I may speak for Salvage-there’s a desire to see a checklist of WMD allegations followed by a Y/N as to found or not. Given the complexity of the WMD claims by the UN and US, it’s hard to form a checklist (particularly since “wmd” really means “Unresolved Disarmament Issues” or “proscribed items”, but wmd fits in soundbites so much easier, and is so much easier to comprehend). I too opposed the idea of an invasion and did not trust President Bush or the Admin. HOWEVER, I did the research on my own, read the UNMOVIC and UNSCOM reports, the consistently identical claims from Democrats, and the pre-Bush claims of regime ties to Al Queda. That convinced me (not some blood-for-oil conspiracy site or DNC or RNC talking points).

Is that what you’d like Salvage? A checklist of allegations w a Y/N next to them? I can do that if you’d like. Just ask, I’ll be happy to help. Lacking that, please tell us what you need to see to open your mind?

Like or Dislike: 0  0