think people need to realize that Saddam's weapons of mass destruction were never the main reason why we removed him from power. They were just one of many reason why we did what was necessary.
B757300, again it's breathtaking to see how you just absolutely ignore what His Holiness The President said before the war-that was THE justification he gave,and the ONLY justification he gave for months-WMD's. He preached it; Cheney preached it, that Nazi Rumsfeld preached it; Colin Powell preached it. They preached it 24/7, and now, that it turns out your boy was either mislead, or lied to us, you try to say "well, that was never the reason".
Why don't you go research it a little? What you're saying is an absolute falsehood, insofar is that is THE justification that was given. It's amazing how you, like Bush, just want people to forget that thait's what he pushed in the UN, and to the American people for months. It's another reason why we need an investigaton, because the Administration just wants what they said for months forgotten.
- Remove a continued threat to the stability of the entire region.
The threat, obviously was overstated, when it was finally used as an excuse once we invaded. Looking at how poorly the Iraqi armed forces fought, they were hardly a threat to anyone, especially with the U.S. presence in the area. That one is another mirage.
- Remove a major source for terrorist funding, protection, and training (Saddam made it publicly known that he was supporting suicide bombers in Israel)
Most of the terrorists camps in Iraq were in the north, an area that Saddam had no control other, and an area that was tacitly "aligned" with the U.S. So much for that. It was, at best, a minor source for funding, which hasn't made one damn bit of difference in the war against terror.
- Remove a brutal dictator from power (One who's favorite idol was Stalin)
Then why don't we go remove Assad in Syria? They're as brutal as Saddam ever was? Or Kim Il Jung in North Korea, who is probably 10 times as bad? Or any number of brutal dictators in Africa? Why did we pick on THAT one, and no one else? I'll tell you why-because the war was, in part, revenge. And besides, what right to we have to tell ANY NATION who their leaders should be, B757300? Answer that one. So much for that. That was street-corner bully stuff, nothing more.
- Prevent Saddam from acquiring, reacquiring, producing, and/or providing any nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons to terrorists (According to Bill Clinton, who many people on this forum practically worship, Saddam never accounted for his NBC programs)
Ah, I guess Saddam is the only one in the world who wants to acquire those weapons. And, now in the almost-post-war Iraq, there's no evidence that he was acquiring or had plans to acquire any weapons. And it's so freakin' funny how you can quote Clinton, and not misuse his name when it suits your purposes. The truth is, either the intel was wrong, or we were misled by the Administration as to the status of these "programs". Again, where the hell are all these weapons, and why the hell don't the likes of you EVER answer that question?
- Saddam still did not provide any significant account of his NBC programs as required by U.N.
Stop patrionizing the UN. When do you care what the hell the UN does anyway? You hate that place! The fact is, WE
threw out inspectors before they had a chance to really search anything. Yet now, when we've had CONTROL of Iraq for SIX MONTHS NOW, and haven't found a friggin' thing, you beg for everyone to give the U.S. more time. Well, the U.S. was unwilling to give the UN time, why the hell should we give the Administration a carte blanche on time in finding these weapons, that appraently didn't exist?
-Saddam was in violation of the cease-fire agreement and its related U.N. resolution he "accepted" following Desert Storm.
It was called the Gulf War, stop making it sound sexy. And if there are no weapons, how was he in violation of the cease-fire? Think about it! We said he had to destroy the weapons. Well, where the hell are they? If they aren't there, and most of them were destroyed either in The Gulf War, or when Saddam DID destroy some weapons, how was he in violation.
The most likely explanation is Saddam never had any weapons.
THEN WHY THE HELL DID WE
CHRIST SAKE! THE
REASON given for the war before it started was WEAPONS OF
MASS DESTRUCTION. If he didn't have them, then Americans, Brits and Iraqi's DIED over a lie! How can you not say otherwise, for God's sake? Go back and READ what Bush and Cheney said for MONTHS! "IT
'S THE WMD'S STUPID!", to paraphrase Clinton.
That is THE REASON we need an investigation, because we were led to believe there were weapons EVERYWHERE-Powell even put on that show, complete with photo's and intel that said it PROVED the weapons were there,and that the U.S., based on that intel, had a right to go to war! If it wasn't about WMD's, then why that heavy presentation in the UN-RIGHT BEFORE THE INVASION STARTED!!??
What you say is the most breathtaking thing of all. First you say he was in violation of the Cease-Fire, that dealt with WMD's, then you say he doesn't have any! Which one is it! You cannot have it both ways! Unbelievable!
What he possessed was all the materials and equipment necessary to produce them in a matter of hours before use.
Bullshit. If those materials were there-right before the war-and could be used "in a matter of hours", don't you think we'd have found SOMETHING by now? Indeed, even the Brits now say that that 45- minute claim was incorrect. Truth is, B757300, is you are right: HE
HAD NOTHING!! We haven't found squat in SIX MONTHS!!! When are you going to admint that we were simply either misled by the intel, or by the Adminstration. A year? Two years? Never, because it's Bush who said it? That makes you a hypocrite in the first degree. You and the Administration weren't willing to give the UN as much time as the U.S. has had, but you beg off for unlimited time, to maybe fine one tiny piece of a WMD, so you can say, disingenuously to the world "LOOK, WE
!!" Sorry, but I'm not willing to give the Administration carte blanche on that. We've had enough time; nothing has been found, which means, in one way or another, the war was started on a lie.
I trust President Bush enough to give him the benefit of the doubt.
There's a headline-stopper. You're so far up Bush's butt that you'll never see the light of day again, B757300. If he were to nuke the world, you'd find a way to justify it, simply because it's His Holiness, and becuase he's a Republican. If it were a Democrats, you'd be looking for impeachment over this. You did when Clinton lied about Monica, but in a far more serious matter-when thousands of lives were lost-you want to stonewall to find out if the president lied to the people on this matter. That makes you a hypocrite, and makes your whole arguement credible not in the least.
Whether it takes place now, or somewhere in the future, there will be an investigation, I'll wager, and whatever is found, it won't paint a pretty picture of this "moral" and "honorable" administration.
I think we need to know the truth. If it indicts the intel community, so be it. If it indicts the Administration, so be it, but I think since a war took place, we need an investigation. I just want the truth. People like B757300 don't want the truth, they simply want to protect George W. Bush's ass.
[Edited 2003-09-17 14:48:57]