Let's Hate America, it is the fun thing to do.

[Donas64]

So what does it say about me?

That was kind of an off the cuff statement to show my disdain for Bush, but the more I read about Hugo Chavez, the more I come to realize that it was the truth. HC has done a lot for his county, not the least of which has been to stand up to America and its private interests. Exxon Mobil, Pat Robertson, Bush and co. He is the founder of the Bolivarian Revolution which is stellar compared to George Bush.

Components of Chvez's Bolivarianism

In recent years, its most significant political manifestation is in the government of Venezuela's president Hugo Chvez, including changing the 1999 Constitution and Venezuela's name to the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, and other ideas such as the Bolivarian Schools, Bolivarian Circles, and the Universidad Bolivariana de Venezuela. Often, the term Bolivarianism is used specifically to refer to Chvez's rule. The central points of Bolivarianism, as extolled by Chvez, are:[citation needed]
1. Venezuelan economic and political sovereignty (anti-imperialism).
2. Grassroots political participation of the population via
popular votes and referenda (participatory democracy).
3. Economic self-sufficiency (in food, consumer durables, et cetera).
4. Instilling in people a national ethic of patriotic service.
5. Equitable distribution of Venezuela's vast oil revenues.
6. Eliminating corruption.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolivarian_Revolution

Now I've heard it all

Hugo Chavez = Gods Gift to humanity

George Bush = The Devil

And Venezuela = A perfect utopia where all is well, there is no suffering, no corruption and national pride to spare (cuz if you question dear old Hugo publicly you'll suddenly come up missing)

Look I can understand you dislike for Bush. Thats your perogative, but to hold up a character like Hugo Chavez as some kind of paradigm of morality and democracy, well that just shows me exactly where you stand.

 

[Donas64]

If they didnt lie about why we had to go to war, I may feel differently. If we had at least tried to stop the looting that took place after we occupied the country. If we werent so eager to get all those new bases built, and if we hadnt pumped all that un-metered oil from their oil fields. What we get are a steady stream of no bid contracts, inadequate armor, and stories about how our puppet government is going to take over eventually. Our people are being tortured to death because turnabout is fair play. Rumsfeld is being called an incompetent leader by several retired generals. Many many national organizations have condemned the US for our actions. Some say war crimes may be investigated. Even the UN said this was an illegal war.

- You mean why did both the Democrats and Republicans lied about going to war cuz you know both parties and even foreign intelligence said the exact same thing.

- So you really think that the U.S wants to colonize Iraq?

- And by any chance are you referring to the same jewel of world wide sanctity the United Nations that initiated the Oil for Food Scandal?

Like I said before there have been mistakes made, no war goes perfectly and war is not such a predictable thing but I know a few things:

1. All the Politicians who were so gung ho and supportive for the war before the going got tough and are now calling to pull out are spineless jellyfish who cave at the first sign of a fight and are only concerned with getting re-elected.

2. The United Nations while a great idea in theory, in reality is comprised mostly of America hating hypocrites who condemn the U.S at every turn while acting like their poop does not stink: "Oil for Food", "U.N peacekeepers molesting Civilians e.t.c"

People think that if we pull out of Iraq tomorrow, all the Jihadists and terrorists will just go home and forget all about us. Newsflash: They won't. They were around before 9/11, they attacked us on 9/11, they will continue to attack us after we leave Iraq. Their objective is to see western civilization destroyed or brought under sharia (sp?) law by any means necessary. Simple as that.

 

[Doodsmack]

the war in iraq was tangential to the war on terror. you pretty much have to admit it. bush said after 9/11 that he would go after any country that harbors terrorists. saddam saw al qaeda as a threat and actively kept them out. the terrorism we were victimized by on 9/11 was done by subnational islamic extremists. your comparison of saddam with subnational islamic extremists is oversimplified. having suicide bombers fly planes into our buildings provides a much more narrow defintion of terrorism than does having a self-interested tyrant still in office in the middle east.

what gives us the right to broaden our definition of terrorism to justify full-scale war? the terrorism we responded to on 9/11 was a very specific threat. the middle east is a ridiculously complex web of geopolitical rivalries and subnational dissenters; to equate them all with bin laden's al qeada is unintelligent. People who are well-versed in the Middle East's complexities know this; this is why Bush fired Dick Clarke as an advisor. if the $500+ billion that has been spent on the iraq war were put towards special forces and covert operations against subnational, suicidal radicals, the war on terror would be much farther along. the two or three cruise missiles clinton fired, based on recon and intelligence, came closer to killing bin laden than the thousands than bush fired against iraq during "shock and awe". there are much more pressing WMD threats than saddam (iran, north korea, and subnational extremists like al qaeda), and there are much more pressing cases of oppression and tyranny than saddam (north korea, central africa, et al). at first we responded to the events of 9/11 directly (taliban) and then tangentially (saddam). the war in iraq is poor statecraft.

americans should have learned from vietnam that they do not know what the purpose to history is. our Western ethic does not apply to everyone in the world. to say that iraq needs democracy is to say that your world-view is superior to other peoples' world-views. the neoconservatives currently in office are cold warriors who overconfidently equate their former anti-USSR policies with anti-terrorism policies.

the above statements have absolutely nothing to do with my love of troops and country. it is an illogical deduction to equate liberal tendencies with anti-patriotism. if you do you do not know what "liberal" means.

 

[Killer]

To avoid the so called "occupation", our troops would have to live in hotels or something.

I didn't see that in the definition...LOL

Yes, it it tecnically occupied,

Thank you.

but it a base of operations, not a new home for a colony. You are making a mountain out of a molehill.

Not really...just a clarification.(first)

 

[Killer]

the war in iraq was tangential to the war on terror. you pretty much have to admit it. bush said after 9/11 that he would go after any country that harbors terrorists. saddam saw al qaeda as a threat and actively kept them out. the terrorism we were victimized by on 9/11 was done by subnational islamic extremists. your comparison of saddam with subnational islamic extremists is oversimplified. having suicide bombers fly buildings into our planes provides a much more narrow defintion of terrorism than does having a self-interested tyrant still in office in the middle east.

what gives us the right to broaden our definition of terrorism to justify full-scale war? the terrorism we responded to on 9/11 was a very specific threat. the middle east is a ridiculously complex web of geopolitical rivalries and subnational dissenters; to equate them all with bin laden's al qeada is unintelligent. if the $500+ billion that has been spent on the iraq war were put towards special forces and covert operations against subnational, suicidal radicals, the war on terror would be much farther along. at first we responded to the events of 9/11 directly (taliban) and then tangentially (saddam). the war in iraq is poor statecraft.

americans should have learned from vietnam that they do not know what the purpose to history is. our Western ethic does not apply to everyone in the world. to say that iraq needs democracy is to say that your world-view is superior to other peoples' world-views. the neoconservatives currently in office are cold warriors who overconfidently equate their former anti-USSR policies with anti-terrorism policies.

the above statements have absolutely nothing to do with my love of troops and country.

BEST POST EVER!!! Well said. Spot on to the way I feel.

 

[Revs]

This is from US intelligence agencies, not some made up media report, they themselves are saying this, how can anyone say that this is false?

NEW YORK (AFP) - US spy agencies dropped a political bombshell six weeks before national elections, with the leak of a classified report concluding that the war in Iraq has spawned a new wave of Islamic radicalism and increased the global threat of terrorism.


The intelligence document rocked a central pillar of the Republican Party's campaign platform ahead of November elections: that the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the ouster of Saddam Hussein made America safer, not weaker.

With opinion polls showing President George W. Bush's party possibly losing control of both houses of Congress in the the mid-term polls, in large part due to unhappiness over the war in Iraq, the report stating categorically the opposite will make for painful reading at the White House.

Bush has argued repeatedly in pre-election speeches that Iraq is the central front in the war on terrorism and that demands for a US troop withdrawal from the country by the opposition Democrats underscores why the center-left party should not be trusted with the nation's security.

"The security of the civilized world depends on victory in the war on terror, and that depends on victory in Iraq," Bush said in one speech on August 31.

Such assertions were looking decidedly shaky Sunday after The New York Times and The Washington Post released details of the classified National Intelligence Estimate, the most comprehensive assessment yet of the war, based on analyses of all 16 of America's intelligence agencies.

The report, Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States, says "the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse," an official familiar with the document told The Times.

The Washington Post said the report described the Iraq conflict as the primary recruiting vehicle for violent Islamic extremists.

While the US has seriously damaged Al-Qaeda and disrupted its ability to carry out major operations since the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington, it noted, radical Islamic networks have spread and decentralized.

Democratic leaders were quick to jump on the report's conclusions as clear evidence of the failure of Bush's policies.

"This intelligence document should put the final nail in the coffin for president Bush's phony argument about the Iraq war," Senator Edward Kennedy said in a statement Sunday.

"The fact that we need a new direction in Iraq to really win the war on terror and make Americans safer could not be clearer or more urgent -- yet this administration stubbornly clings to a failed 'stay-the-course' strategy," he said.

The White House, while reiterating its traditional stance of not commenting on classified reports, said The New York Times story "isn't representative of the complete document."

"We've always said that the terrorists are determined. Keeping the pressure on and staying on the offense is the best way to win the war on terror," a White House spokesman added.

But the leaked intelligence report is hardly good news for Bush and the Republicans, coming on top of a messy revolt by top Republican senators against a Bush plan for legitimizing how the US interrogates and prosecutes terrorist suspects.

The Senate rebels, who included possible candidates to succeed Bush in 2008, reached a compromise agreement with the White House late this week.

But the unseemly row already diverted attention from Republican efforts to present a unified front on the issue of national security during the final stretch of the election campaign.

Republican leaders tried to brush aside the intelligence document, which they said they had not yet seen.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist expressed confidence US voters would not be swayed by the intelligence report.

"I think the American people, when they read an article like that ... say, 'Listen, just keep me safe -- I just want to be safe in Nashville, Tennessee, I want to be safe in Memphis, New York City, Washington, DC,' that's what they want."

However, one moderate Republican, Arlen Specter, told CNN, "The war in Iraq has intensified Islam fundamentalism and radicalism."

"There is a much more fundamental issue as to how we respond. And that is, what we do with the Iraq war itself," he said.

"That's the focal point for inspiring more radical Islam fundamentalism, and that's a problem that nobody seems to have an answer to," Specter said.

 

[Revs]

americans should have learned from vietnam that they do not know what the purpose to history is. our Western ethic does not apply to everyone in the world. to say that iraq needs democracy is to say that your world-view is superior to other peoples' world-views. the neoconservatives currently in office are cold warriors who overconfidently equate their former anti-USSR policies with anti-terrorism policies.

the above statements have absolutely nothing to do with my love of troops and country. it is an illogical deduction to equate liberal tendencies with anti-patriotism. if you do you do not know what "liberal" means.

I thought this part of your post was the best part, so true. I have always believed that trying to force your believes on someone else is always a recipy for disaster. Just image a different world where China is the super power and the US is just another country, imagine China coming to the US and trying to force its communist believes on America, then invading the country because they believe we provide too much human rights etc. I would bet that there would be A LOT of proud American's who you step up and fight to the death probably even Canadian's, Mexican's etc since we are neighbors....just like in Iraq.

 

[Donas64]

the war in iraq was tangential to the war on terror. you pretty much have to admit it. bush said after 9/11 that he would go after any country that harbors terrorists. saddam saw al qaeda as a threat and actively kept them out. the terrorism we were victimized by on 9/11 was done by subnational islamic extremists. your comparison of saddam with subnational islamic extremists is oversimplified. having suicide bombers fly planes into our buildings provides a much more narrow defintion of terrorism than does having a self-interested tyrant still in office in the middle east.

what gives us the right to broaden our definition of terrorism to justify full-scale war? the terrorism we responded to on 9/11 was a very specific threat. the middle east is a ridiculously complex web of geopolitical rivalries and subnational dissenters; to equate them all with bin laden's al qeada is unintelligent. People who are well-versed in the Middle East's complexities know this; this is why Bush fired Dick Clarke as an advisor. if the $500+ billion that has been spent on the iraq war were put towards special forces and covert operations against subnational, suicidal radicals, the war on terror would be much farther along. the two or three cruise missiles clinton fired, based on recon and intelligence, came closer to killing bin laden than the thousands than bush fired against iraq during "shock and awe". there are much more pressing WMD threats than saddam (iran, north korea, and subnational extremists like al qaeda), and there are much more pressing cases of oppression and tyranny than saddam (north korea, central africa, et al). at first we responded to the events of 9/11 directly (taliban) and then tangentially (saddam). the war in iraq is poor statecraft.

americans should have learned from vietnam that they do not know what the purpose to history is. our Western ethic does not apply to everyone in the world. to say that iraq needs democracy is to say that your world-view is superior to other peoples' world-views. the neoconservatives currently in office are cold warriors who overconfidently equate their former anti-USSR policies with anti-terrorism policies.

the above statements have absolutely nothing to do with my love of troops and country. it is an illogical deduction to equate liberal tendencies with anti-patriotism. if you do you do not know what "liberal" means.

While I don't necesarily agree with everything you said, I think you make a lot of excellent points and supported your position well. Given the opportunity I think that we should have maybe done something with Syria rather than Iraq or like you said invested all this money into special forces and used them to strategically wipe out terrorist strongholds though that in and of itself would have had it's own problems to be dealt with. But it's so refreshing to see someone argue the point without resorting to America bashing or Troop bashing or Administration bashing.

 

[Donas64]

I thought this part of your post was the best part, so true. I have always believed that trying to force your believes on someone else is always a recipy for disaster. Just image a different world where China is the super power and the US is just another country, imagine China coming to the US and trying to force its communist believes on America, then invading the country because they believe we provide too much human rights etc. I would bet that there would be A LOT of proud American's who you step up and fight to the death probably even Canadian's, Mexican's etc since we are neighbors....just like in Iraq.

Tell me is this before or after we:

1. Bombed chinese battleships
2. Bombs The Chinese Trade Centers
3. Bombs Chinese Embassiess all over the world
4. Hijacked planes and flew them into heavily civilian Chinese targets
5. Killed and gassed hundreds of our own citizens and ignored all calls to
reason from the United Nations and ignored all their resolutions?
6. Aided and funded American Terrorist groups who were determined to
attack China?
7. Harbored Foreign terrorist organizations who were intent on the destruction of China and it's allies?

Because if we did those things I would Imagine the Chinese would be pissed at us and would have some incentive and motivation to attack us

 

[Killer]

Tell me is this before or after we:

1. Bombed chinese battleships
2. Bombs The Chinese Trade Centers
3. Bombs Chinese Embassiess all over the world
4. Hijacked planes and flew them into heavily civilian Chinese targets
5. Killed and gassed hundreds of our own citizens and ignored all calls to
reason from the United Nations and ignored all their resolutions?
6. Aided and funded American Terrorist groups who were determined to
attack China?
7. Harbored Foreign terrorist organizations who were intent on the destruction of China and it's allies?

Because if we did those things I would Imagine the Chinese would be pissed at us and would have some incentive and motivation to attack us

1. Then you can tell us what connection The Cole Bombing has with Iraq.
2. Then you can tell us what connection Saddam/Iraq had with the Trade Center bombings..9/11 and the 92? bombing?
3. Please tell me what embassy was blown up by Iraqis again?
4. Name the Iraqi terrorists on those planes.
5. Guilty...but was over ten years ago when he gassed the Kurds...why did we wait so long if this was such a "War Worthy Excuse" to invade Iraq?
6. Please show me evidence of Saddams ties to Al Queda.
7. I am sure Saddam had something going on with terrorist groups...but none are attached to 9/11.


Donas, I admire your steadfast views...but there are a whole lot of unanswered questions when it comes to our invasion of Iraq.

 

[Revs]

my point is not based on the past, but the present. I'm saying the Iraq war has bred more terrorism and hatred towards the US and its allies. There has always been attacks on the US from crazy terroists, but since the Iraq war its clear that it has escalated, thats what my last post was trying to say. By trying to "fix" the world it is making it worse.

 

[Revs]

If some of you would look at the BIG PICTURE, Bush and his posse told America and the World that Saddam was harbouring weapons of mass destruction, he went to the UN, to your TV screen etc etc saying flat out there are WMD's and that they have to go in there to keep you safe, it was an urgent threat. As it turns out that was probably one of the biggest LIES a government can tells its people. They LIED to everyone to start a war, now they change it to the war on terror and say Saddam was harboring terrorist which I believe there were no facts to back it up, think about this people, how can you trust or even follow a goverment that makes a clear LIE to you? Oh so now they tell you its for your own safety and freedom?? WTF!
I know Saddam was a bad leader, killed many of his own people etc etc But look at Bush, he and Rumsfeld have sent over many brave, courageous soliders to fight a war that he started based on lies, now there are 1000's of these men and women dead and even more Iraqi civilian's dead due to a war based on lies . There many be many differences between these 2 leaders, but there are also many similarities

 

[Donas64]

1. Then you can tell us what connection The Cole Bombing has with Iraq.
2. Then you can tell us what connection Saddam/Iraq had with the Trade Center bombings..9/11 and the 92? bombing?
3. Please tell me what embassy was blown up by Iraqis again?
4. Name the Iraqi terrorists on those planes.
5. Guilty...but was over ten years ago when he gassed the Kurds...why did we wait so long if this was such a "War Worthy Excuse" to invade Iraq?
6. Please show me evidence of Saddams ties to Al Queda.
7. I am sure Saddam had something going on with terrorist groups...but none are attached to 9/11.


Donas, I admire your steadfast views...but there are a whole lot of unanswered questions when it comes to our invasion of Iraq.

Like I said, If we had the chance to do it over again, I think Syria would be a target that would make better sense but I do believe that Sadaam did have ties to terrorist organizations.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/033jgqyi.asp

Take the time to read it. I understand that this website has conservative leanings but I believe the sources check out. I'm sure you can pull up a site to say just the opposite but I think the saying "The enemy of my ememy is my friend" has some bearing here.

If Sadaam had ANY ties in funding, harboring, aiding ANY terrorist group, then he is a legitimate target in the war against terrorism. The best target? Not by a longshot. Like I said Syria would have been better.

But we are in Iraq now and we have an obligation to win. By win I mean leaving a govt that can defend itself and provide for it's people and while I'm sure Iraq will never have a western style Democracy, they can craft a democracy that works for them and they can be a stablilzing force in the middle east. Something I'm sure the Terrorist Factions do nto want at all.

 

[Donas64]

If some of you would look at the BIG PICTURE, Bush and his posse told America and the World that Saddam was harbouring weapons of mass destruction, he went to the UN, to your TV screen etc etc saying flat out there are WMD's and that they have to go in there to keep you safe, it was an urgent threat. As it turns out that was probably one of the biggest LIES a government can tells its people. They LIED to everyone to start a war, now they change it to the war on terror and say Saddam was harboring terrorist which I believe there were no facts to back it up, think about this people, how can you trust or even follow a goverment that makes a clear LIE to you? Oh so now they tell you its for your own safety and freedom?? WTF!
I know Saddam was a bad leader, killed many of his own people etc etc But look at Bush, he and Rumsfeld have sent over many brave, courageous soliders to fight a war that he started based on lies, now there are 1000's of these men and women dead and even more Iraqi civilian's dead due to a war based on lies . There many be many differences between these 2 leaders, but there are also many similarities

I agree the claims of WMD were overstated and the intelligence was not entirely accurate. I'm sure he had them in some capacity and I also think that the bulk of them are somewhere in Syria right now. Besides why was he not open with the U.N weapons inspectors if he had nothing to hide? Could it be that he was playing a dangerous game of chicken and lost? And if bush lied and all those soldiers died because of his lies (which by the way French and British intelligence said Sadaam had WMD's as well), did all these people lie too?:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
-President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
-President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
-Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
-Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D! , CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002


"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
-Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

If Bush lied did all these people lie also? Or is it alright for them to say all these things and deny it all when the going gets tough. You could say "Well Bush gave the order" Yes he did and he takes full responsibilty for it. But he's a President. It's his job to act. All I'm saying is that Bush is was not the only one saying these things and he had to have Congressional approval to send troops into battle. So let's be intellectually honest and admit that there were several others apart from Bush to blame for this if you're gunna blame anyone.

 

[Donas64]

I just feel the need to point these out specifically in case anyone decided that it was better to just skim them:

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
-Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
-President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

These are the same people now raising unholy-heck about how Iraq had nothing to do with terror or had no WMD's.

It's easy to be a monday morning QB

 

[Killer]

Like I said, If we had the chance to do it over again, I think Syria would be a target that would make better sense but I do believe that Sadaam did have ties to terrorist organizations.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/033jgqyi.asp

Take the time to read it. I understand that this website has conservative leanings but I believe the sources check out. I'm sure you can pull up a site to say just the opposite but I think the saying "The enemy of my ememy is my friend" has some bearing here.

If Sadaam had ANY ties in funding, harboring, aiding ANY terrorist group, then he is a legitimate target in the war against terrorism. The best target? Not by a longshot. Like I said Syria would have been better.

But we are in Iraq now and we have an obligation to win. By win I mean leaving a govt that can defend itself and provide for it's people and while I'm sure Iraq will never have a western style Democracy, they can craft a democracy that works for them and they can be a stablilzing force in the middle east. Something I'm sure the Terrorist Factions do nto want at all.

At least you are honest and do not blindly support ALL of the actions based on party affiliation. Here goes that space, time thingy again...(drinks)

edit: I agree on the Syria thing too.

 

[Killer]

I agree the claims of WMD were overstated and the intelligence was not entirely accurate. I'm sure he had them in some capacity and I also think that the bulk of them are somewhere in Syria right now. Besides why was he not open with the U.N weapons inspectors if he had nothing to hide? Could it be that he was playing a dangerous game of chicken and lost? And if bush lied and all those soldiers died because of his lies (which by the way French and British intelligence said Sadaam had WMD's as well), did all these people lie too?:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
-President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
-President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
-Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
-Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D! , CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002


"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
-Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

If Bush lied did all these people lie also? Or is it alright for them to say all these things and deny it all when the going gets tough. You could say "Well Bush gave the order" Yes he did and he takes full responsibilty for it. But he's a President. It's his job to act. All I'm saying is that Bush is was not the only one saying these things and he had to have Congressional approval to send troops into battle. So let's be intellectually honest and admit that there were several others apart from Bush to blame for this if you're gunna blame anyone.

The main difference is none of the above gave any orders to go into Iraq. Only Mr. Bush did that. (pissed)

 

[Donas64]

However, one moderate Republican, Arlen Specter, told CNN, "The war in Iraq has intensified Islam fundamentalism and radicalism."

Question: Say we don't do into Iraq. Say we go into Syria, heck pick a place we go I'll leave to to your imagination. Do you think that Islamic fundamentalism and Radicalism would be any less intensified?

We're talking about the same radicals that:

Raised unholy hades over CARTOONS of the prophet Mohammed (sp?) (Christians and Jesus are made fun off all the time and have never responded to this magnitude)

Threatend the Pope and the Church with revenge and burnings and killings over the popes quotings of a Byzantine King

Threaten France (the most politically correct nation on the face of the earth) with violence because they have peacekeeping troops in Lebanon.

So you think that they would not have found some other reason to be pissed at us? Trust me, if it was not Iraq, it would be something else.

We go into Syria, people think that Syria is the right target,Cons and Dems are all united in the war against terror being waged in syria. Guess what. Islamic fundamentalists and Radicals would still be higly pissed at us. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Donas64]

The main difference is none of the above gave any orders to go into Iraq. Only Mr. Bush did that. (pissed)

Thats totally true. Thats his Job, He made the call and at the time he made the call, congress gave him permission and many of those now being supreme hypocrites saying that "THERE WERE NOT WMDS'" and "IRAQ HAD NO TIES TO AL QAIDA" were singing quite a different tune a few years ago. Thats all I'm saying. Wheres the outrage over their lies. I mean why didn't they say the things they are saying now, back then before the war. Maybe if they had disagreed with him then maybe they could have persuaded him to go after syria. But no. Hillary Clinton, Jack Murtha, and John Kerry along with many others ALL voted for this war and gave their approval and backed the president going into Iraq and are now crying fowl because its advantagous to them politically and I'm not gunna let them slide. If Bush lied, they all lied, and THEY ARE ALL responsible for the failures there. Thats all I'm trying to say. You make you bed, you lay in it.

 

[Killer]

Thats totally true. Thats his Job, He made the call and at the time he made the call, congress gave him permission and many of those now being supreme hypocrites saying that "THERE WERE NOT WMDS'" and "IRAQ HAD NO TIES TO AL QAIDA" were singing quite a different tune a few years ago. Thats all I'm saying. Wheres the outrage over their lies. I mean why didn't they say the things they are saying now, back then before the war. Maybe if they had disagreed with him then maybe they could have persuaded him to go after syria. But no. Hillary Clinton, Jack Murtha, and John Kerry along with many others ALL voted for this war and gave their approval and backed the president going into Iraq and are now crying fowl because its advantagous to them politically and I'm not gunna let them slide. If Bush lied, they all lied, and THEY ARE ALL responsible for the failures there. Thats all I'm trying to say. You make you bed, you lay in it.

I think we both forget we are dealing with POLITICIANS ...not really a trustworthy crew. Any of them.