Shame on him

[jwortham1]

How convenient to forget that they killed thousands of innocent civilians on one day,

Iraq did this?

I missed that news bulletin.

I am shocked the liberal press didn't report this stunning chain of events.

Please post your sources! I need to read this new data for myself!

[William J. Decker]

I believe that one important point has to be made. The U.S. (and the civilized, democratic, western world, in general) are not just fighting Osama or al Qaida. We are fighting terrorism. Specifically the Islamic variety, but also the broader variety.

Saddam paid Palistinian suicide bombers (well, their families) when the blew themselves up to kill innocent women and children. He was supporting terrorist. He also gave al Qaida aid and sanctuary. He also was in violation of the cease fire from the previous war (Gulf War I) and this was underscored by 2 unanimous UN decisions. He also did not fulfil his resonsibility to disclose his WMD. In fact, it was the official policy of the U.S., during the Clinton administration (passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton) to cause "regime change" in Iraq.

The only difference with Bush is that he actually means what he says and acts upon it.

Besides, how does one make war against a nebulous entity without a country and being covered for by many countries?

[jwortham1]

Besides, how does one make war against a nebulous entity without a country and being covered for by many countries?

So you pick one you have had a beef with for years and just decide that's the one to go after?

Seems Syria or Iran would have been more likely targets if you were trying to eliminate major players in terrorism.

I supported the effort in Afghanistan. It was directly related to 9/11. State-sponsored terrorism attacking the US.

The only difference with Bush is that he actually means what he says and acts upon it.

Like when he said we went to war because they had WMD's?
Whoops...none of those.

Or because of violation of UN sanctions?
And he differed from Korea, Iran, Lebanon, Liberia, Rwanda, etc in what way??

Or to further the war on terror?
That worked well. Turned a secular nation into an Islamic radical hotbed. That will sure slow it down.

Or regime change?
That's working well too. He's gone. And we've taken his place. The 51st state?

Because Hussein was a threat?
He couldn't even fly a plane in his own country without the very real possibility of being shot down. Sounds positively frightening!

Or any one of the 20 or so other reasons?

Sorry Will. Wrong war. Wrong place. Wrong time. Wrong president.

[William J. Decker]

Originally Posted by jwortham1

So you pick one you have had a beef with for years and just decide that's the one to go after?

Who do you mean "YOU pick the one that you have a beef with". Who is the 'you'. Do you mean yourself, the country or the President (if so, which one. Bush or Clinton). It's just not that simple.

Seems Syria or Iran would have been more likely targets if you were trying to eliminate major players in terrorism.

But, at the time, Iraq was the big cheese. As we all know from the school playground, knock down the big guy and the other wannabees take notice. Syria has its own problems and will probably fold, all by itself, in the next five years. Their 'President' (the eunch opthomologist) is under EU inditment for the killing of the Jordanian Prime Minister candidate.

Iran, is smack dab between Afganistan and Iraq. They are bottled in.

I supported the effort in Afghanistan. It was directly related to 9/11. State-sponsored terrorism attacking the US.

And al Qeada was equally supported by Iraq, the Saudi Royal Family (as opposed to the government) and China and Russia. No simple answers, Jeff.


Like when he said we went to war because they had WMD's?
Whoops...none of those.

Yellow cake uranium found in Iraq: http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...rticle_id=4661

http://www.uncoveror.com/niger.htm

Nerve Gas (in case you didn't know, Chemical weapons are also of 'Mass Destruction'):
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/000915.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3722255.stm
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=38213

How come NBCCBSCNNNTY hasn't publiched these stories? Hmmm?

Or because of violation of UN sanctions?
And he differed from Korea, Iran, Lebanon, Liberia, Rwanda, etc in what way??

Or to further the war on terror?
That worked well. Turned a secular nation into an Islamic radical hotbed. That will sure slow it down.

Or regime change?
That's working well too. He's gone. And we've taken his place. The 51st state?

America hasn't had any 'imperialistic' ambitions since the Spanish American War. Japan and Germany and South Korea are the 51st, 52nd and 53rd state? Get real.

Because Hussein was a threat?
He couldn't even fly a plane in his own country without the very real possibility of being shot down. Sounds positively frightening!

The 'No fly Zone' was only over southern and northern Iraq. Check you facts:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Documentar...209076,00.html


Or any one of the 20 or so other reasons?

That's right. There were many reasons for the Iraq invasion: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/2948068.stm
http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson...0404230833.asp


Sorry Will. Wrong war. Wrong place. Wrong time. Wrong president.

You have to fight the war that you are presented with. We didn't start it, but, G-d willing, we will finish it.

[Michael Larson]

Came across this today and it seemed to fit this thread. This is from Beck's site: http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004.shtml


What Did The Democrats Say About Iraq's WMD JANUARY 30, 2004 | Printable Version "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 | Source
"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 | Source
"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 | Source
"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 Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source
"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 | Source
"[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.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source
"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 | Source
"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 | Source
"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 | Source
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source
"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 | Source
"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 | Source
"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 | Source
"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

[William J. Decker]

Good points, highly researched and to the point.

we musn't forget history.

[James H. Bushart]

Released! Agenda for the Democratic National Convention for 2008:
7:00 P.M. - Opening - Flag Burning
7:15 P.M. - Pledge of Allegiance to United Nations
7:30 P.M. - Ted Kennedy proposes a toast
7:30-8:00 P.M. - Non-Religious prayer and worship, Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton
8:00 P.M. - Ted Kennedy proposes a toast
8:05 P.M. - Ceremonial Tree Hugging
8:15-8:30 P.M. - Gay Wedding, Presided by Barney Frank
8:30 P.M.- Ted Kennedy proposes a toast
8:35 P.M.- Free Saddam Rally - Cindy Sheehan & Susan Sarandon
9:00 P.M.- Keynote speech; "The Proper Etiquette for Surrender," by French President, Jacques Chirac
9:15 P.M. - Ted Kennedy proposes a toast
9:20 P.M. - Collection to benefit Osama Bin Laden's Kidney Transplant Fund
9:30 P.M. - Unveiling of "Plan to Free Freedom Fighters from Guantanamo Bay," Sean Penn
9:40 P.M. - "Why I Hate the Military," a short talk by William Jefferson Clinton
9:45 P.M. - Ted Kennedy proposes a toast
9:50 P.M. - Dan Rather awarded the "Truth in Broadcasting Award," presented by Michael Moore
9:55 P.M. - Ted Kennedy proposes a toast
10:00 P.M. - "How George Bush & Donald Rumsfeld brought down the World Trade Center" by Howard Dean
10:30 P.M.- Nomination of Hillary Rodham Clinton, by Mahmud Ahnadinejad
11:00 P.M. - Ted Kennedy proposes a toast
11:05 P.M. - Al Gore reinvents the Internet
11:15 P.M.- "Our Troops are War criminals" by John Kerry
11:30 P.M.- Coronation of Mrs. Rodham Clinton
12:00 A.M. - Ted Kennedy proposes a toast
12:05 A.M. - Bill asks Ted to drive Hillary home