T Nation

Reminiscing about WMD's

Sorry for such a long post… there WERE a lot of promises. BTW, if you can’t bear reading the whole post just skip right to the end, cause’ THAT’S the funny part ; )


Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-CT, September 4, 2002

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.

Dick Cheney August 26, 2002

If we wait for the danger to become clear, it could be too late.

Sen. Joseph Biden D-Del., September 4, 2002

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

George W. Bush September 12, 2002

If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.

Ari Fleischer December 2, 2002

We know for a fact that there are weapons there.

Ari Fleischer January 9, 2003

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.

George W. Bush January 28, 2003

We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.

Colin Powell February 5, 2003

We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons – the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.

George Bush February 8, 2003

So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? I think our judgment has to be clearly not.

Colin Powell March 8, 2003

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

George Bush March 18, 2003

We are asked to accept Saddam decided to destroy those weapons. I say that such a claim is palpably absurd.

Tony Blair, Prime Minister 18 March, 2003

Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.

Ari Fleisher March 21, 2003

There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.

Gen. Tommy Franks March 22, 2003

I have no doubt we’re going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.

Kenneth Adelman, Defense Policy Board, March 23, 2003

One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.

Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark March 22, 2003

We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.

Donald Rumsfeld March 30, 2003

Saddam’s removal is necessary to eradicate the threat from his weapons of mass destruction

Jack Straw,
Foreign Secretary April 2, 2003

Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find – and there will be plenty.

Neocon scholar Robert Kagan April 9, 2003

I think you have always heard, and you continue to hear from officials, a measure of high confidence that, indeed, the weapons of mass destruction will be found.

Ari Fleischer April 10, 2003

We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.

George Bush April 24, 2003

Before people crow about the absence of weapons of mass destruction, I suggest they wait a bit.

Tony Blair April 28, 2003

There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country.

Donald Rumsfeld April 25, 2003

We’ll find them. It’ll be a matter of time to do so.

George Bush May 3, 2003

I am confident that we will find evidence that makes it clear he had weapons of mass destruction.

Colin Powell May 4, 2003

I never believed that we’d just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.

Donald Rumsfeld May 4, 2003

I’m not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein – because he had a weapons program.

George W. Bush May 6, 2003

U.S. officials never expected that “we were going to open garages and find” weapons of mass destruction.

Condoleeza Rice May 12, 2003

I just don’t know whether it was all destroyed years ago – I mean, there’s no question that there were chemical weapons years ago – whether they were destroyed right before the war, (or) whether they’re still hidden.

Maj. Gen. David Petraeus,
Commander 101st Airborne May 13, 2003

Before the war, there’s no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found.

Gen. Michael Hagee,
Commandant of the Marine Corps May 21, 2003

Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we’re interrogating, I’m confident that we’re going to find weapons of mass destruction.

Gen. Richard Myers,
Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff May 26, 2003

They may have had time to destroy them, and I don’t know the answer.

Donald Rumsfeld May 27, 2003

And the #1 Reason for Invading Iraq…

For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, Weapons of Mass Destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.

Paul Wolfowitz May 28, 2003

--------------------------------------------------------

Saddam Hussein has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.

Secretary of State Colin Powell
Feb. 24, 2001

We had monitoring inspection teams in every major Iraqi industrial facility for over four years. Never once could we state that we had evidence or proof that Iraq was in possession of prohibited weapons.

Scott Ritter former UN weapons inspector March 18, 2002

Inspections are producing results. The option of inspections has not been taken to the end. The use of force would be so fraught with risk for people, for the region and for international stability that it should only be envisioned as a last resort.

French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin February 14, 2003

Handling of Iraq Intelligence

By the end of January 2003, the International Atomic Energy Agency had already delivered an interim judgment that the aluminum tubes account of the administration was incorrect. In February, a full month before the U.S. invasion, they arrived at a definitive judgment the aluminum tubes were not going into the nuclear weapons program, and that documents alleging that Iraq attempted to purchase uranium from Niger ‘were not authentic,’ Thielmann noted.

In addition, by the beginning of February, just after Colin Powell’s presentation to the UN, Blix contested other U.S. charges concerning chemical and biological weapons, but U.S. officials ignored the information, noted Kimball.

Though the major U.S. claims were clearly in doubt, President George W. Bush told the American people on March 17, 2003 that: Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

http://www.armscontrol.org/pressroom/2004/20040709_SenateIntel.asp

We live in fictitious times. We live in the time where we have fictitious election results that elect a fictitious president. We live in a time where we have a man who’s sending us to war for fictitious reasons.

Michael Moore March 23, 2003

(OOOhh, now that one’s gotta hurt)

~~Insert Flames Here

“We also live in times where a fat, lying slob can make millions of dollars and win a people’s choice award for a steaming dung heap of a movie.”
-me January 13, 2005

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
“We also live in times where a fat, lying slob can make millions of dollars and win a people’s choice award for a steaming dung heap of a movie.”
-me January 13, 2005[/quote]

“We also live in a time where people will excuse sending a few thousand soldiers off to risk their lives for a reason that is not justified all in the course of manipulating the decisions of a country based on fear of another attack”

-Professor X January 13, 2005

I find it it amazing how suddenly the focus is on giving that part of the world democracy. There are other areas of the world in need of some “settling down” as well. Why are we only focused on Iraq in this way? Could it be that is the only justification for such a huge mistake as far as why we went into the country in the first place? Oh, and before anyone claims that weapons were found, we aren’t talking about the ones they got from us. We are talking about the ability to use long range “weapons of Mass Destruction”.

I also have to ask lothario, what does Micheal Moore have to do with this? I have never even seen F-9/11. If that movie is that powerful, is it because at least some of it was true?

We went in for one thing…now we are suddenly there for another. I just don’t understand.

Last point, this subject is now bound to go on for about 100 responses. I can’t wait to see how the topic will slowly change into something to do about religion in Alaska.

ProfX,

I hear you. I know I’ve been “blasted” for saying that the war was sold on weapons of mass destruction before. Given the quotes above I don’t know how people can believe it wasn’t.

Sure, there are all kinds of other reasons, at least now, but they were not “the reason” why the country went to war. They were not “sold” to the public or to congress as a reason to authorize the war.

Finally, nice diversionary tactic there Loth, I think you have purposely avoided the entire point of the original post by focusing on a favorite whipping boy for the Republicans. Perhaps you could denigrate Clinton next in an attempt to belittle the arguments given?

Wow, I guess we can have a whole new thread in which we regurgitate all the same things that have been argued about in the last 10 Iraq threads.

I am going to confine myself to one response on this thread, unless I see some new information – I just get tired of typing the same stuff over and over.

  1. WMD were one justification of four major justifications on which the administration publicly based its rationale for the invasion of Iraq. THe fact that the media made it the focus of attention does not make it the sole rationale. Please review all the old threads for a summary.

  2. They haven’t found anything as of yet. However, Iraq is a large country, and there could be stuff hidden in lots of places there, and there are respectable claims that substances were moved into Syria (where, coincidentally, major former Hussein regime figures have ensconced themselves).

  3. The reason they stopped searching was that there were problems with security – as in the security of the searchers. But the report does not conclude there was nothing there – only that there was nothing found. That is a big difference, especially given the infrastructure for producing weapons that was in place, and the information from the Oil for Food scandal that indicated Hussein planned to restart his programs as soon as he had manuevered an end to the economic sanctions (the sanctions were a huge failure, btw).

  4. It is problematic and disappointing that there was an intelligence failure concerning the amount of WMD immediately at hand in Iraq. However, everyone thought he had that stuff – the official positions of all the governments, including France, was that he had WMD and should be given time to get into compliance.

So, yes, it’s problematic we had an intelligence failure. But that does not undermine the other rationales, which were advanced at the time and not simply trotted out post hoc, and we have not even proven that the WMD rationale was completely wrong.

Please talk amongst yourselves.

So I think it’s pretty clear from the first post that this action was supported by Democrats and Republicans alike. And so the question I ask is this:

It’s easy to see how the intelligence community mest up on 9/11. Even if there was evidence there of a plot…perhaps they just missed it, or didn’t see it.

How is it that they looked at Iraq and saw something that was simply not there?

Please don’t reply with some dying dog arguement stating how OMG THeY mIgHT StIll bE tHeRe DuDE.

[quote]vroom wrote:
ProfX,

I hear you. I know I’ve been “blasted” for saying that the war was sold on weapons of mass destruction before. Given the quotes above I don’t know how people can believe it wasn’t.

Sure, there are all kinds of other reasons, at least now, but they were not “the reason” why the country went to war. They were not “sold” to the public or to congress as a reason to authorize the war.

Welcome to the alternate reality of “Bush-world”.

Finally, nice diversionary tactic there Loth, I think you have purposely avoided the entire point of the original post by focusing on a favorite whipping boy for the Republicans. Perhaps you could denigrate Clinton next in an attempt to belittle the arguments given?[/quote]

You still don’t get it, do you vroom? Clinton got a blow job and lied about it, therefore bush gets a free pass on lying about anything else. Including false justification for killing thousands of people.

Democrats went along because they were lied to, but probably most republican congressmen wouldn’t have bought in either if they’d known the extent of the deception.

But now we all “know” that WMD was never the real reason anyway. It’s a faith-based kind of thing.

Jeez tme, just be patient! You know they are buried right out side of Baghdad in the sand. Its just a matter of minutes till there found!

Where is jeffy? I’m worried that he might go into cardiac arrest when he reads this post. I can just hear him now “Prove it” “Prove it” “Give me one alternative”!!!

Avoiding a problem doesn’t make it go away.

You go with the best available intelligence you have and you make the call. It’s like making any decision in life.

Most Liberals and other assorted do-nothings are appalled that someone would take action and actually try and solve a problem. Clinton tried to ignore terrorism for 8 yrs. Look at his legacy.

Let’s face it Sadaam could have had a WMD sitting on his nightstand and most of the ABB’s wouldn’t have supported action to remove it. Islamic Fundamentalism must not be allowed to unite with a nation that has a strong military capability. The results will be nothing short of catastrophic.

And I can hear Elk’s stock answer – “I was the toughest guy in the rear with the gear. I talk really tough as long as I am not addressing combat veterans like Hedo. Kind of like the pre-game heroes in football – really tough when the pads weren’t on. Therefore, having established my bona fides as a REAL American, I will hope and pray fervently that my country is maligned and wrong so that the party I don’t agree with loses power. Fuck George Bush and fuck Jeffy and fuck America!”

Also, just for the record:

The follow quotes are from Democrat frontrunner John Kerry during the past 14 years. They show a very different John Kerry than the one who has been using his media time claiming George W. Bush misled and exagerrated to Congress on the threat of Iraq.

The quotes speak for themselves:

October 1990

“Iraq Has Developed A Chemical Weapons Capability.” “Today, we are confronted by a regional power, Iraq, which has attacked a weaker state, Kuwait. … The crisis is even more threatening by virtue of the fact that Iraq has developed a chemical weapons capability, and is pursuing a nuclear weapons development program. And Saddam Hussein has demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons of mass destruction in the past, whether in his war against Iran or against his own Kurdish population.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/2/90, p. S14330)

January 1991

“If we go to war in the next few days, it will not be because our immediate vital interests are so threatened and we have no other choice. It is not because of nuclear, chemical, biological weapons when, after all, Saddam Hussein had all those abilities or was working toward them for years…” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 1/12/91, p. S369)

November 1997

“It is not possible to overstate the ominous implications for the Middle East if Saddam were to develop and successfully militarize and deploy potent biological weapons. We can all imagine the consequences. Extremely small quantities of several known biological weapons have the capability to exterminate the entire population of cities the size of Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. These could be delivered by ballistic missile, but they also could be delivered by much more pedestrian means; aerosol applicators on commercial trucks easily could suffice. If Saddam were to develop and then deploy usable atomic weapons, the same holds true.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)

December 1997

“The Security Council should authorize a strong UN military response that will materially damage, if not totally destroy, as much as possible of the suspected infrastructure for developing and manufacturing weapons of mass destruction. ?Saddam Hussein has intentionally or inadvertently set up a test which the entire world will be watching, and if he gets away with this arrogant ploy, he will have terminated the most important multilateral effort to defuse a legitimate threat to global security.” (“US Lawmakers Threaten Military Action Against Iraq,” Agence France Presse, 12/12/97)

February 1998

“[T]here are set of principles here that are very large, larger in some measure than I think has been adequately conveyed, both internationally and certainly to the American people. Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East.” (Sen. John Kerry, Press Conference, 2/23/98)

“Saddam Hussein has violated ? that standard [against using weapons of mass destruction] on several occasions previously and by most people’s expectation, no matter what agreement we come up with, may well do so again. The greater likelihood is that we will be called on to send our ships and our troops at one point in the future back to the Middle East to stand up to the next crisis.” (Sen. John Kerry, Press Conference, 2/23/98)
September 1998

“We?re Going To Have To Make Some Fundamental Decisions About Whether To Follow A Policy Of Containment Or Deprive Iraq Of Its Weapons Of Mass Destruction.” (Eric Schmitt, “U.N. Arms Inspector Who Quit Is Told He Can?t Make Policy,” The New York Times, 9/4/98)

December 1998

“Americans need to really understand the gravity and legitimacy of what is happening with Saddam Hussein. He has been given every opportunity in the world to comply. The president does not control the schedule of UNSCOM. The president did not withdraw the UNSCOM inspectors. And the president did not, obviously, cut a deal with Saddam Hussein to do this at this moment. Saddam Hussein has not complied. Saddam Hussein is pursuing a program to build weapons of mass destruction.” (Sen. John Kerry, Press Conference, 12/16/98)

More Quotes from 2000-2003:

September 2000

“There Is Nothing More Destabilizing Or Threatening [To The World] Than Weapons Of Mass Destruction. … I think all of us are deeply concerned about the degree to which certain countries seem to be contributing to the potential of instability in the world. Obviously, there is nothing more destabilizing or threatening than weapons of mass destruction. We have spent an enormous amount of time and energy focused on Iraq, on Iran, on Russia, on loose nukes, on nuclear materials, and of course on China and on the issue of the transfer of technology to Pakistan.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 9/11/00, p. S8321)

October 2002

“Mr. Kerry ? Said Iraq?s Weapons Of Mass Destruction Posed ?A Real And Grave Threat? To The United States.” (Dave Boyer, “Key Senators Of Both Parties Back Bush On Iraq War,” The Washington Times, 10/10/02)

“Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up? Why is Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international community? Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don?t even try, and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster? Why did Saddam Hussein threaten and provoke? Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits? Why did Saddam Hussein lie and deceive the inspection teams previously? Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all of the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM identified? Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents? Does he do all of these things because he wants to live by international standards of behavior? Because he respects international law? Because he is a nice guy underneath it all and the world should trust him?” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, p. S10171)
“It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, p. S10171)
“The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, p. S10171)
January 2003

“[W]e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America?s response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world?s response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America?s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Georgetown University, Washington, DC, 1/23/03)

“If You Don?t Believe Saddam Hussein Is A Threat With Nuclear Weapons, Then You Shouldn?t Vote For Me.” (Ronald Brownstein, “On Iraq, Kerry Appears Either Torn Or Shrewd,” Los Angeles Times, 1/31/03)
February 2003

Kerry Said Leaving Saddam Hussein “Unfettered With Nuclear Weapons Or Weapons Of Mass Destruction Is Unacceptable.” (Jill Lawrence, “War Issue Challenges Democratic Candidates,” USA Today, 2/12/03)

“[Kerry] said the Bush administration has taken too long to make its case for military action, ?but nonetheless I am glad we?ve reached this moment in our diplomacy.? Kerry added: ?Convincing evidence of Saddam Hussein?s possession of weapons of mass destruction should trigger, I believe, a final ultimatum from the United Nations for a full, complete, immediate disarmament of those weapons by Iraq. Over the next hours, I will work with my colleagues in the Senate to fully examine the evidence offered by the secretary for a complete and close reading. But, on its face, the evidence against Saddam Hussein appears real and compelling.?” (Wayne Washington, “Kennedy, Others Question Timing Of Attack But Presidential Hopefuls Back War With Iraq,” The Boston Globe, 2/6/03)
March 2003

“Senator John F. Kerry ? had lambasted Bush?s diplomatic efforts, despite voting last fall in support of a congressional resolution authorizing military action to disarm Iraq of any weapons of mass destruction. ?It appears that with the deadline for exile come and gone, Saddam Hussein has chosen to make military force the ultimate weapons inspections enforcement mechanism,? Kerry said.” (Glen Johnson, “Critics Of Bush Voice Support For The Troops,” The Boston Globe, 3/20/03)

I think Saddam Hussein?s weapons of mass destruction are a threat, and that?s why I voted to hold him accountable and to make certain that we disarm him. I think we need to ?" (NPR?s “All Things Considered,” 3/19/03)
Quotes found via RNC Research.

[quote]Cream wrote:
“Fuck George Bush and fuck Jeffy and fuck America!” [/quote]

Of course those all go hand in hand, right? Any one who doesn’t like george hates America, right? The same thing then logically applies to bush sycophants like jeffy. If you disagree with with him then obviously you must hate America.

“Down with george and jeffy and the USA!”

Gee, was that another diversionary tactic?

In essence, well, what you said about the WMD’s may or may not be true, but here, let me bitch about Kerry for a while (since I already bitched about Clinton).

You media fed zealots have about as much trouble admitting being wrong as the Bush administration does. What a coinkydink don’t you think?

[quote]hedo wrote:

Let’s face it Sadaam could have had a WMD sitting on his nightstand and most of the ABB’s wouldn’t have supported action to remove it.[/quote]

But he didn’t. Monica could have slipped and fell on Clinton’s dick in the oval office, but it didn’t happen that way. This isn’t like a simple “oops” because many lives were lost. I am for “doing something” if there is a real threat. I am not a “do nothing”. What I am for is confirming intel before shrugging off the rest of the world and going into war. If intel could make a mistake like that (even though we know that you have MUCH hope that we eventually stumble on a warehouse filled with anthrax dispersing smart bombs) what else could be mistaken? What was the rush? Why did it have to happen when it did? There was actually a threat that if we didn’t go in at the exact moment that we did, that a bomb would be on its way the next month?

In the beginning, I was asking these same questions even while we were being told something else on tv. I watched as Bin Laden suddenly morphed into Saddam. I am surprised they didn’t add those old “Transformers” sound effects just for flavor.

Look, I know that because of party afffiliation, many want to sweep that away and act like it was nothing major. They want to only focus on “democracy” being handed over as if that is why we went into Iraq in the first place. You HAVE to feeel like that. Your identity is alligned directly with who you voted for in this last election and what party you claim.

Hell, when I claim to have no party affliliation, I am grouped in with “liberal hippies” and PETA members simply because I have an opinion that doesn’t coincide with what republicans want to believe. It must be frustrating to think that some people can have an open view of the world without claiming a donkey or an elephant.

The real question is, what is the truth. I don’t see how anyone could deny what we were told in the beginning. I never heard one word about the major reason we went into Iraq being to make sure that women don’t have to wear hoods if they don’t want to or cover their faces. If that helps you sleep better at night, so be it.

[quote]Cream wrote:
And I can hear Elk’s stock answer – “I was the toughest guy in the rear with the gear. I talk really tough as long as I am not addressing combat veterans like Hedo. Kind of like the pre-game heroes in football – really tough when the pads weren’t on. Therefore, having established my bona fides as a REAL American, I will hope and pray fervently that my country is maligned and wrong so that the party I don’t agree with loses power. Fuck George Bush and fuck Jeffy and fuck America!” [/quote]

So creamy, tell me how you really feel? I don’t give a rats ass about addressing or not addressing Hedo! Why are you bringing him into our little equation you started?

Hey, I love seeing my name in Print!!!

I agree with BB. I’m not going to type the multitude of reasons for going into Iraq AGAIN.

If you want a wonderful summary, look up JeffR and read.

I would like to make a couple of points.

Number one: Four more years.

Number two: Not finding huge stockpiles does not make the ABB’s position of run and hide/ignore/choose to believe that the U.N. could find weapons that Saddam didn’t want found.

Number three: Please remember you voted for Kerry. He said the same things.

Thanks!!!

JeffR

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I am for “doing something” if there is a real threat. I am not a “do nothing”. What I am for is confirming intel before shrugging off the rest of the world and going into war. If intel could make a mistake like that (even though we know that you have MUCH hope that we eventually stumble on a warehouse filled with anthrax dispersing smart bombs) what else could be mistaken? What was the rush? Why did it have to happen when it did? There was actually a threat that if we didn’t go in at the exact moment that we did, that a bomb would be on its way the next month?

The real question is, what is the truth. [/quote]

If you happen to be in a dark alley -for whatever reason- and someone comes up to you with his hand jammed in his jacket and pointed at you. are you going to wait for all the intel to be sifted through before coming to a conclusion?

Would you trust this guy facing you if you knew that he has violated parole 16 times - only to be let go by a police force that wasn’t really interested in him because of the massive payouts this guy had been funneling them?

What if he made all the motions of a person with a weapon in his hand?

What if you know for a fact that this same guy had used a gun on several of your friends?

What if you had the ability to take this bum out? Would you? Or would you just ignore it and wait for someone else determine if he had a gun in his pocket, pointed at you?

You take the guy out. Then find out later that he was just pointing his finger at you. Would you feel justified in your actions, or would you expect everyone in your family to call you a liar becaus what was thought to be wasn’t actually the truth?

[quote]rainjack wrote:

If you happen to be in a dark alley -for whatever reason- and someone comes up to you with his hand jammed in his jacket and pointed at you. are you going to wait for all the intel to be sifted through before coming to a conclusion? [/quote]

This is WAR we are talking about. “Send your babies off to shoot really big guns and die” war. Not “put your finger in your jacket and hold up a Stop & Go” war. This is “1,000+ soldiers killed in the line of duty by April” war. Not “shoot the one guy attempting you hold you up first and ask questions later” war. This is “millions of dollars and thousands of innocents trapped in the crossfire” war, not “one wallet and a credit card” war. No, I’m sorry, the two are not the same. When that many lives are put up for grabs, the stakes are raised well beyond your cheap leather wallet and some baby pictures.

[quote]rainjack wrote:

You take the guy out. Then find out later that he was just pointing his finger at you. Would you feel justified in your actions, or would you expect everyone in your family to call you a liar becaus what was thought to be wasn’t actually the truth?

[/quote]
Also, ask the family of Amadou Diallo if it is worth being sure if there is really a gun in that pocket. I would love to hear what they have to say.

P.O.X.,

I love you, man!!!

First of all, did you vote for Kerry?

Yes or no will do fine.

It doesn’t matter if you are a registered Democrat or not, you followed the Democratic Party platform if you voted for their nominee.

Period.

Second,

Read the 1000 Iraq War posts. Then offer an alternative.

Not invading Iraq without offering an alternative is not viable.

The United States and the rest of the civilized world obviously were having trouble with Saddam.

Or don’t you believe that?

You said something to the effect of, “We went in in spite of what our friends said.”

That must be hard to type with a straight face.

Please see the intel guesses/political statements given by the “International Community” France/Germany/Russia prior to the war.

In summary, I don’t think you have any alternative that makes any sense. I WOULD LOVE TO BE PROVED WRONG BY YOU!!!

Ignoring this problem would not make it go away. Waiting (for what, I have no idea) would have made this worse (see Duefler/using oil shutdowns to push the Israeli/Palestinian situation/directly funding/harboring terrorists/history of invading neighbors/THE HUMANITARIAN ASPECT etc… is NOT A REASONABLE SOLUTION.

Thanks!!!

JeffR

P.S. Four more years!!!