Bush to Tell U.N. He Made 'Right Decision' on Iraq

[Demobrat]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A44097-2003Sep21?language=printer

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush said on Sunday he would tell the United Nations he made the right decision to go to war in Iraq despite his failure to obtain Security Council backing for the conflict.

"I will make it clear that I made the right decision and that the others that joined us made the right decision," Bush said in an interview with Fox News Channel's Brit Hume.

Bush, who is to address the U.N. General Assembly on Tuesday, said he did not consider it essential to grant the U.N. a larger political role in Iraq to obtain a new resolution backing a multinational occupation force. "I'm not so sure we have to, for starters," he said in the Oval office interview.

[Hokie]

1. What a laugh

I looks like the Faux interview will be a real puke-fest. I hope the UN walks out on the idiot. Here will sure deserve it if that is all he has to say.

[saigon68]

2. Excuse me, I killed 10,000 people but oh well, whatever

Oh, did you buy your Halliburton stock lately? That's Halliburton with two ll's.

[Maple]

3. Look to see yet another Bush failure

Sheesh!

Barbara dropped him on his head as a baby right?

[NickDanger]

4. That'll go over like a wet fart

eom

[hadrons]

5. "I made the right decision ... now can you bail me out ... NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!

what a shithead

[calimary]

56. He just doesn't get it, does he? Not that he's capable of it.

Has he EVER admitted he made a mistake? Yes, he's admitted Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 but he never admitted that as a mistake. And THIS was the adults-are-back-in-charge administration, where we were going to take responsibility for our actions?

[regnaD kciN]

150. The thing is...

...I wouldn't be surprised to see his poll numbers spike (albeit temporarily) after this. Americans love a "leader" who doesn't back down from what he believes is right, even if it is dumb. If it involves telling the rest of the world that "we" are superior to "them," so much the better. OTOH, they lose all respect for those who won't stand up in that way, such as the pink-tutu Democratic non-leader-ship.

:-(

[SammyWinstonJack]

86. Bush* would have to step up a few pegs to be considered a shithead

He is lower then a snake's belly. "Now watch this drive." :silly:

[indepat]

155. It indeed was the right decision: the hard far-right decision made

even years before 9-11?

[Rex]

6. When King George speaks

nazis like fauxnews listen.

[joeybee12]

7. I can see the standing ovation when he utters that line!

Oh, I was wrong--they're standing because they're walking out!

[caledesi]

Good one JB!

[Khephra]

8. This UN speech will be one of his greatest failures

He's staking almost all of his remaining political capital on this one. If this "personal diplomacy" of his fails, then it's an even more direct failure than anything he's done on his own in the spotlight.

I think he might even get booed with this approach.

I'm watching it for sure now!

:bounce:

[diplomats]

25. I think it might backfire, too

If his prime-time address asking for the $87 billion was bad, that might look like a home run compared to his U.N. speech.

[MUAD_DIB]

28. I am putting up my $300.00 "Tax Relief"

package on whether he gets booed off of the world stage.

...hoping for it.

"I'm right, and the rest of you Old European chocolate producers are wrong. Now start giving up some money for my war on terra!"

[Paschall]

65. Of course all of the UN member nations...

...are already contributing to Shrub's war on terror with money (and some with troops) in Afghanistan. And the UN is running 8 or 9 different programs in Iraq at this moment--all UN nations already contribute to these through their dues.

[MaineDem]

71. UN may pull out of Iraq

I heard on the BBC this morning that after the bombing at the UN building today the UN may remove the remaining people it has there. Not looking good for Georgie going into the General Assembly meeting.

[muriel_volestrangler]

69. "Personal diplomacy"???

I don't think Bush could define 'diplomacy'. Or even spell it. He sure as hell's never practiced it.

[Rose Siding]

9. He's going to blackmail them

He will use participation in Iraq as the condition for the US continuing to support efforts in "Afghanistan as well as AIDS, hunger, sex slavery and weapons proliferation".

What an imbecile. He's going to offer them the same deal he did *before* there was PROOF of what a debacle the invasion would become?

[DoYouEverWonder]

12. Except this time

They all know he's coming to them empty handed. He has already bankrupted the American economy and most of the deals he made last year have already fallen threw. They know that W is not a man of his word.

[IrateCitizen]

80. Excuse me... US "continuing" support???

In order for support to be "continuing", it has to have actually started at some point. Our support on the issues you outlined above have been rhetorical at best, nonexistent at worst.

The thing is, the rest of the world is becoming increasingly wise to it. And led by the EU, they're in a strong enough position economically as compared to the US of the ballooning national and trade deficits to tell * to go pound salt on this matter.

The sad thing is, the European nations actually DO want to help in this matter -- they simply want the US to admit that it's "go it alone" strategy was a complete failure, and to instead understand and embrace the importance of multilateralism in foreign policy. The neocons who have Bush's ear will never let that happen, simply because they are convinced that they are right and everybody else, therefore, must be wrong.

This speech to the UN will, in the words of Keith Moon, "go over like a lead zeppelin".

[JewelDigger]

10. And the crowd at the UN will go....

...silent.

[Rose Siding]

46. They will, won't they?

Must see TV

[Jack Rabbit]

11. Well, let's see . . .

He will say that he made the right decision, although he still has found no WMDs or ties to al Qaida.

Strike One!

He will admit that he had no UN authorization to back that decision.

Strike Two!

And he will, after admitting dissing the UN and violating internationl law, ask for money and support troops.

Strike Three! You're Out!

[T Bone]

52. And they are floating the balloon that Dick and Rummy were wrong ?

This is two completely contradictory messages to two different audiences !

For US political consumption they are starting to float balloons that Cheney and Rumsfeld's ATTACK IRAQ plans were not really Bush's plans at all. And may have been not quite RIGHT.

But he is standing up in front of the UN and telling THEM that it was the RIGHT thing to do ?

What kind of a schizophrenic does this. Is he schizo or is Rove?
The press won't point out this glaring schizophrenia ? (Well, ok, I won't be surprised if no one does), but it would make such an easy article for ALL the political writers in the country and for all the magazines and newspapers and tv shows, why would they ever not notice and point it out?

It will be so rich when the UN tells him to go shit in his hat.

[mac56]

83. Unfair to label this "schizophrenic".

People with schizophrenia wouldn't act this way. Give them some credit.

[Zhade]

98. Yeah!

My grandmother is schizophrenic, and she's never lied the United States into a war! :)

[calimary]

58. He wouldn't admit he dissed anybody.

This cad won't admit to ANY wrongdoing. No matter what.

[American Renaissance]

13. Christ this is going to be embarrassing

It will be like the Eastern Airlines pilots wandering around with signs saying "We Won" as the airline was in the midst of shutting down.

This is going to be the most embarrassing and humiliating speech of any American president in history

[grytpype]

39. Agreed.

What the hell is he going to say? I mean, that won't be scoffed at? I can't imagine.

This is going to be worse than his $87 billion price tag speech. Much worse.

[Barrett808]

47. The only ray of light is that it's a Bush

If there's any justice in the world, the Bush family name will go down in infamy.

[calimary]

60. Welcome to DU, Ashamed American.

We're certainly not ashamed of YOU.

[Paschall]

66. I wish I'd saved a quote I read yesterday

I think it was an economist in the WP who said (paraphrase) Shrub goes forward with his rigid ideological plans until they stall, then he compromises and declares victory. Actually, I see little compromise, but there has been a lot of rigidity and "premature exultation."

[bluedog]

14. UN PLEASE

slow clap the SOB....hes calling on you to bail his ass out....your not his Daddy....say NO NO NO...unless Iraq goes under UN control...

[caledesi]

53. Amen!

Who is he kidding? * got us into this mess and now he wants the UN and other countries who were smart enough to know this was a bogus war.....puhleeze.

Get on your knees, *, and let the UN and NATO take over.

No oil for you!

[Zero Gravitas]

87. Bush has always failed

and has always been bailed out. This time will be different, there is no incentive for the world to bail him out now.

[bluedog]

15. UN PLEASE

slow clap the SOB....hes calling on you to bail his ass out....your not his Daddy....say NO NO NO...unless Iraq goes under UN control...

[Jim Sagle]

19. "Slow clap"? Hell, give'm a big "Pffffffffftttttttt!"

[Buns_of_Fire]

100. I still think a "slow clap" would be good...

But as it seems to be developing, I think a sackful of extremely-ripe tomatoes for each delegate would be a good and proper response (sorry, France and Germany -- only one sack per customer!). That or they could all at least fart in his general direction -- on cue -- the first time he utters the word "terra."

[regnaD kciN]

151. And the French delegate can interrupt the speech...

...with a declaration of "Your mother is a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries!"

;-)

[Zhade]

102. I'm thinking they should clap him in irons and ship him to the Hague.

NT!

[ClintonTyree]

16. This man.............

has no concept of what is right or wrong. He lives in a fantasy world where his toadies tell him what he wants to hear, not the truth. This address will be greeted with raised eyebrows and yawns, if not laughter.

[sspiderjohn]

17. He really is too stupid to be President, isn't he?

That's my aging mother's take on Bush. And she used to support him. Now she calls him an idiot.

[diplomats]

23. Is your mother a Repub?

Glad she's been enlightened. BTW, I love her bluntness!

[Skittles]

26. lol....................my mum is a Brit

she calls Bush "a twit".

[VLC98]

50. I enjoy reading your comments Skittles..

perhaps it's because your Mum is British and so am I. "Twit" is far too nice a name for Bush though, I call him arsehole.

[calimary]

61. Welcome to DU, VLC98!

Glad you're here!

Man, I love this - SOOOO many new DUers! I wonder how fast this site is expanding? Sure seem to be a lot of new folks here. I also wonder if that's a sign of gathering momentum among us renegade Dems.

[Skittles]

119. HOWDY FROM TEXAS VLC98 !!!

I lived in England many years and have an English brother who lives in Market Deeping. I spent most of my time in Peterborough and High Wycombe on Air Force Bases. My mum is from Martham, near Great Yarmouth. And my beloved grandfather was trapped at Dunkirk! I am certainly an honorary half-Brit!!! :D

[VLC98]

158. Hi Skittles!

Thanks for responding. I'm a Suffolk girl (Felixstowe) married to a US Airman (RAF Bentwaters, Upper Heyford & Mildenhall). Some of my fondest childhood memories are of times spent in Great Yarmouth. Do you mind me asking if your Mum is a US citizen now? It's something I am seriously considering, so that I can vote.

[Skittles]

159. I WENT TO UPPER HEYFORD HIGH SCHOOL IN 1971

we lived in Bicester! I kid you not! Small world! Is my mum a US citizen! HA HA, HA HA HA HA! NO WAY! She still has a Union Jack on the wall! She's Brit to the core, with the green card. A real ALIEN!!! :D

[VLC98]

160. Your Mum sounds like a super lady!

I've been in the US since 98, hence VLC98, but I still feel like a fish out of water. Bicester is a nice little town, we lived in Brackley and my son was born in Banbury so, yes, it is a small world!

[bowens43]

18. "Bush to Tell U.N. He Made 'Right Decision' on Iraq"

So the idiot is going to lie to the UN again.

[DoYouEverWonder]

20. Someone needs to let W know

that Putin is going to challenge W has to who is got it right on this one. Can't wait for this little showdown.


http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/wire/sns-ap-putin-challenging-america,0,3901496.story?coll=sns-ap-world-headlines">Putin to Challenge U.S. Ahead of Summi

MOSCOW -- America's failure to stabilize Iraq has left Russian President Vladimir Putin convinced he was right: The war was a bad idea. That conviction has boosted Putin's confidence, and at their summit this week, President Bush will encounter a man willing to challenge America on Iraq, Iran and even the war on terrorism.

[MUAD_DIB]

35. Bush looked into Pootie-Poots soul!

How could he have missed this UnMurkin betrayal?

[Sick of Bullshit]

37. Probably because

he was too soused on Absolut at the time

:beer:

[NYC]

21. PROTEST BUSH Tues., 9 a.m. till noon, 43rd St. & First Avenue.

There will be a protest on 43rd Street & First Avenue (outside U.N.) on Tuesday morning from 9 a.m. until 12:00 noon.

Please join us. :hi:

[Fridays Child]

22. He's no Tom Sawyer and they ain't gonna whitewash the fence for him.

eom

[Skittles]

24. he's got some nerve

arrogant bastard

[0007]

27. The link to the story by the Washington Post

has been pulled.

[lazarus]

30. still works for me

:shrug:

[0007]

70. I did get it up

the link that is!

[liberalmuse]

29. He just can't admit he was wrong, can he?

His arrogance will be his undoing. I hope the members of the U.N. knock him on his ass. What a colassal embarassment!

[MUAD_DIB]

38. There's a saying at the U.N.

I think it's in Texas, and I know it's in D.C., and it goes like this.


Fool me once, shame on you.

pasue

Fool me...we won't be fool again!

[sistersofmercy]

31. Just plain ol' drunken hubris!!! Ah another lead balloon!

[Demobrat]

32. And when they tell him to take a hike, then what?

Would he dare try a draft now?

[homelandpunk]

48. what next? well, a seed change of world power

that ushers in the fall of America. No less.
Please stay home Bush.
If he goes thru with this speech, it will be much more than just another Bush embarrassing moment. If this speech is made, the next dem prez in '05 will NOT be able to undo the shift...by then the momentum will have built. New alliances that are already being arranged, will solidify. Unless Bush is stopped from bringing his arrogance and insanity to the international body, at this time next week, we are fucked as a country. I don't care which dem you support for the next "election", nor which of them win. We will be fucked.
This speech must not take place.

[reprobate]

55. I'm not sure that this would be such a bad thing.

It would mean the end of the neocons in the republican party, and that would bring politics in this country back to a reasonable level of respect of the differences between them like it used to be in my youth. I think most people in the US are fed up with the hate spewed by the repugs for the last decade or so, since raygun, I think.

It would mean the end of the republican party as we know it. And that might just mean that we stand the chance of doing the one thing that would remove the influence of corporations on gov't, public financing of all elections. We must remove the profit motive from politics.

It would mean that without having to be the world's bully we could stop spending so damned much of our production on war materials. If we just cut our military to defensive forces, we'd still have the power to protect ourselves from attack, and use part of the manpower to repair and rebuild our infrastructure.

It would mean that we'd have the resources to have health care for everyone, no matter the size of their bank account. And that would mean that everyone could work at what they enjoyed without worrying about if the job gave them health insurance.

No, all things considered, that may not be such a bad thing.

[homelandpunk]

59. Perhaps. But

once the neocons see that isolation and loss of respect creates impotence, they will create a self-destructive course of events that, I fear, will destroy this country from within and without. And I mean DESTROY. Your theory is that the neocons will just walk away from the dogs of war they have fed all these years. I don't have that kind of optimism. I do see where you are coming from and really wish I could agree. And I do agree that things could be better if we went down a notch and there followed national introspection and positive change. But entropy never reverses itself. And the neocons will not go away. They will pursue their destructive, bitter path to the end.
I have a bad feeling about things. I hope I am wrong.

[reprobate]

72. HLP, I agree that the neocons won't go away.

I think tho, that they will resume the role they did before they gained the puppet in the white house. Before Captain Crotchsock stole the election most people in gov't referred to them as "the crazies".

I believe (hope) that bush's declining popularity reflects the disillusionment with the policies of the neocons, and the economy certainly will present us with an example of neocon policies, and we can all see how popular hey have become. And the more publicity is showered on them, the greater negativity the public will feel.

Call me polyanna, but for quite a few years I have had the feeling that this country faced a dark period followed by a blossoming of the goals that we tell ourselves the country was founded on. We are now experiencing the dark period, and the next election (if it's not stolen by BBV) may begin the dawn of a new democracy.

I hope!

[Occulus]

85. You are not the only one

who I have heard that sentiment from.

[Mari333]

33. 3 bottles of Booze for the Bush speech

1 bottle of French wine
1 bottle of Russian Vodka
1 bottle of German beer

a slug of each for everytime he says Saddam was evil, evildoers, make no mistake, mass graves, gassed his own people, they hate us for our freedom, war on terra,.

already have MY aspirin next to my PC for Wed morning.


:beer:

[MUAD_DIB]

40. Kiss your liver

Goodbye.

:toast: :beer: :hi:

[jab105]

49. How bout.....

terrorists....
9-11...

You're gonna be pretty drunk by noon!

[Jack Rabbit]

74. Not to mention . . .

. . . had ties to al Qaida.

[ErasureAcer]

34. that will win over some fans...

NOT!

[Dr Fate]

62. We need a DEM in office who will be taken seriously...

...a little humility now and then-geeezusss!!!!

[Starpass]

36. I smell a rat

These aren't exactly concilliatory words for the UN and world community. These are the usual: I'm da' greatest and fuck you. Thus, he's probably going to get zip (in fact I believe it's already been decided according to my new Time magazine----only a few troops at most and he's going to have a meeting in Madrid for countries to come and donate towards Iraq. They said no one wants to come and be dragged into the bill.) So when he gets pissed on, he will start another UN and France and Germany and, and bashing in hopes that he will get the Amurekan people all whipped up again and willing to go it alone to show those slimy foreigners who are squatting in NYC.

[OldCurmudgeon]

41. a huge stinky rat

It would probably go something like:

(Dubya enters, looks around)

Dubya: Nice building ya got here....Wouldn't want anything to happen to it, now would you?

UN delegates: ummm...

Dubya: I mean, like accidents happen. Just like in that UN building in Baghdad, know what I mean? Accidents. You need some insurance against stuff like that.

UN: (starts to write out check)

Dubya: That's right...two L's in "Halliburton". Just leave the amount blank, we'll take care of that little detail.

[Zhade]

112. NICE! You captured him exactly.

NT!

[cmd]

44. He's trying to do in the UN

It's not part of his empire. He'll make the militia minded people very happy.

[ewagner]

42. Bush already knows

...that France won't use its veto
...that it has 9 "bought" votes on the Security Council
...nobody of any consequence is sending troops or money.. (maybe Turkey, est cost $3B; Maybe Pakistan, $unk; and maybe India, $unknown)

The resolution itself will be watered down...maybe something like "We agree that Iraq should be independent as soon as possible."

Bush will proclaim "I was Right".

Meaningless resolution is passed.

Bush declares Victory!

[Selwynn]

64. Why won't france use its veto?

[Paschall]

68. I'm not sure any resolution will be presented by the US

Chirac's foreign policy is the only thing that's keeping him afloat in the polls. He's not about to change track. If France doesn't agree to abstain, I think Shrub will just withdraw the idea of a resolution. Like he did before the invasion.

[IrateCitizen]

81. Because it's not as big an issue to France as it is to the US

Strangely enough, in the midst of all of the French-bashing resuming in the US, France has largely moved on from the invasion of Iraq. They have even stated that they, as well as Germany, would be willing to commit $$$ and troops -- on the condition that the UN take over the lead of ALL operations on the ground in Iraq.

The Bush administration is the one with egg all over their face after this deal. France and Germany don't need to do anything to illuminate that fact -- the Bushies do a fine job of it themselves through their continuing contempt for the truth and disdain for anything resembling international cooperation. Instead, it's either "my way or the highway".

[HPLeft]

43. And the UN Tells Dubya...

...to kiss their butts, or else not expect much financial help or soldiers.

Oh, how I long for the good old days, when Presidents were more interested in oral sex than making war.

[Gloria]

45. This man has no shame....Forget no brains....

eom

[gristy]

51. I'm hoping for silence from the assembly.

Silence as he comes to the podium. Silence as he hits his supposed high notes (he has none, since he's such an abject failure on Iraq), and silence upon finishing. I want to see it. Damn, I'm interviewing for a job on Tuesday.

[regnaD kciN]

153. And even better...

...as he finishes his speech, before he even has a chance to leave the podium, silence as the vast majority of delegates get up and exit the assembly.

[truthisfreedom]

54. can you imagine how excitedly they await his golden words?

the momentum of support that must be building over at the UN... getting this news of his rapidly-approaching speech... they must be all a-flitter!

has rove lost his mind? it seems like ever since bush lost ari, rove has been adrift. either that, or bush is making decisions on his own...

[stickdog]

57. Of course you made the right decision, Georgie Weorgie.

All those thousands of dead, dying, injured and ill Americans and Iraqis.

Saddam still loose.

Iraq in shambles.

Still no power.

Low level warfare across the entire nation.

Iraq still has to import oil.

All at the future American taxpayer cost of about one trillion dollars.

Thanks for being such a big man, GWB, and recognizing your past "successes" so honestly.

[Selwynn]

63. I know some others said this too but....

He just can not admit he is wrong. Faced with plummeting poll numbers, a disaster in Iraq and failed objectives on every count, and seeing his lifeline via greater international support if he could just have enough humilty to ask for it, he can't do it.

And I know this sounds completely cliche, but I swear that will be his downfall. He is literally so arrogant, that it surpasses common sense.

[Paschall]

67. "I will make it clear that I made the right decision...

All the respected (but untrustworthy) members of the Security Council who opposed military action in Iraq and prevented the United States from presenting a resolution for such action were wrong. In fact, they committed the grave--and perhaps never pardonable--sin of supporting that ferocious and blood-thirsty tyrant and dictator Saddam--who gassed his own people, let me remind you again, in violation of international law.

And all of you plebes in the General Assembly who opposed the United States' right to defend itself against terra: Your grumbling has been noted in the building. I declare by the full might of American superpower that...

I (bangs shoe on lecturn)
MADE (BANG)
THE (BANG)
RIGHT (BANG!!)
DE- (BANG!!!) -CI- (BANG!!!) -SION (BANG!!!)...

[Spentastic]

73. Just how mental do you have to be to try this?

Flying in the face of evidence and common sense he can't really be considering saying "I was right" can he? What's next?

"Why Black is White" by George Bush.

He might as well get up and say "look I'm absolutely deluded"

[bushisanidiot]

75. Gee AWOL, cocky much?

the rest of the world is laughing at you, monkey boy.

[ProfessorGAC]

76. Gee, That Ought to Garner Support, Huh?

What an idiot!
The Professor

[ignatius]

77. Puhleeez, puhleeez, Old Europe and you irrelevant UN

help us. Or in the words of Colin Powell last week,"There are going to be enough contracts for any nation that is committd to this effort to get A PIECE OF THE ACTION."

Is this rebuilding a country of Viva Las Vegas?

And some people still think this isn't about pillaging Iraq.

[indepat]

78. How could it not be the right decision considering he has never made his

first mistake?

[Richardo]

79. "I'm right 'cause I say I'm right..."

see Mark Crispin Miller's "Bush Dyslexicon" for a great analysis of this kind of thinking...

[mac56]

82. U.N. To Tell Bush -

"You Made Your Bed, Now Lie In It".

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

84. "I will make it clear that I made the right WING decision"

Fox cut out the word "wing". :evilgrin:

[cpv2004]

88. Quotes on Iraq

"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 , 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.
"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 the 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." Senator 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.
"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.

[mac56]

89. Funny -

I don't see "unilateral attack" anywhere in these quotes.

Welcome to DU, by the way.

[BelgianMadCow]

90. let me remind you of this :

your quotes, which do put some things in perspective, frequently used the words "we have intelligence that indicates"...

I think you need to be reminded how exactly this intelligence came about : Bushco created an intelligence service working besides ALL "normal" services such as the CIA, the FBI and the likes.

This intel gathering office was called OSP, Office for Special Plans. It operated without congressional oversight, and was tasked with "selective" reading of intel from the other organisations. It was seriously understaffed to do a serious job, but well-briefed enough to come to the necessary conclusions.

Soooo you can shoot at people who were misled by this intelligence. Or you could look for the true perperators of this fraud.

Something tells me you will never bother though :-)

[cpv2004]

91. Good point

Point well taken. Don't take this to mean that I'm a fan of Bush. I despise the Patriot Act and think the TSA is bloated ineffective beurocracy and a huge waste of taxpayer money.

But I do stand behind the war in Iraq, and agree with the opinions of the democratic leaders whose quotes I posted, or at least their opinions before they decided there was opportunity for political gain if they backpeddalled on their views.

What I don't understand is why in making a case for war do you not include the possible (and treat it as nothing more) meeting between Atta and an Iraqi intelligence agent that took place shortly before 9/11, or the 707 fuselage south of Baghdad that was being used to train potential hijackers and has been found, or the evidence that Iraq gave Ayman Zawahiri $300,000?

[mac56]

92. None of that makes the case for Bushco's unilateralism.

If those factors are so compelling, why doesn't the rest of the world stand with us?

[cpv2004]

95. Unilateralism

30+ countries that suppored our efforts I would say contradicts the definition of unilateralism. As for France and Russia, they they had pretty well documented financial interest in keeping Saddam in power.

The UN inspections were not working. Saddam had had 11 years to comply with the resolutions and had failed to do so. Weapons are not difficult to hide in a country the size of Iraq.

[mac56]

96. "30+ countries that supported our efforts"

What, you mean The Coalition Of The Billing...er, Willing?

[Maeve]

103. And such a killer list, too

Full list of coalition countries:

Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and Uzbekistan.

Source: US State Department

[caledesi]

110. What? Fiji didn't join? LOL!

[Zero Gravitas]

97. 30 Countries?

like the Marshall Islands who get some money from Washington in return for saying that there were "with" the US in this invasion. You realize, of course, that only one other country provided more than a couple of dozen troops for Bush's invasion, right? ANd that no country provided any significant financial support (unlike the Gulf War where other countries paid more than 90% of the cost).

Sounds more like some talking points from the RNC to try and make Bush's reckless decision to invade and occupy Iraq seem reasonable.

[BelgianMadCow]

93. so you stand behind the war in Iraq

that gives better insight as to why you posted those quotes. Thanks for providing the background.

[tabasco]

94. You buy all the Iraq = terrorists arguments without question

1. UN inspectors were in Iraq searching for all this bad stuff. Why did we have to invade, with the world against us, to find nothing? Start looking at both sides instead of gobbling up what you want to hear. You are repeating information which has been discredited. Get informed.
2. Have you done your time in the military? If not get down to the recruiter's office. I did ten years in the infantry. I am losing friends for no good reason.

[cpv2004]

99. RE: "You buy all the Iraq = terrorists arguments without question"

1. UN inspectors were in Iraq searching for all this bad stuff. Why did we have to invade, with the world against us, to find nothing?

Anthrax and other poisons don't take up very much space. They are also easy to smuggle. If you've followed the ridiculous War on Drugs, you would know that it's not hard to get white powder into this country.

I believe the UN inspectors could have searched an eternity and never found a thing. But I do believe they were and still are there. To quote Nancy Pelosi, Saddam Hussein had "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. And according to Sandey Berger "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.


Start looking at both sides instead of gobbling up what you want to hear. You are repeating information which has been discredited. Get informed.

How's that for looking at both sides?

2. Have you done your time in the military? No I have not.

If not get down to the recruiter's office. I did ten years in the infantry. I am losing friends for no good reason

Thank you for your time served, and I am sorry to hear that you lost friends. I too lost friends, in the 9/11 terror attacks.

I never thought I'd be surprised that this country has not had another terror attack over the last two years, but I am. I attribute the fact that the US has not been attacked since 9/11 to what we have done in Afghanistan and Iraq.

You likely disagree, and I will likely be kicked off this board for my opinion.

[Uzybone]

101. the fact we have not been attacked since 9/11

and saying that its due to what we did in Iraq is one of the lamest arguements that stink up our society today. Before 9/11/01 there was a 8 year break of no attacks her in the US. Al Queda doesnt launch ataacks every other week, anyone that has looked at thier track record knows this.

[cpv2004]

107. The 8 year break

is an excellent point, and why we need to remain vigilant in the fight against terror. If we can keep Al Qaeda, other terrorist groups, and those who aid them on the run it will help in our fight, don't you agree? And there is evidence that Hussein gave money and aid to Al Quaeda. Abdul Rahman Yasin, a suspect in the '93 bombing, was being harbored there.

There is certainly no way we can prove or disprove that what the US and UK are doing has prevented any terror attacks. You can make the argument that it will in fact incite terror attacks. But I am of the opinion that it has. I take it you feel otherwise.

At the very best, we have or will have prevented attacks on our soil b/c as a result of our military operations in Iraq. At the worst, we removed a brutal, torturous dictator who has killed thousands of his own people, and allowed his sons to torture athletes and rape 12 year old girls. And this will pave the way for a democratic state in Iraq, despite what you may think.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

104. Saddam HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9-11

Even your President said as much. I guess you don't mind $87 billion going to Halliburton and other BushCo beneficiaries. I'm sure your schools, roads, healthcare and job situation down there in Atlanta is perfect and doesn't need an infusion of money right now.

I know people that died in the towers. It is an affront to their memory that we have not caught Osama Bin Forgotten and that the administration has not conducted a full investigation.

DU provides some links that have a lot of information about 9-11 and Iraq. I suggest you read them.

[cpv2004]

113. Saddam HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9-11

I never said he did, although I don't think you can say that resolutely when there is evidence that he gave money to Al Quaeda.

I think that Saddam posed a real terrorist threat to the US and I'm glad he's no longer in power.

My job situation is steady and from what I can see the roads are fine. The public schools here are terrible, as they are in most places. Healthcare I would prefer to pay for on my own but the govt has it set up in such a way that it's cost prohibitive. It sounds like you believe it's the job of the government to provide you with things.

I agree that it's unfortunate that we have not found Bin Laden, Hussein or Omar for that matter, but not an affront to their memories. As one astute poster pointed out earlier, there were 8 yrs b/n the first and second attacks, and the second one occurred b/c we let our guard down and, in part, b/c both Clinton AND Bush had opportunities to get Bin Laden and failed to do so. It's far more important that we continue to keep terrorists and the governments that aid terrorists on the defensive. This hurts their ability to plan other attacks.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

116. No, it's MY TAX MONEY going to another country

"It sounds like you believe it's the job of the government to provide you with things."

No, I don't believe the government should provide me with those things. That's what our tax dollars are for. I'm assuming you don't believe in public education? and I assume that you think the elderly shouldn't receive Medicare or Social Security? Because that's where our tax money ought to go.

Are you aware of the lucrative, no-bid post-war contracts that were given to Halliburton and other Bush/Cheney cronies? It doesn't bother you that our tax money is going right in their pockets? You are pretty naive, and the typical Republican talking points that you spew lack any credibility.

[cpv2004]

125. Getting off the subject.

No, I don't believe the government should provide me with those things. That's what our tax dollars are for.
I equate tax dollars to the government providing it.

I'm assuming you don't believe in public education? I do. I just wish it were better. Perhaps if we paid teachers more and cut some of the administrative costs that would be the case. I think vouchers are a great alternative, however, especially in cities where the schools are unsafe.

and I assume that you think the elderly shouldn't receive Medicare or Social Security? I don't mean ALL the elderly, but there are many that don't need it who are still receiving benefits, and it will only get worse. My generation is screwed if we keep having to pick up the tab for every senior citizen out there regardless of need. What happened to holding people accountable for providing for themselves in their retirement? I realize that people fall on hard times and if they need the govt's help, then fine, but people should not rely on the government to take care of them, that is one's own responsibility. I would prefer to keep my money that I pay into social security and invest it on my own. Then, when I retire, the govt does not have to give me a dime. anything wrong with that?

Because that's where our tax money ought to go.
Ought to go?

Are you aware of the lucrative, no-bid post-war contracts that were given to Halliburton and other Bush/Cheney cronies? It doesn't bother you that our tax money is going right in their pockets? You are pretty naive, and the typical Republican talking points that you spew lack any credibility.

Sure I know about that and it doesn't really bother me. I am not a republican and I would wager we would agree on quite a few social issues. But I also believe that it's the role of the individual to take care of oneself, not the government. Should the government pay for your car insurance? Then why should they foot the bill for your health insurance? Again, I am not saying that we deny medical care to those who need it if they cannot afford it, but if we limit the government's role in providing healthcare it would be less expensive for you and me, those who CAN provide for themselves. I also believe that just about anything government run is wildly inefficient and wastes much of the money they take from us. If govt. were run more efficiently, perhaps people could put more into charity and we could let these charities take care of the needy, not the government. How's that sound?

[Kathy in Cambridge]

134. So basically you refute the New Deal

You would prefer to go back to a time of Dickensian poverty where workers have no protections like OSHA and equal opportunity laws, and corporations are unregulated and can pollute the environment at will.

"But I also believe that it's the role of the individual to take care of oneself, not the government."

That would be fine in a perfect society, but this pie in the sky libertarianism can never work in reality.

[BelgianMadCow]

121. public schools don't suck everywhere

where I live we only have public schools, tuition is (at 350 dollars per year for lower incomes) pretty low for all universities, and the the standard of our education is amogst the highest in the world.

We do pay some hefty taxes, but we don't spend them waging war abroad. Instead we have medicare for everyone (you do get to pay some percentage yourself (like 15 %), but the total bill has a max) and the best (some argue too good) social security in the world.

Proud chocolate-maker speaking, so you don't HAVE to consider opening your eyes.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

122. I just bought some Belgian chocolate today-yum!

I admire European countries who realize that the tax money should go back into the infrastructure that increases the quality of life for the citizens who PAY the taxes.

The average European is much better educated and informed than the average American. The literacy rates in Belgium and most European countries are close to 100%, and infant mortality rates are low.

Quality of life and access to education and jobs are very important, but our pal cpv2004 thinks destabilizing the world is a better use of US tax money.

[BelgianMadCow]

126. Enjoy !

would you like some beer with that ?

:hi:
from
Fat Bastard

[cpv2004]

127. Everywhere meaning the everywhere in the US

Did you think WWII was a waste of tax $$ also? Sorry, couldn't resist.

What % does an average Belgian have to fork over, just out of curiosity?

[BelgianMadCow]

129. lol

I CAN resist the urge to try and educate you.

Other & better maybe will. Good luck !

[cpv2004]

130. In all seriousness

I did look up the OSP per your recommendation, so thank you for that insight. It does not however change my opinion b/c I don't trust politicians anyway, left or right, but I believe deposing Saddam was the right decision as he was a threat to the world, his own people, olympic athletes, 12 year old girls, etc. And I do not believe the UN had the capability or will to do it.

You did not answer my question. What % of your paycheck goes to taxes?

[regnaD kciN]

154. I think it's time to watch a classic Western...

...like maybe Tombstone.

;-)

[Zhade]

114. You're either a Freeper, or they fooled you good.

meeting between Atta and an Iraqi intelligence agent that took place shortly before 9/11

Uh, mainly because that meeting never happened? Because the Czech government stated it never happened after all? Because FBI records show Atta was here in the United States at the time?

the 707 fuselage south of Baghdad that was being used to train potential hijackers and has been found

Because Salman Pak proves nothing, especially when our own intelligence services concluded it was used for counter-terrorism training and not hijacking? Because most terrorists train in basements, not out in the open like idiots underneath clear skies with US satellites capable of telling what color their teeth are overhead?

Come on. You either know better than this, or you're way too friendly with ignorant people who never, you know, read a newspaper or watch tv other than Fox "News".

[BelgianMadCow]

117. I have to agree

although the "quotes" post was imho quite valuable to remind us that "the powers that be" will try to buy any party/person they need to. This is where things get really scary, but that's another thread.

[cpv2004]

128. You're either a Freeper, or they fooled you good

Czech officials still stand by this story.

If I had to bet on whether Iraq was putting its efforts toward terrorism efforts or counter-terrorism efforts, I'd have to put my money on the former. I may be naive, but not that naive.

At the risk of losing my posting privileges, here's a wsj.com article that backs up what I said. http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004046

[snippy]

131. That is not an article it is an editorial containing several lies.

The invasion of Iraq was unprovoked and based upon false pretenses. It is similar to the invasion of Ethiopia by Italy, the invasion of Czechoslovakia by Germany, the invasion of Tibet by China, the invasion of Hungary and Czechoslovakia by the Soviet Union. Neither God nor history has smiled on unprovoked invasions of a sovereign nation. Bush has now killed more innocent people than bin Laden.

[cpv2004]

132. Please send me refutations

[Kathy in Cambridge]

133. Refutations: WSJ is not a reputable source-especially an opinion piece

I guess the schools really do suck down there in Georgia. Here are some links that talk about the debunked Atta/Iraqi intelligence meeting in Prague.

1) BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2709233.stm

<snip>
Mohamed Atta in Prague:
For a long time it was claimed that the leader of the 11 September hijackers, Mohamed Atta, had met an Iraqi agent in Prague in April, 2001.

This originated from a report by the Czech authorities.

After an investigation, the Czech President Vaclav Havel concluded that the report could not be substantiated.
<snip>

2) Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10734-2003Sep14.html

<snip>
He then revived the possibility that Mohamed Atta, who led the Sept. 11 attacks, allegedly met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Baghdad five months before the attack. It is a story Cheney had repeated during a March 16 appearance on "Meet the Press" and one that his aides tried to have added to Powell's presentation in February at the United Nations.

"We've never been able to develop any more of that yet, either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it," Cheney said yesterday. "We just don't know."

An FBI investigation concluded that Atta was apparently in Florida at the time of the alleged meeting, and the CIA has always doubted it took place. Czech authorities, who first mentioned the alleged meeting in October 2001 to U.S. officials, have since said they no longer are certain the individual in the video of the supposed meeting was Atta. Meanwhile, in July, the U.S. military captured the Iraqi intelligence officer who was supposed to have met Atta and has not obtained confirmation from him.
<snip>


3) Hill News
http://www.hillnews.com/marshall/091703.aspx

<snip>
The one piece of “evidence” he cited was the alleged meeting between Sept. 11 ringleader Mohammed Atta and a high-level Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague in April 2001. About that, the vice president said: “The Czechs alleged that Mohammed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack. But we’ve never been able to develop any more of that yet, either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don’t know.”

Never been able to confirm or discredit it? Again, that’s just not true.

The original report that Atta met with a high-ranking Iraqi intelligence office gained widespread attention, and rightly so. But the sighting turned out to be sketchy and uncorroborated. Later, Czech President Vaclav Havel, a supporter of our war against Iraq, told the White House that subsequent investigations led the Czechs to believe that the story was not true. And U.S. law enforcement and intelligence investigations unearthed many pieces of documentary evidence that Atta was in the United States at the time of the alleged meeting.

Now we even have numerous members of Iraqi intelligence in custody, including Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, the intelligence agent Atta allegedly met. If the story were true someone should have spilled the beans by now. But no one has. As al Qaeda expert Peter Bergen asked, when I interviewed him recently, “Don’t you think knows his get-out-of-jail-free card to some degree is saying, ‘Hey, I did meet with Mohammed Atta’? He’s obviously not saying that, otherwise we’d know about it.”
<snip>

[cpv2004]

135. This is still in doubt

Again, that is still in doubt either way:

http://www.praguepost.com/P02/2002/20605/news1a.php

"The Czech envoy to the UN has confirmed that an Iraqi agent met with suspected Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta, in the latest rebuke to widespread U.S. media reports dismissing the Prague encounter as a fabrication. "

But regardless, do you really believe that Saddam had no intentions, if given the opportunity, to inflict harm on our nation? There are many other pieces of evidence that can be sited: He was seeking a nuclear weapons program, he either had or at one time had had chemical weapons, he gassed his own people, he tortured his own people, his sons tortured their athletes and raped young girls, he attacked two separate nations, he gave money to al quaeda, he harbored terrorists.

But this war was found on lies. If it were up to you, he would still be in power.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

136. Prague Post: Another Disreputable Rag

You are just full of reliable sources. I have provided well-known and respected sources and you come back with bullshit. You obviously get your news from Fox and Rush. Now take your right-wing talking points and go back to Free Republic. I'm done 'ejamacating' you for the evening,

"But regardless, do you really believe that Saddam had no intentions, if given the opportunity, to inflict harm on our nation?"

-That is a silly question, because he DID NOT have the capabilities to inflict harm. Regardless, we did not have the right to unilaterally attack a sovereign nation.

"There are many other pieces of evidence that can be sited:
He was seeking a nuclear weapons program"

-Debunked by several sources.

"he either had or at one time had had chemical weapons, he gassed his own people",
-Saddam gassed his own people. Yup, he sure did. He also gassed the Iranians. Then we rewarded him with billions of dollars in goods, he got to shake hands with Donald Rumsfeld and he continued to do business with many American companies like Cheney's Halliburton and the ATCC. American companies have been selling him "dual purpose" goods, chemicals and biological strains for decades after he gassed his own people. Shouldn't we be locking those people up?

"he tortured his own people, his sons tortured their athletes and raped young girls,"
-Yup, and so does the dictator of Norrth Korea, who has rockets that can actually hit the West Coast.

"he attacked two separate nations"
-But it's OK if we unilaterally attack a sovereign nation, right?

"he gave money to al quaeda, he harbored terrorists"
-Bullshit.
Australian News:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/06/10/1055010937064.html

BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2727471.stm

But this war was found on lies. If it were up to you, he would still be in power.

-No, I'm glad he's gone. But he would have eventually fallen anyway. Now we have DESTROYED a country and destabilized a region. Since you have no grasp of history or geopolitics and believe everything you hear on Fox news, you probably believe those Iraqis are so happy we're there. My nephew is over there, the troops have no morale and little food, so get your confederate ass down to the enlistment office and fight your just war.

[cpv2004]

139. who decides a credible source?

All the source says is that the individual who claimed that Atta met with an Iraqi agent stands by his claim. How can you say that's unreliable. Your sources state the opposite, so we don't know the truth.

All media outlets or writers therein have an agenda in my view, so the interpretation of events you get supports their beliefs.

How do you not have the capabilities to inflict harm when all it takes is a small vial of poison in a major metropolitan area's water supply, a suicide bomber, or a hijacker? If Afghanistan under the Taliban was able to do it, so could Saddam.

Oh, and while we are on the subject, I forgot to mention that fact that he funded Palestinian suicide bombers, or what CNN refers to as "activists" http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/12/16/mideast.violence/.

I hope these are reliable sources.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,912938,00.html
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/06/19/1023864454350.html

You cannot say that Hussein would've been deposed, just like I'll never be able to prove that a preventative war stopped any more attacks on our soil. Perhaps he would not have been deposed. Perhaps he would have gained nuclear capabilities (but there's no reason a madman like Saddam would ever want nuclear weapons so never mind). Then we would have another N. Korea on our hands, which since it has more destructive capability requires a different approach from what we used to treat the problem in Iraq.

No we have not destroyed a country. 90% of it is stable and it's only been 8 months. And the country is getting better and will continue to improve. I have a friend who was there who just returned and he tells me that most Iraqis welcomed them and were relieved to be liberated. I realize this is most likely an unreliabe source but here's more on that topic.

http://news.mysanantonio.com/story.cfm?xla=saen&xlb=1235&xlc=1057113&xld=1235

Lastly, as I said earlier, at the very worst we deposed a brutal dictator who held a country hostage for 20 years. I'm glad we did what many other countries were not willing to do. Good night.

[Zhade]

142. God, you really AREN'T paying attention, are you?

You cited The Guardian - which is what I cited above to refute the Atta-Prague "link".

Doesn't it bother you at all to know you're trusting a proven liar and now international murderer with your life and freedom? Can you not even begin to see the truth?

Hey, I'm thrilled Hussein is gone. I would have loved to put two in his head, and I'm pretty pacifistic otherwise. But this "war" of "liberation" was based on lies, manipulation, and deceit.

And people like yourself aid this group of traitors by falling for their bullshit. Crack open the blinders, kid.

[BelgianMadCow]

137. I wasn't gonna check back in, but

you just made me laugh :
"do you really believe that Saddam had no intentions, if given the opportunity, to inflict harm on our nation"

I wish you lots of luck in trying to preemptively kill everyone who has some INTENTION , GIVEN the opportunity (as in - "supplied with chemical weapons by the US"), to inflict harm on your nation.

Where was the urgency ? Niger uranium ? Attack from drones in 45 minutes? Aluminium tubes ? Bio trailers ? Looooooool

Off to bed. Oh and it's 45 %. I think you'd prefer responding to that part of my reply :-)

[Jack Rabbit]

141. Refutations

1. Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction

The burden is on anoyone who claims that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction as of this March to explain why: (1) Saddam did not use them when he had nothing to lose and no conscience to stop him; (2) Why UN inspectors failed to find such weapons prior to the invsion; (3) Why Anglo-American forces have failed to find any since the invasion; and (4) Why, in spite of offering incentives to Iraqi scientists and former officials of Saddam's regime who have been taken prisoner, these people have been unable or unwilling to help. The best expalnation for all of the above would be that such weapons did not exist.

Of course, we know they existed at one time. The US government has the sales receipts. So the question becomes: What happened to them? According to Scott Ritter, the former chief weapons inspector in Iraq, almost all of the biochemical capablility Saddam possessed during the 1991 Gulf War were destroyed by the time weapons inspectors left Iraq in 1998. Ritter further stated that any material Saddam had not destroyed at that time would have lost its potency in the intevening period.

General Hussein Kamel, Saddam's director of Iraq's Military Industrialization Corporation and son-in-law, was in charage of Iraq's weapons program during the time of the 1991 war and reamined so until his defection to the West in 1995. General Kamel told UN weapons inspectors that he personally ordered the destruction of Iraq's chemical weapons shortly after the war. Dr. Roelf Ekeus, then he head of the weapons inspections program, concluded that the weapons had indeed been destoryed; however, the UN kept this information secret in hopes of keeping Saddam off balance and obatining greater cooperation from the Iraqis. Shortly after being interviewed by Dr. Ekeus and his aides, General Kamel returned to Iraq. He had been given false assurances that he would be safe. Saddam had him murdered days after his return.

US Secretray of State Colin Powell was quite aware of Kamel's remarks to Dr. Ekeus when he delivered the junta's case for war before the Security Council on February 5. In that presentation, Powell referred to other parts of the Kamel interview to support his case against Iraq, but conveniently omitted the fact that Kamel had ordered the weapons destroyed. In this behavior, Secretary Powell deliberately misled the Security Council in an attempt to get an aunthorization to use force against Iraq. However, as we know, most of the members of the Security Council members were unconviced by the US case and authorizing resolution was withdrawn without a vote being taken. The US and Britain soon afterwards launched the invasion, which, without UN authorization, was illegal.

There is nothing to support the accusation that Saddam possessed WMDs last spring and much to suggest that he did not. The question becomes: If Saddam had no weapons, why was he not more forthcoming? We may never know the answer, but a good speculation is that Saddam was bluffing in order to fend off what he believed to have been threats from his neighbors. As long as they thought he had something that could hurt them, Saddam felt secure, at least from them. However, against a US attack Saddam knew he would have been helpless. Consequently, he allowed inspections to resume.

It was widely held that Saddam did not possess the military capability in recent years that he had at the end of the 1991 war. We can see now that Saddam was not a threat to his weakest neighbor; it is difficult to believe that American intelligence did not know this. However, the junta had already predetermined its course of action and sought only intelligence to support that course. This was known as early as last autumn that the junta was cooking inteliigence to support a case for war that did not hold up under scrutiniy.

2. Saddam had connections with al Qaida

Since Mr. Bush himself has disposed of the misconception (which he and his aides helped to promote for months) that Saddam had some connection to the 9/11 attacks, let us move on to the broader question of whether Saddam had any link of any kind to al Qaida.

First of all, we have the alleged meeting between Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi agent in Prague. This was long ago discredited twelve ways to Sunday. The story is false. In addition to the Czech denial of the meeting, the FBI now believes that Atta was in Florida at the time these stories had him meeting with one of Saddam's agents in April 2001.

Saddam was not inclined to assist Islamic fundamentalists. Whatever else may be said about it, Saddam's was a secular regime. He feared religious fundamentalists and suppressed them. For his part, Osama, as recently as this year, denounced Saddam as secular and a socialist even as he urged the Iraqi people to resist the coming US invasion.

The junta's spokemen often spoke of an al Qaida presence in Iraq. However, like the junta's equivocation over the Saddam/Septe,ber 11 connection, this is verbal slight-of-hand to suggest a connection between Saddam and al Qaida that didn't exist. Indeed, al Qaida might have had a presence in Iraq. It was in the Kurdish-controlled north, beyond Saddam's control. Al Qaida's hosts in Iraq were not Saddam, but Ansar al-Islam, a band of Islamic fundamentalists who took up arms against Saddam.

No convincing evidence of an association between Saddam and al Qaida has ever been established.

3. Saddam was a tyrant.

This, at least, is true and beyond dispute. However, that does not justify war by itself. Saddam was no immediate threat. He may have been a threat, but he waqs a contained threat. He could not have gone to war and won against his weakest neighbor last spring.

In time, the Iraqi people would have dealt with Saddam or, should he have passed away first, his successors from the Baath Party. All Mr. Bush has accomplished is to remove a gang of murderers and replace them with a gang of thieves. The only liberation that has taken place is the liberation of the Iraqi people from their mineral rights.

It is ludicrous to believe that Bush has any intention to bring democracy to Iraq. After all, he has undermined it in America by stealing an election he lost and shredding the Bill of Rights through the Patriot Act. Furthermore, the "free market" economy which Bush would impose on Iraq iks not well disposed to democracy. It assumes that while voters at large will choose leaders, they will be chosen from among candidates selected by social elites and will make laws for the benefit of the social elites. Moreover, if this "free market" capitalism works in Iraq as it has elsewhere, Iraq will be saddled with debt owed to foreign (i.e., US) banks and will finance the debt by selling its assets and natural resources to foreign (i.e., US) multinational corporations. Public services will be privatized, poverty will become more severe than it already is and wages will be low and stagnant. Rich Americans will become richer, poor Iraqis will become poorer.

The war was without justication. The Iraqi people have every right to resist occupation and should. There is no good outcome for them under Mr. Bush's arrangement. Life under American colonial occupation will be little better than life under Saddam. The blood spilled does not justifify this result.

Frankly, I hope Mr. Bush is laughed out of the hall tomorrow morning. And that, I think, would be charitable treatment to give to a war criminal such as Bush.

[Zhade]

143. Good work, but I think you're wasting your time on this guy.

NT!

[Name removed]

144. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jack Rabbit]

145. Incorrect

It's on Saddam to prove he disposed of WMD and he did not do this. Read the UN Resolution.

It is up to the accuser to prove his case. No one can prove a negative; it's logically impossible. Saddam could no more prove he had no weapons of mass destruction than Bush could prove he hasn't had a drink in the last sixteen years.

To put the burden of proof on Saddam, the accused, is intellectually dishonest.

(T)here's a pretty good chance he had something in his arsenal. It's not hard to hide.

You have produced nothing but conjecture to support your contention that Saddam possessed banned weapons or had assoiciations with al Qaida. Wars should not prosectuted over a bunch of maybes.

Whether you have offered any sufficient proof is really not important. What is important is that Bush offered none.

What's stopping him from giving anthrax or some agent to someone and having them poison a water supply of an american city? This could kill millions.

That's not only conjuecture, it's baseless conjecture. No one who takes your position has ever answered with any satisfaction the question that if Saddam possessed banned weapons, why didn't he use them when they were his only hope of survival.

I'm glad we're in accord on the fact that Iraq is better without Saddam. But I believe that democracy can be achieved. We'll just have to wait and see here.

Democracy may be possible in Iraq, but only after the Bushies are thrown out.

Bush did not steal the election either, he won it, even if Gore won the popular vote. Sorry. Every recount will back this up.

That is not true. If the entire state of Florida had been recounted, Gore won by a razor-thin margin. Furthermore, no recount takes into account the 90,000 voters illegally scrubbed from the rolls by Katherine Harris. Had that not happened, Gore would have carried Florida by a margin that would have precluded a recount.

Of course, while Bush's distain for free elections says something about his commitment to democracy, it is a red herring in terms of whether he lied to gain support for an otherwise unjustified invasion of Iraq. That he lied is a fact as firmly established as the one that holds that the Nazis invaded Poland in 1939.

"The Iraqi people have every right to resist occupation and should."
Does this mean you sympathize with those who strap bombs to themselves and blow people up? Just curious.

That is a method I find repugnatn, but the Iraqi people have the right to use any means necessary.

On Edit:

Concerning your name change, it's noted. Good night.

[Zhade]

147. HA! I was right! He IS a Freeper!

NO anti-Bush person, regardless of political stripe, would state that the Traitor won in 2000.

What a waste of time. Fucking Freepers.

[caledesi]

105. Hey idiot! If u made the right decision, then why are u going to the UN

to ask for help? Totally boggles the mind.

[cpv2004]

109. UN

I didn't make the decision. I only support it. He is going to the UN for support because he mistakenly underestimated the difficulty of the task of rebuilding the nation. I'm not sure why anyone thinks it could be done in 8 months, but that's neither here nor there. The UN still serves a useful role in helping rebuild nations and providing aid, but any organization that allows Libya to chair a human rights commission does not deserve to be the world's police power, and I am glad we do not yield our sovereignty as a nation to the decisions of its members.

And by the way, resorting to name calling in a discussion only makes one of us look like an idiot.

[BelgianMadCow]

115. erm... always check who is replying to who :-)

the poster you are accusing of namecalling you is replying to the original post, not yours; he is "speaking" to Bush. The lines at the side of the thread indicate who is replying to who. This may be helpful to avoid making a fool of yourself.

[Zhade]

120. Anyone who allows the US to chair a human rights commission is insane.

You need to wake up, fast. Because you are being lied to by this administration - just as our government has lied to us for decades.

You can laugh it off, but it's your job, security, freedom, and life you're ignoring. The rest of us are way too busy to waste time on those unwilling to see the truth.

[caledesi]

123. My post was directed at Bush*, not you, cpv. Bush* is the idiot!

[cpv2004]

124. Then I do feel like an idiot (eom)

[davidinalameda]

106. glad the American people aren't the only ones he lies to

he's going global with them!

[i have issues]

108. When,Tuesday, does 'it' try to speak...?

And where can I watch it ? Cspan? or all networks? West coast time...

[BelgianMadCow]

111. tuesday, 14 h GMT on CNN

is what I just saw announced.


yes I only have CNN here in belgium...so dunno about other networks

[joanski01]

118. General Assembly starts at 10:00 a.m.

on C-Span. The chimp* to come on at 10:30 a.m. Eastern time on C-Span.



WAR WITH IRAQ
Pres. Bush Addresses United Nations
In New York, Pres. Bush addresses the United Nations General Assembly on the topic of Iraq, terrorism & other world matters. 10:30 a.m.

[Avatar13]

138. At which point the GA bursts into laughter

and Bush is voted off the island. Bush can outlie, outspin, and outshoot his opponents, but he can't outsmart them.

I predict that Bush will make the US look more foolish than when Jesse Helms gave his New World Order, black helicopter speech/rant to the General Assembly couple of years ago. It's a pretty high hurdle to clear for Bush, but I think he can pull it off.

[Demobrat]

140. What possible good end can come of this?

We know what he'll say. He'll give the same old justifications for the war, say he made the right decision, tell them it's their duty to "do the right thing" and bail him out, and give up nothing. What then? We're where we are now and our troops continue to suck it up for Halliburton.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

146. Bush is an idiot

that's all I've got to say.--nothing deep--he's an idiot and all the freepers know that too.

[Dead_Parrot]

148. Words of wisdom...

"But secondly, I do think it would be helpful to get the United Nations in to help write a constitution. I mean, they're good at that."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3130880.stm

Even the AL Freepers come up with more convincing arguments. :dunce:

[regnaD kciN]

149. Vatican to declare they made 'right decision' in condemning Galileo...

Hitler, speaking through medium, says he made 'right decision' to invade U.S.S.R.

In newly-found tablets, survivors of Troy say they made 'right decision' to accept giant wooden horse.

[Wednesdays]

157. Also,

The White Star Line says they made the "right decision" to allow only twenty lifeboats on the Titanic.

[IndianaGreen]

152. Bush speech to the UN reminds me of Arafat's 1974 UN speech

Arafat was welcomed in the UN as a head of state, and gave a speech demanding a Palestinian state. Arafat was packing a gun when he gave a speech. His speech was that of a bully. A gangster demanding protection money from the international community.

I remember the speech well! I remember the part of the speech in which Arafat pointed a finger at the delegates and said that most of those sitting in the General Assembly were at one time terrorists. No one flinched! The Israeli ambassador was not present, I think he was puking in the men's room out of disgust.

Bush will do the same thing that Arafat did. Bush won't show up carrying an M-16, but the UN audience will be well aware of the military might that Bush is so willing to use against his enemies, real or imagined.

The irony of having the world's number one terrorist demand support from the UN on his turf war against other terrorists!

[MetaTrope]

156. What a financial opportunity

For any entrepreneur setting up shop to sell tomatoes at the door to delegates of the General Assembly...

[DemonFighterLives]

161. Same old song and dance

Why should the UN kow-tow to this heathen? He has done more to destroy the UN than anyone. Still, I bet he gets his way, because there is clearly a mess to be dealt with. W just doesn't fit in with world leaders. Like a bad zit that needs popping.

[dArKeR]

162. Bush Faces Tough Crowd At U.N. - CBS

As he addresses the U.N. General Assembly, President Bush faces growing skepticism over U.S. plans to rebuild Iraq and lingering doubts over the case for going to war

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/home/main100.shtml