I guess history will be the final judge as to whether GW made a huge mistake in going into Iraq. But in the present, I can't see any good that has come out of the invastion. Saddam was no more of a threat to us than is any other middle east country. We had inspectors on the ground and they were doing their jobs very well. The proof of that is that there were no weapons of mass destruction found. This whole event was a big disaster. After 9/11 we had the support of most of the world but GW blew it. It really doesnt matter now if we stay or go it is a mess. If we leave they will either continue to kill each other and it will be a blood bath that is on our (GW's) head, or they will come together and elect a government that is hostle to the USA. We have made no friends in this endevor only enimies. We will be paying for this for many years. How is killing so many inocent people to get rid of one man right? If he really posed a direct and immediate threat to the US, I would have been on board but he did not and they new he didnt. They cherry picked intellegence to say what the wanted. Someone should be held accountable. There are several people close to the White House now coming out and saying that this war was not necessary. We have lost respect in the world and I hope with the next President whoever it may be will start building our diplomacy back and win over other countries respect.
Tug McGroin
Senior
We had inspectors on the ground and they were doing their jobs very well.
Really? Where do you get your facts? UN weapons inspectors were forced out of Iraq in 1998 after 45 failed resolutions.
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9811/05/un.iraq.02
They cherry picked intellegence to say what the wanted. Someone should be held accountable. There are several people close to the White House now coming out and saying that this war was not necessary.
Check the references listed below and tell me what intellegence was "cherry picked". Are "several people close to the White House now coming out and saying that this war was not necessary" listed below?
"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.
If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/...s/clinton.iraq/
America is threatened by an "unholy axis":
"We must exercise responsibility not just at home, but around the world. On the eve of a new century, we have the power and the duty to build a new era of peace and security.
We must combat an unholy axis of new threats from terrorists, international criminals, and drug traffickers. These 21st century predators feed on technology and the free flow of information... And they will be all the more lethal if weapons of mass destruction fall into their hands.
Together, we must confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons and the outlaw states, terrorists, and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
President Clinton
State of the Union address
January 27, 1998
http://clinton5.nara.gov/textonly/WH/SOTU98/address.html
"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.
The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people."
President Clinton
Oval Office Address to the American People
December 16, 1998
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/199...ts/clinton.html
"Iraq is a long way from Ohio, 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."
Madeleine Albright, President Clinton's Secretary of State
Town Hall Meeting on Iraq at Ohio State University
February 18, 1998
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/02/20/98022006_tpo.html
"Imagine the consequences if Saddam fails to comply and we fail to act. Saddam will be emboldened, believing the international community has lost its will. He will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. And some day, some way, I am certain, he will use that arsenal again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, President Clinton's National Security Advisor
Town Hall Meeting on Iraq at Ohio State University
February 18, 1998
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/02/20/98022006_tpo.html
"No one has done what Saddam Hussein has done, or is thinking of doing. He is producing weapons of mass destruction, and he is qualitatively and quantitatively different from other dictators."
Madeleine Albright, President Clinton's Secretary of State
Town Hall Meeting on Iraq at Ohio State University
February 18, 1998
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/18/town.meeting.folo/
Regime change in Iraq has been official US policy since 1998. The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, signed into law by President Clinton, states:
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
105th Congress, 2nd Session
September 29, 1998
http://globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news.../980929-in2.htm
Associated Press
February 13, 1999
Bin Laden reportedly leaves Afghanistan, whereabouts unknown
Osama bin Laden, the Saudi millionaire accused by the United States of plotting bomb attacks on two U.S. embassies in Africa, has left Afghanistan, Afghan sources said Saturday.
Taliban authorities in the militia's southern stronghold of Kandahar refused to either confirm or deny reports that bin Laden had left the country.
Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers.
Despite repeated demands from Washington, the Taliban refused to hand over bin Laden after the August 7 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, demanding proof of his involvement in terrorist activities.
The Taliban did promise that bin Laden would not use Afghanistan as a staging arena for terrorist activities.
http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9902/13/afghan.binladen/
Newsweek
January 11, 1999
Saddam + Bin Laden? America's two enemies are courting.
By Christopher Dickey, Gregory Vistica, and Russell Watson
In the no-fly zones of northern and southern Iraq, Saddam Hussein's gunners blindly fired surface-to-air missiles at patrolling American and British warplanes. In Yemen, terrorists seized a group of British Commonwealth and American tourists, and four of the hostages died in a shootout. In Tel Aviv, the US Embassy abruptly closed down after receiving a terrorist threat. Perhaps it was just a typical week in the Middle East. But in a region where no one puts much faith in blind coincidence, last week's conjunction of Iraqi antiaircraft fire and terrorism aimed at the countries that had just bombed Iraq convinced some that a new conspiracy was afoot.
Here's what is known so far: Saddam Hussein, who has a long record of supporting terrorism, is trying to rebuild his intelligence network overseas -- assets that would allow him to establish a terrorism network. US sources say he is reaching out to Islamic terrorists, including some who may be linked to Osama bin Laden, the wealthy Saudi exile accused of masterminding the bombing of two US embassies in Africa last summer. US intelligence has had reports of contacts between low-level agents. Saddam and bin Laden have interests -- and enemies -- in common. Both men want US military forces out of Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden has been calling for all-out war on Americans, using as his main pretext Washington's role in bombing and boycotting Iraq. Now bin Laden is engaged in something of a public-relations offensive, having granted recent interviews, one for NEWSWEEK. He says "any American who pays taxes to his government" is a legitimate target.
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#tH6sEmCinI
The Washington Post
January 23, 1999; Page A02
Official Cites Gains Against Bin Laden
By Vernon Loeb
Richard A. Clarke, the Clinton administration's senior counterterrorism official, provided new information in defense of President Clinton's decision to fire Tomahawk cruise missiles at the El Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan, in retaliation for Osama bin Laden's role in the Aug. 7 embassy bombings.
While U.S. intelligence officials disclosed shortly after the missile attack that they had obtained a soil sample from the El Shifa site that contained a precursor of VX nerve gas, Clarke said that the U.S. government is "sure" that Iraqi nerve gas experts actually produced a powdered VX-like substance at the plant that, when mixed with bleach and water, would have become fully active VX nerve gas.
Clarke said U.S. intelligence does not know how much of the substance was produced at El Shifa or what happened to it. But he said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to El Shifa's current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts, and the National Islamic Front in Sudan.
Given the evidence presented to the White House before the airstrike, Clarke said, the president "would have been derelict in his duties if he didn't blow up the facility."
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost...ABS&FMTS=FT
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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."
Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
Statement on US Led Military Strike Against Iraq
December 16, 1998
http://www.house.gov/pelosi/priraq1.htm
"Dear Mr. President: ... We 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 Iraq sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Sincerely,
John Kerry, Carl Levin, Joe Lieberman, Frank R. Lautenberg, Dick Lugar, Kit Bond, Jon Kyl, Chris Dodd, John McCain, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Alfonse D'Amato, Bob Kerrey, Pete V. Domenici, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Mikulski, Thomas Daschle, John Breaux, Tim Johnson, Daniel K. Inouye, Arlen Specter, James Inhofe, Strom Thurmond, Mary L. Landrieu, Wendell Ford, Chuck Grassley, Jesse Helms, Rick Santorum.
Letter to President Clinton
Signed by Senators Tom Daschle, John Kerry and others
October 9, 1998
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Let...in-10-9-98.html
"His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region, and the security of all the rest of us.
What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made?
Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.
And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."
President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/...s/clinton.iraq/
"Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them."
President Clinton
National Address from the Oval Office
December 16, 1998
http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/html/19981216-3611.html
Most of those statements are truncated. No context is provided for any. Almost all were made by speakers who were opposed to unilateral military intervention in Iraq by the United States.
For more details, please refer to Snopes.com.
For more details, please refer to Snopes.com.
The quotes presented were not sound bites, they were entire paragraphs taken from speeches... you've got a losing argument to say that just because they are truncated, they are not valid. In this case, the burden of proof that the statements are misleading is on you. Go ahead, give it a shot....
"Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them."
Point being, the Bush administration is certainly responsible for the decisions they made. But they reached their conclusions based on the same evidence that was believed by many high-powered democrat officials before them. I understand that, for many faithful democrats who just love to play the blame game, it's a hard pill to swallow.
KCFlyer
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 11,577
- Reaction score
- 1,455
Here's the blame I give Bush - he should have waited until his mission of finding and destroying al qeada was complete before taking on Saddam. All of those citiations are that Saddam "might" possess weapons that he "could" use. Meanwhile, bin laden had his guys use jetliners as a weapon and attack us with those. Despite what Saddam "might" have done, we seem to have forgotten what bin laded DID do - how else can anyone explain basically ending the hunt for him and refocusing on Saddam, who despite what he "might" do, did NOT do anything to us.
LGA Fleet Service
Veteran
Bush stopped looking for him at the request of the House of Saud.
Unofficially of course, but nonetheless, that's where the request came from.
Unofficially of course, but nonetheless, that's where the request came from.
LGA Fleet Service
Veteran
Interesting read.
HNN Poll
Mr. Bush inherited a sizable budget surplus and a thriving economy. By pushing through huge tax cuts for the rich while increasing federal spending at a rapid rate, Bush transformed the surplus into a massive deficit. The tax cuts and other policies accelerated the concentration of wealth and income among the very richest Americans. These policies combined with unwavering opposition to necessary government regulations have produced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Then there is the incredible shrinking dollar, the appointment of incompetent cronies, the totally inexcusable failure to react properly to the disaster of Hurricane Katrina, the blatant disregard for the Constitution—and on and on.
HNN Poll
Mr. Bush inherited a sizable budget surplus and a thriving economy. By pushing through huge tax cuts for the rich while increasing federal spending at a rapid rate, Bush transformed the surplus into a massive deficit. The tax cuts and other policies accelerated the concentration of wealth and income among the very richest Americans. These policies combined with unwavering opposition to necessary government regulations have produced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Then there is the incredible shrinking dollar, the appointment of incompetent cronies, the totally inexcusable failure to react properly to the disaster of Hurricane Katrina, the blatant disregard for the Constitution—and on and on.
Did you read the Snopes page that I linked above? No? I did not think so.
The quotes which were posted by our resident Republican blogger are from an earlier point of time in history, leading to the adoption of the United Nations Security Council resolution creating the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspections Commission (UNMOVIC) which replaced the former weapons inspection team (UNSCOM).
The President, Secretary of State Albright and Congress demanded that Saddam to allow weapons inspectors into Iraq. They encouraged and supported Iraqi dissidents in their efforts to overthrow Saddam Hussein. They were not calling for a full scale war without adequate justification.
Besides, I find the following quote by Secretary of State Colin Powell on February 24, 2001, after he met with the Egyptian President and Foreign Minister, a lot more relevant to the urgency of the invasion of Iraq than what was said two and three years earlier.
Why would I need to visit Snopes when each quote was cited and linked to a reputable news source? Doesn't seem to make sense to me.
Even still, in the years leading up to Desert Storm, and then Iraqi Freedom, there was always debate on both sides about whether we should move against Saddam. One thing is for certain, he was frequently non-compliant with UN weapons inspectors. I remember at one point where about once a month I would read about Saddam throwing inspectors out of another one of his palaces, or allowing them access only to certain rooms, etc. At the time, his behavior surely suggested that he had something to hide.
In hindsight, I do agree with KC. But there are enough Monday morning quarterbacks. It's easy to point the finger now, even trendy. Those who TRULY opposed an invasion of Iraq in 2003 and before will be able to take reward in a democrat replacing Bush in the White House next January. Bush and his boys will take the hit because they pulled the trigger. Perhaps not at the right time, and in hindsight, the wrong decision entirely.
Even still, in the years leading up to Desert Storm, and then Iraqi Freedom, there was always debate on both sides about whether we should move against Saddam. One thing is for certain, he was frequently non-compliant with UN weapons inspectors. I remember at one point where about once a month I would read about Saddam throwing inspectors out of another one of his palaces, or allowing them access only to certain rooms, etc. At the time, his behavior surely suggested that he had something to hide.
In hindsight, I do agree with KC. But there are enough Monday morning quarterbacks. It's easy to point the finger now, even trendy. Those who TRULY opposed an invasion of Iraq in 2003 and before will be able to take reward in a democrat replacing Bush in the White House next January. Bush and his boys will take the hit because they pulled the trigger. Perhaps not at the right time, and in hindsight, the wrong decision entirely.
All I know is that as normal citizens listening to what the White House was trying to sell to the American people, the majority were not bying it. Thier evidence and spin of that evidence was sketchy at best. Most people supported the Presidents decision to go into Afganistan where bin laden and his men were known to be. The war that needs to be fought is on of intellegence (human intellegence) with special forces. We have no buisness waging Nation building wars against a country that had absolutely nothing to the attacks of 9/11. The only thing that has been accomplished in the Iraq war is that thousands of innnocent people were killed, and possible millions of new enemies in the form of suicide bombers who have the patience to wait until they can find one of our weaknesses that they will then exploit. You may call me a liberal tree hugger but we will not win this war of Ideology with just our weapons. It will take diplomacy as well as a position of strength. Just my opinion.
KCFlyer
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 11,577
- Reaction score
- 1,455
Well...I'm gonna pat myself on the back a little here. I didn't vote for Bush in 2000 because I had "gut feeling" that he would try to finish his dad's job in Iraq. That was in 2000. In 2003, I was dead against an attack on Iraq.
To put these quotes in their proper context; but then why would you want to do that? That would only serve to shatter your jaundiced delusions. 🙄
Tug McGroin
Senior
The truth hurts huh Ms. Pelosi?
