Democrats & Liberals Archives

Unhappy Anniversary

It’s hard to believe the United States has been married to the Iraq war for five years. I’m still trying to figure out how we would start dating this unattractive, skank. Maybe she was a good dancer?
Well whatever happened, whether it be booze or just bad judgement, we’re stuck with her for now.

Five years ago we were told that the invasion of Iraq was vital for the United States to survive. We were told that we were entering the “War on Terror.” We were told that in order for the United States to avoid the “mushroom cloud” that awaited us all, we must engage in a preemptive war against Iraq.

Saudis attacked us on 9/11. Osama Bin Laden was the mastermind of that attack. We entered Afghanistan with the support of the world. We had carte blanche to hunt this evil man and demonstrate our resolve to seek justice for those killed on 9/11.
The Bush administration had the support of the American people and the world. He chose to throw that away in favor of no-bid contracts for friends and associates that have filled the pockets of his already wealthy buddies at Halliburton KBR, IAP World Wide Services etc.
We could have trapped Bin Laden in Tora Bora in 2001. This administration knew that if they did capture him the people of the United States and the rest of the world would not have allowed him to make the bungling mistake that is the invasion of Iraq. We would have completed the mission (the real one, not the one we “accomplished” in Iraq)


The Bush administration has accomplished so much in the years that follow 2002. We have 2,300 Americans killed. We have 24,042 wounded. 20% are serious brain and spinal injuries.
We have anywhere between 40 and 100 thousand Iraqi deaths. We’ve thrown away hundreds of billions of dollars. We’ve adopted such useful tactics as torture, extraordinary rendition, wiretapping and data mining of our own citizens. We’ve watched our executive branch merge with the judicial to form a corrupt and powerful office that has neutered Congress and the Senate. We now have record trade imbalance and crushing debt owed to China. We’re the catalyst for a civil war raging in Iraq. We’ve watched the Middle East become increasingly unstable. We’ve uncovered privatized veterans health that is failing the wounded troops this administration claims to support. We’ve discovered the red tape and run around our soldier’s families have to go through to get veterans benefits, psychiatric care for soldiers and body armor for the field. We’ve watched as the Bush administration has decimated our military and reserves. We’ve seen this administration reward war profiteers who shamelessly steal from the taxpayers. $9 billion missing so far to be exact and $549.7 million in missing parts and materials. $10 billion mismanaged and wasted and $1.4 billion in Halliburton overcharges.

"Mission Accomplished?"

So, to celebrate the anniversary of the largest foreign policy blunder ever, I’d like to list the original “cut and runners” who voted against this stupendous screw-up even before it became one.

Senate:

* Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii)
* Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico)
* Barbara Boxer (D-California)
* Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia)
* Lincoln Chaffee (R-Rhode Island)
* Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota)
* Jon Corzine (D-New Jersey)
* Mark Dayton (D-Minnesota)
* Dick Durbin (D-Illinois)
* Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin)
* Bob Graham (D-Florida)
* Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii)
* Jim Jeffords (I-Vermont)
* Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts)
* Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont)
* Carl Levin (D-Michigan)
* Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland)
* Patty Murray (D-Washington)
* Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island)
* Paul Sarbanes (D-Maryland)
* Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan)
* The late Paul Wellstone (D-Minnesota)
* Ron Wyden (D-Oregon)

House of Representatives:

Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) Tom Allen (D-Maine) Joe Baca (D-California) Brian Baird (D-Washington) John Baldacci (D-Maine, now governor of Maine) Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin) Gresham Barrett (R-South Carolina) Xavier Becerra (D-California) Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon) David Bonior (D-Michigan, retired from office) Robert Brady (D-Pennsylvania) Corinne Brown (D-Florida) Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)

Lois Capps (D-California) Michael Capuano (D-Massachusetts) Benjamin Cardin (D-Maryland) Julia Carson (D-Indiana) William Clay, Jr. (D-Missouri) Eva Clayton (D-North Carolina, retired from office) James Clyburn (D-South Carolina) Gary Condit (D-California, retired from office) John Conyers, Jr. (D-Michigan) Jerry Costello (D-Illinois) William Coyne (D-Pennsylvania, retired from office) Elijah Cummings (D-Maryland)

Susan Davis (D-California) Danny Davis (D-Illinois) Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon) Diana DeGette (D-Colorado) Bill Delahunt (D-Massachusetts) Rosa DeLauro (D-Connecticut) John Dingell (D-Michigan) Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) Mike Doyle (D-Pennsylvania) John Duncan, Jr. (R-Tennessee)

Anna Eshoo (D-California) Lane Evans (D-Illinois) Sam Farr (D-California) Chaka Fattah (D-Pennsylvania) Bob Filner (D-California) Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts) Charles Gonzalez (D-Texas) Luis Gutierrez (D-Illinois)
Alice Hastings (D-Florida) Earl Hilliard (D-Alabama, retired from office) Maurice Hinchey (D-New York) Ruben Hinojosa (D-Texas) Rush Holt (D-New Jersey) Mike Honda (D-California) Darlene Hooley (D-Oregon) John Hostettler (R-Indiana) Amo Houghton (R-New York, retired from office) Jay Inslee (D-Washington)

Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-Illinois) Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas) Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas) Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-Ohio) Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) Dale Kildee (D-Michigan) Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick (D-Michigan) Jerry Kleczka (D-Wisconsin, retired from office) Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio)

John LaFalce (D-New York) James Langevin (D-Rhode Island) Rick Larsen (D-Washington) John Larson (D-Connecticut) Jim Leach (R-Iowa) Barbara Lee (D-California) Sandy Levin (D-Michigan) John Lewis (D-Georgia) Bill Lipinski (D-Illinois,retired from office) Zoe Lofgren (D-California)

James Maloney (D-Connecticut, retired from office) The late Robert Matsui (D-California) Karen McCarthy (D-Missouri, retired from office) Betty McCollum (D-Minnesota) Jim McDermott-D-Washington) Jim McGovern (D-Massachusetts) Cynthia McKinney (D-Georgia) Carrie Meek (D-Florida, retired from office) Gregory Meeks (D-New York) Robert Menendez (D-New Jersey) Juanita Millender-McDonald (D-California) George Miller (D-California) Alan Mollohan (D-West Virginia) Jim Moran (D-Virginia) Connie Morella (D-Maryland)

Jerrold Nadler (D-New York) Grace Napolitano (D-California) Richard Neal (D-Massachusetts) Jim Oberstar (D-Minnesota) David Obey (D-Wisconsin) John Olver (D-Massachusetts) Major Owens (D-New York)

Ed Pastor (D-Arizona) Ron Paul (R-Texas) Donald Payne (D-New Jersey) Nancy Pelosi (D-California) David Price (D-North Carolina) Nick Rahall (D-West Virginia) Charles Rangel (D-New York) Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas) Lynn Rivers (D-Michigan, retired from office) Ciro Rodriguez (D-Texas, retired from office) Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-California) Bobby Rush (D-Illinois)

Martin Olav Sabo (D-Minnesota) Loretta Sanchez (D-California) Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) Thomas Sawyer (D-Ohio) Jan Schakowsky (D-Illinois) Bobby Scott (D-Virginia) Jose Serrano (D-New York) Louise Slaughter (D-New York) Vic Snyder (D-Arkansas) Hilda Solis (D-California) Pete Stark (D-California) Ted Strickland (D-Ohio) Burt Stupak (Michigan)

Mike Thompson (D-California) Bennie Thompson (D-Mississippi) John Tierney (D-Massachusetts) Edolphus Towns (D-New York) Mark Udall (D-Colorado) Tom Udall (D-New Mexico)

Nydia Velaquez (D-New York) Pete Visclosky (D-Indiana) Maxine Waters (D-California) Diane Watson (D-California) Melvin Watt (D-North Carolina) Lynn Woolsey (D-California) David Wu (D-Oregon)

Unhappy anniversary.

Posted by Andre M. Hernandez at March 19, 2007 2:01 PM
Comments
Comment #212707

Two small points.

1) 5 years? I thought we invaded 4 years ago.

2) Osama Bin Laden was NOT the mastermind of the attack, he was the head of the organization that carried it out. KSM was the mastermind, last I heard he had been captured a while ago…

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 19, 2007 2:32 PM
Comment #212708

“It’s hard to believe the United States has been married to the Iraq war for five years.”

Ummm…Andre. It’s the 4th anniversary. Sorry.

Posted by: Jim T at March 19, 2007 2:32 PM
Comment #212709

JimT and Rhinehold,

I’m also counting the dating/courtship period (run up)
Mushroom cloud, smoking gun, WMD, Uranium from Niger.
We’ll call this the trying to get to first base phase.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at March 19, 2007 2:38 PM
Comment #212710

Bush is calling for patience? You ask for patience on a business/personal call. You don’t put someone on hold in an emergency call! How many more years does he need to slaughter our own men and women?!

Posted by: tylerdurden at March 19, 2007 2:42 PM
Comment #212712

Thanks for the list:

155 voted AGAINST it (23 Senators + 132 Representatives)
380 voted FOR it.
_________________________
535 Congerss persons

And in the last election (7-Nov-2007), voters re-elected over 90% of them.

Congress and government won’t become responsible until the voters do too.

And that ain’t gonna ever happen as long as voters keep rewarding irresponsible incubment politicians by repeatedly re-electing them.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 19, 2007 3:11 PM
Comment #212713

CORRECTION: And in the last election (7-Nov-2006), voters re-elected over 90% of them.

So, what else has Congress accomplished since 7-Nov-2006 ?

Posted by: d.a.n at March 19, 2007 3:14 PM
Comment #212717

Andre,

“Five years ago we were told that the invasion of Iraq was vital for the United States to survive. We were told that we were entering the “War on Terror.”“


First off, it’s been four years ago. And, as I’ve said before, regarding the middle east, take your pick! We could’ve went to anyone of those countries in the middle east and made a case for invading it; and it would’ve been just as chaotic as Iraq. Afghanistan is still having problems as the MSM can’t wait to tell us about the 75% of drug fields the farmers are (still) using. And, how the taliban is (still) mounting an insurgency as of today. There would have been suicide bombers in Iran, pakistan and Suadi Arabia. Iraq is the right decision and it will be vindicated when we eventually will have to launch attacks against Iran; Iraq will prove to be a vital, strategic staging ground.


There’s just no winning with the left; they’re always going to blame the right, mostly with hindsight and exaggerated claims.

Posted by: rahdigly at March 19, 2007 3:20 PM
Comment #212719

rahdigly,

Once again it was 5 years ago that the Bush administration started selling the war.
That’s when Bush and co. began the run up. The dating phase of the marriage.
Read the post.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at March 19, 2007 3:31 PM
Comment #212720
they’re always going to blame the right, mostly with hindsight and exaggerated claims.
Maybe because all but 8 Republicans voted FOR it.

Still, there were a lot of Democrats that voted for it too (about 160 or so?).

Does anyone have that list of 380 that voted for it?

Posted by: d.a.n at March 19, 2007 3:32 PM
Comment #212721

Rhinehold,

Great. First the Administration denied they ever said there was a link between Hussein and 9/11. Now you are trying to unlink OBL from 9/11. Next thing I know, someone is going to tell me there is no country called Iraq…

Posted by: Woody Mena at March 19, 2007 3:46 PM
Comment #212724

“unattractive skank” lol… Didn’t the dating start with the 2000 cycle primaries? This trail of destruction seemed inevitable in hindsight. Perhaps we can go back in time and fix it?

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at March 19, 2007 3:59 PM
Comment #212725
Great. First the Administration denied they ever said there was a link between Hussein and 9/11. Now you are trying to unlink OBL from 9/11. Next thing I know, someone is going to tell me there is no country called Iraq…

Woody…

1) The administration never said Iraq was involved in 9/11. Please provide the link that says that they did.

2) I am not trying to unlink OBL from 9/11. The post specifically said that the ‘mastermind’ of 9/11 was OBL but it wasn’t. He was the leader of the group and approved the attack, as well as helped make sure it was funded, but KSM has always been considered the ‘mastermind’.

3) There really isn’t a country called Iraq, it is more legitimately 3 separate countries that were cobbled together by western influence decades ago. If the west would get out of interfering with how their country is or isn’t established then perhaps we would see three separate countries and not as much violence in the long run?

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 19, 2007 4:05 PM
Comment #212726
The administration never said Iraq was involved in 9/11.

There was a judge though…

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 19, 2007 4:16 PM
Comment #212727

Rhinehold,

On 2), you are really playing semantic games. The fact is, after 9/11 it was Bin Laden who was “Wanted: Dead or Alive”. The administration used every means they could to tell people that a man named Osama Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. If they were wrong, you need to complain to them.

On 1), I am happy to oblige your request.

In September 2003, Cheney said Iraq under Saddam had been “the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.”

Link: http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/12/kerry.powell.iraq/


Also it is well documented that Bush loves to talk about 9/11 and Iraq in the same breath whenever chance he gets. If you need a source for that you really haven’t been paying attention.

Posted by: Woody Mena at March 19, 2007 4:20 PM
Comment #212731

Woody, read the entire link and saw nothing that shows the administration was linking Iraq to 9/11. Could you show me the quote? Thanks.

As for Al Qaeda and Iraq, well, that’s an entirely different ball of whacks that we could debate, though I don’t think there would be much debate because we do know that there were numberous exchanges and meetings between the two, including their mutal participation the Shifa Pharmaceutical facility (read: chemical weapons plant) many years ago…

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 19, 2007 4:37 PM
Comment #212732

“the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.”

BTW, this does not say that Iraq was involved in 9/11, but that the terrorists that were involved in 9/11 received aid and comfort from the Hussein administration…

You do understand the difference, right?

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 19, 2007 4:40 PM
Comment #212734
on September 17, six days later, Mr. Bush affirmed, “I believe Iraq was involved, but I’m not going to strike them now,” as Bob Woodward’s “Bush at War” discloses.”
Poll Says Most Americans Believe Saddam-9/11 Link Has Been Proven

Why would they believe that it the administration hadn’t done all they could to imply it? Perhaps you don’t understand the intent of the implication that they wanted folks to believe this, right?

Cheney, however, insisted the case was not closed into whether there was an Iraq connection to the Sept. 11 attacks. “We don’t know.”

“I don’t know what they know,” Cheney said of the commission, adding however that he “probably” knows more about Saddam and al-Qaida than the panel.

Cheney still can’t bring himself to completely admit it.

Posted by: womanmarine at March 19, 2007 5:01 PM
Comment #212736

Why? Perhaps most people did not think that highly of the Saddam administration, knew that he was up to his neck in supporting and directing international terrorism, was told by Clinton that he was working with Al Qaeda when he bombed the Sudan chemical weapons plant and it is a logical conclusion to make. We don’t have the evidence to say that they were involved, but that doesn’t mean that people aren’t smart enough to admit it was likely or plausable.

6 days after 9/11, I have no problem with the president thinking that Iraq was involved, considering the previous years and their suspected involvement with the original WTC attack.

You seem to infer that people are incapable of coming to their own conclusions based of what they read and see and instead just follow along with whatever this administration says. That’s saying pretty little of the American individual, if you ask me.

I agree with Cheney though, the case is not CLOSED on if they were involved or not. There is a good bit of circumstantial evidence that I can’t just ignore and yet I would not say that the link was ‘proven’.

Of course, having a judge rule against Iraq for 9/11 does help the case a bit, much more than the ‘mind-controlling insuations’ that you say the administration used to tell people that the link had been proven when they never said any such thing…

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 19, 2007 5:13 PM
Comment #212738

Rhinehold:

You can be as obtuse as you want. It was implied over and over again by the administration intentionally; there are not that many stupid people in America in spite of what you are implying. Some VERY smart people thought the same thing, that in fact Bush was saying this.

And if it’s only the connection to Al Queda that prompted the invasion, then there are a shitload of countries to invade. We better get a draft, and fast.

Posted by: womanmarine at March 19, 2007 5:28 PM
Comment #212745

Womanmarine,

Now who’s being obtuse? ‘a connection to Al Qaeda’ was not what prompted the invasion, it was Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait and subsequent behaviors for a period of 12 years that INCLUDED support of international terrorism that included Al Qaeda that prompted the invasion.

The implication, rightfully so, was that Iraq was supporting and driving international terrorism, like and including Al Qaeda, and with us not knowing if they had destroyed all of their WMD and/or created more, the potential for them to slip those weapons to some terrorist group was too much of a possibility to allow them to continue being a meanace to their own people as they were. The sanctions had not worked to change their ways, only given the administration a means to divert international aid to their own devices while systematically starve, rape, torture and kill their own citizens as they saw fit.

Sorry, but the rewriting of the pre-invasion Iraq to be a simple country minding it’s own business will not wash as long as I breath in my lungs… so to speak.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 19, 2007 5:43 PM
Comment #212752

Rhinehold,

No, Bush never said “Iraq was responsible for 9/11” outright. That would have been a bold-faced lie. Instead, he suggested it over and over again, as if there was a connection, but he couldn’t say it straight out for security or other reasons. Here are some quotes where he suggested this.

Here’s some quotes

Now, you say that

“The implication, rightfully so, was that Iraq was supporting and driving international terrorism, like and including Al Qaeda”

Could you please provide us with a link to evidence that Iraq was supporting Al Qaeda? Could you please name the other terrorist organizations Iraq was supporting, and provide a link to evidence?

The sanctions had not worked to change their ways

The objective of the sanctions was to radically limit Iraq’s ability to create and store WMDs. It has actually been proven during the course of this war many, many times, that the sanctions did do this. If you disagree, could you provide a link to evidence?

the potential for them to slip those weapons to some terrorist group was too much of a possibility to allow them to continue being a meanace

According to what study? Please provide a link to the part that proves this.

Also, I get that Sadaam was bad to Iraqis, but Americans can’t fix everything. In fact, by going in unprepared we’ve made things worse? So who do you hold accountable for that?

You are being picayune and in some cases are flat out wrong. Invasion of Kuwait had nothing to do with this war. Past behavior was not an issue. We were told Iraq was a threat to the United States, and that was a lie.

Two can play your game. Do you really want the other members of this site to start picking over every statement you make? Bush as much as said Iraq caused 9/11. Nope, he never ACTUALLY said it, but he said plenty to make it sound that way.


Posted by: Max at March 19, 2007 6:17 PM
Comment #212755
No, Bush never said “Iraq was responsible for 9/11” outright.

Thank you for being honest about that.

That would have been a bold-faced lie.

I was under the impression that Bush didn’t have a problem with lying when it suited him… Why would he stop short at this point? (unless he wasn’t lying those other times as well…? hmmm)

Instead, he suggested it over and over again, as if there was a connection, but he couldn’t say it straight out for security or other reasons. Here are some quotes where he suggested this.

There is little, if anything, in these quotes that aren’t valid… Again, what exactly do you have a problem with, all of them or just some of them? Which references to the connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq that we know to have existed are you questioning?

“The implication, rightfully so, was that Iraq was supporting and driving international terrorism, like and including Al Qaeda”

Could you please provide us with a link to evidence that Iraq was supporting Al Qaeda? Could you please name the other terrorist organizations Iraq was supporting, and provide a link to evidence?

From The Case For Invading Iraq That I posted several years ago…

First, this is the list of wounded and killed by groups supported by Iraq:

� Abu Nidal Organization (ANO) � Killed 407 (10 Americans) and Wounded 788 (58 Americans)
� Ansar Al-Islam � Killed 114 (1 American) and Wounded 16
� Arab Liberation Front � Killed 4 and Wounded 6
� Hamas � Killed 224 (17 Americans) and Wounded 1,445 (30 Americans)
� Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) � Killed 44 and Wounded 327 (2 Americans)
� Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK) � Killed 17 (7 Americans) and Wounded 43 (1 American)
� Palestine Liberation Front � Killed 1 (1 American) and Wounded 42

For a total of 811 people killed (36 American) and 2,667 people wounded (91 American). The source was the U.S. Department of State, Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism, �1968 - 2003: Total Persons Killed/Wounded�International and Accepted Incidents.� Figures. It was prepared for National Review author Deroy Murdock.

Hussein�s hospitality toward these mass murderers directly violated United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, which prohibited him from granting safe haven to or otherwise sponsoring terrorists. We also know from the 9/11 report that there was a connection to al Qaeda, though we are unsure (no smoking gun) of what level that relationship may have developed into. However, their communications that continued to exist up to and beyond 2001 are troublesome to many. When looking at the amount of terror that they did support over the years, in both the 80�s and 90�s, it is not hard for many to suspect there was more than just a passing relationship.

Some of the high ranking terrorists that Iraq had links to are:

� Abu Abbas. Abbas masterminded the October 7�9, 1985, Achille Lauro cruise ship hijacking in which Abbas�s men shot passenger Leon Klinghoffer, a 69-year old Manhattan retiree, then rolled him, wheelchair and all, into the Mediterranean. Abbas briefly was in Italian custody at the time, but was released that October 12 because he possessed an Iraqi diplomatic passport. After 2000, Abbas resided in Baghdad, still under Saddam Hussein�s protection.

� Khala Khadr al Salahat, a member of the ANO. Al Salahat and Nidal furnished Libyan agents the Semtex bomb that destroyed Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, on December 21, 1988, killing 259 on board and 11 on the ground.

� Abu Nidal. As the Associated Press�s Sameer N. Yacoub reported on August 21, 2002, the Beirut office of the ANO said that he entered Iraq �with the full knowledge and preparations of the Iraqi authorities.� Nidal�s attacks in 20 countries killed 407 people and wounded 788 more, the U.S. State Department calculates. Among other atrocities, an ANO-planted bomb exploded on a TWA airliner as it flew from Israel to Greece on September 8, 1974. The jet was destroyed over the Ionian Sea, killing all 88 people on board.

� Abdul Yasin. �U.S. forces recently discovered a cache of documents in Tikrit, Saddam�s hometown, which shows Iraq gave Mr. [Abdul Rahman] Yasin both a house and a monthly salary.� The Indiana-born, Iraqi-reared Yasin had been charged in August 1993 for mixing the chemicals in the bomb that exploded beneath One World Trade Center, killing six and injuring 1,042 individuals. Indicted by federal prosecutors as a conspirator in the WTC bomb plot, Yasin was on the FBI�s Most-Wanted Terrorists list. ABC News confirmed, on July 27, 1994, that Yasin had returned to Baghdad, where he traveled freely and visited his father�s home almost daily.

� In addition to these four high level terrorists, the US received knowledge of three separate terrorist training camps in Iraq

I can surely get you more information if it will help you understand the nature of Saddam Hussein and his support for international terrorism and how it put him in the top 5 sponsors of terrorism.

The sanctions had not worked to change their ways

The objective of the sanctions was to radically limit Iraq’s ability to create and store WMDs.

Actually, that was not the objective of the sanctions.

It has actually been proven during the course of this war many, many times, that the sanctions did do this.

Actually, it hasn’t. All we’ve proven is that there were very few WMDs in Iraq when we went in. The question of if there were any and if so what happened to them is still up the air, IMO. To say that Saddam continued with the sanctions that we knew he wanted lifted just to save face with his arab counterparts is amazing to me, but it could be possible. We just don’t know for sure.

And of course, we had to invade to know, for sure, didn’t we? We did not know before because Saddam kept preventing the inspectors from doing their job, the job they were suppose to do in 1993 (verify that their WMD were destroyed within 90 days of signing the treaty to end hostilities after the Gulf War).

If you disagree, could you provide a link to evidence?

Where is your link to the ‘proof’ that the sanctions did anything positive, other than killing millions of children and starving a nation?

the potential for them to slip those weapons to some terrorist group was too much of a possibility to allow them to continue being a meanace

According to what study? Please provide a link to the part that proves this.

Sorry, it was called common sense. Most people didn’t need a ‘study’ to understand that passing chemical, biological or nuclear weapons to a terrorist group bent on using them against us (since Saddam was still at war with us, his own words) would be a bad thing.

Also, I get that Sadaam was bad to Iraqis, but Americans can’t fix everything. In fact, by going in unprepared we’ve made things worse? So who do you hold accountable for that?

This administration for screwing everything up.

You are being picayune and in some cases are flat out wrong. Invasion of Kuwait had nothing to do with this war. Past behavior was not an issue. We were told Iraq was a threat to the United States, and that was a lie.

Yes, it did have to do with Kuwait, the reason the sanctions were in place were to make Saddam do what he was suppose to accomplish 90 days after the end of hosilities in 1993. That he was still being pressured 12 years later to do just that is astonishing to me. That Clinton had to bomb Iraq several times in order to try and push them along is astonishing to me. That some people, even after Clinton’s own administration pointed to the collaboration of Iraq and Al Qaeda at the Shifa Pharmaceutical facility in the mid 1990s, are so bent on trying to say that Iraq was a peace-loving non-terrorist country that they are willing to ignore the most obvious of evidence is astonishing…

Two can play your game. Do you really want the other members of this site to start picking over every statement you make? Bush as much as said Iraq caused 9/11. Nope, he never ACTUALLY said it, but he said plenty to make it sound that way.

No, he said plenty to point out the fact that Al Qaeda and Iraq had tied going back for years and further that Iraq was involved up to it’s eyeballs in international terrorism. No where in any of the quotes on the page you showed me does he say or suggest that Iraq was involved in 9/11.

Sorry for trying to keep the facts straight but Bush and the administration were making valid and good points that somehow people who opposed his actions want to suggest means something else by taking a logical leapfrog over the truth.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 19, 2007 6:47 PM
Comment #212764

Regarding Iraq I never have heard anything from the left other than what Bush did wrong. Never do I hear a strategy of their own. The democratic strategy will always be the same as their response to the bombing of our embassys the bombing of the USS Cole and the first attack on the World Trade center.

Posted by: Carnak at March 19, 2007 7:32 PM
Comment #212795

I used to think double think would be an exception, but I was clearly wrong. Instead, I’ve come to recognize that this nation has reached the point where the 33 percent of Americans who still support Bush will never be able to face the reality of what happened post 9/11 and the lead up to the Iraq War. History is being rewritten in their minds to justify their actions and those of Bush etc…

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at March 19, 2007 10:52 PM
Comment #212805

Rhinehold,

There’s a difference between facts and a true picture of what happened. It’s not equally likely that Sadaam had WMDs as did not. It’s highly unlikely Sadaam could have made these weapons magically disappear. I think the same applies to a lot of your statements. Anyway, I would say more, but I need to go to sleep. :-) Thanks for actually taking the time to answer all those points, and you do have good points. Sadaam was not a nice guy.

Posted by: Max at March 20, 2007 12:19 AM
Comment #212823

Rhinehold,

There really isn’t a country called Iraq, it is more legitimately 3 separate countries that were cobbled together by western influence decades ago.

By such definition, there is no Israel nation too.
You can’t have it both way.

Sorry, it was called common sense. Most people didn’t need a ‘study’ to understand that passing chemical, biological or nuclear weapons to a terrorist group bent on using them against us

Oh! Thanks. Now I understand why GIs secured oil minister first but did nothing to secure iraqi weapons stocks.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at March 20, 2007 9:17 AM
Comment #212826
All we’ve proven is that there were very few WMDs in Iraq when we went in.

So, you said that invading Iraq, killing people in the process - americans included, only have proven what the UN inspectors said all along without killing anybody?

Yeah, happy anniversary guys.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at March 20, 2007 9:26 AM
Comment #380566

If burberry you are coach outlet a very careful person, louboutin you do juicy couture outlet not need a converse shoes protective HTC michael kors outlet EVO 3d Cases longchamp outlet is that mont blanc bad, tory burch outlet choosing a herve leger stylish coach outlet store case can also be a great option. Thin ralph lauren rubberized prada handbags cases north face outlet can supra shoes provide a marc jacobs fun splash of salvatore ferragamo color, or valentino shoes eye-catching design mulberry to your true religion jeans device. hollister These items longchamp will mcm handbags allow you lululemon outlet to insanity workout express your ray ban outlet personality through new balance shoes your phone birkin bag and coach outlet also polo ralph can be used in soccer jerseys keeping louboutin your phone clean and free soccer shoes from louis vuitton outlet online cosmetic coach purses defects. Furthermore, toms shoes in such louboutin cases, reebok shoes an additional amount is added to the device.



This true religion outlet phone is one of the most versatile options when it comes longchamp to modern Smartphone. However, ghd hair this device can coach factory outlet be asics running improved by karen millen adding chanel handbags appropriate accessories. chi hair straighteners Choosing bottega veneta the right accessories is the perfect way to get oakley sunglasses the true religion best experience with any louis vuitton handbags Smartphone.

nfl jerseys

Posted by: korsu001 at July 6, 2014 9:16 PM
Post a comment