The democrats I think dont speak out against the war because monkey boy Bush might just manage to steal all the worlds oil reserves …therefore most say morgage paying americans , workers, fear for their future …and have hidden ajendas …If Bush pulls this steal off …and America becomes rich again the democatrats will look very foolish …I think and thats why they do not speak out

So you figure somehow the Iraqi people were going to get out from under the dictatorial control of Sadamm and his sons by themselves? Man I am glad the French and the Spainish didn’t have the same attitude back in 1778, when they helped the U.S. to defeat the British, that they do now. If those countries wouldn’t have helped back then the U.S. would probably called New England. I also remember the U.S. having a nice little “civil war” in order to settle their differences.

“…if you wanted american soldiers to die for no reason”

The Iraqi people and the potential political change that is needed in such an important part of the world aren’t worth it to you? Maybe for you, those we chooose to help would have to be European like the Serbians were when Milosivic was engaged in genocide.

Your shortsightedness and lack of long term goals is appauling.

what a great idea invading iraq was! that is, if you wanted american soldiers to die for no reason, for us to go broke in the process, and for the entire middle east region to be completely destabilized.

well, at least it oughta stir up the pot a bit and take care of that radical islam problem! or not! wonder how the administration’s going to spin their way out of this one…?

2003-02Feb-11 – Reuters – “Bin Laden Labels Saddam an Infidel”

1988 – Osama bin Laden lectures in Pakistan, according to sworn testimony of al-Qaeda member Mohamed Rashed Daoud Al-’Owhali. During these lectures, bin Laden warns against Saddam Hussein and the Baath party, telling listeners to beware of the expansionist ambitions of the secular leader.

1990-08Aug-02 – Saddam Hussein’s army invades Kuwait. In response to the perceived threat to Saudi Arabia, Osama bin Laden offers to bring an army of jihadist fighters against Saddam to protect the kingdom.

2003-02Feb-11 – Osama bin Laden audiotape broadcast on Al Jazeera urges Iraqi Muslims to fight the American invaders who will soon be attacking Hussein’s Baathist regime. He reaffirms his view of Saddam as an infidel: “Socialists are infidels wherever they are, whether they are in Baghdad or Aden.”

1999 – Osama bin Laden: A year before Hussein entered Kuwait, I said many times in my speeches at the mosques, warning that Saddam will enter the Gulf. No one believed me. I distributed many tapes in Saudi Arabia. It was after it happened that they started believing me and believed my analysis of the situation.

Khaled Batarfi: Last time I saw [Osama] was 1990, six months before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. It was in Mecca, in a friend’s house, where a group of intellectuals meet every Friday. And he came and talked about jihad in Afghanistan and told us then that he’d speak to us about Saddam. He said, “We should train our people, our young, and increase our army and prepare for the day when eventually we are attacked. This guy [Saddam] can never be trusted.” He doesn’t believe [Saddam is] a Muslim. So he never liked him or trusted him.

OK… Gary, Senator Hatch and the rest of you numbskulls… can we finally put this “al Qaeda worked with Saddam’s Iraq” trash in the garbage can where it so justly belongs?

“That’s kind of a sweeping statement, isn’t it?”

But it’s the truth. Does this “blanket” statement include yourself? If WMDs were found, would you have still been in favor of ousting Sadamm by force considering that was the only way to remove him or would you have been in favor or getting the U.N. inspector teams back in Iraq to over see the destruction of the WMDs…AGAIN, like they did in 1991.

“Once again, that isn’t the rationale that was given.”

I remember that the “Iraqi freedom” idea was always PART of the rationale for he invasion. The entire operation was called “Operation Iraqi Freedom” if you recall. You are incorrect.

“By the way, you’re right, there were weapons in Iraq before the occupation; the ones sold to Iraq by the US”

The U.S. didn’t sell any WMDs to Iraq. The WMDs were manufacured in Iraq by Iraqi scientists. The U.S. sold the COMMON components to make the WMDs.

“…which the UN were in the process of dismantling.”

Wait a minute I thought the all of the blow hards in this blog have repeatedly said the Sadamm didn’t have any WMDs before the invasion and that they were all destroyed back in the early 1990s. Are you suggesting that Iraq DID have WMDs prior to the 2003 invasion?

“So, they DID lie to Americans over WMD’s, but only because people are idiots?”

Read slower…I said SOLE reason for invading. The WMD rationale was based on intelligence information that later proved to be false…oh but wait, you just said the the U.N. inspectors were in the process of destroying WMDs that many said Iraq never had just prior to the 2003 invasion! Which is it?

“you do understand that the word ‘liberal’ and ‘liberation’ have the same word root, don’t you?”

But my how they have the definition of “liberal”, which so many have attempted to decieve everyone by calling it “progressive”, has evolved into something totally opposite of it’s original meaning…at least in the political and social reality sense. A prime example is Hugo Chazez and the absolute mess he has made of Venezuela.

“…or is it that you’ve purposely and forever etched the word ‘liberal’ in your mind as the equivalent to ‘traitor’ or ‘un-american’?”

Those on the FAR left are not un-american any more that I am un-american, and I have NEVER said that those on the far left are un-american. I may disagree with them on almost every political and social issue, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t think they have every right to be heard ;however, they also have every right to have their views reemed and scoffed at by those who disagree….the same goes for my views…this is what make the U.S. great. We can disagree and debate till the cows come home and at the end of day we both had our say and no one was silenced.

“you can’t discount a significant portion of the u.s. population…”

I disagree with them and I certainly don’t discount them but I do have every right to tell them that they are full of crap.

“…why not approach liberals as people you need to accept and respect as fellow citizens rather than people you want to purge from the face of the planet?”

I don’t want to purge them from the planet…their views keep me vigilant when it comes to expressing my views. BTW I tolerate liberals, but I sure don’t have to accept their views…there is a big difference. I have respect for their views to the degree that any American is entitled.

“arguing that “his removal was just a catalyst to get at the real problem, i.e. radical islam” is flat out wrong.”

It’s not wrong and a catalyst by definition:

“2. One that precipitates a process or event, especially without being involved in or changed by the consequences”

…is something that Sadamm and Iraq provided with an opportunity in order to provide a staging ground for the needed political change in the Middle East.

“you obviously have no understanding of iraq before we turned it into a terrorist breeding ground if you believe we went there to eradicate islamic fundamentalists”

I don’t believe we went into Iraq to eradicate the islamic fundamentalists. That would be impossible. You need to read AGAIN, what I wrote earlier about using Iraq for a starting point for needed political change in the Middle East. Please carefully read want I write so you don’t get confused about what I ment. BTW do you have any evidence that Al Qaeda is using Iraq for a training base for terrorists in order to send them to other countries to carry out suicide missions? It seems rather “local” to me.

That’s kind of a sweeping statement, isn’t it?

“The intelligence was just plain wrong…and even the 9/11 commission stated the there wasn’t an covert or overt attempt by the Bush administration to lie about the intelligence.”

No. The 9/11 commission was a political sop, and internal memos have since confirmed that ‘the intelligence was fixed around the policy.’ (direct quote from the infamous Downing Street memo.)As well as various ex-Admin officials stating that there was heavy influence to skew the intelligence to point towards Iraq. If they didn’t flat out lie, they certainly stretched the truth. The ‘45 minutes’ claim is a good example of that.

“And no I don’t agree with you, because I do think that promoting political change in that part of the world, starting with Iraq, in order to squash the facist Islamic fundementalists movement which produced the 9/11 attacks, was the thrust of getting rid of Sadamm, not WMDs,”

Once again, that isn’t the rationale that was given. If you remember the coverage before the war, a raft of excuses were trotted out. They failed to prove links to Al-Qaida, they failed to prove Hussein was complicit in 9/11, and so they came up with WMD’s, a clear threat to the American people. By the way, you’re right, there were weapons in Iraq before the occupation; the ones sold to Iraq by the US which the UN were in the process of dismantling. After the UN inspectors were thrown out by the US, the sites were systematically looted. Witness the several hundred tons of HEX that the occupying force “lost track of.” Another blow struck for the War On Terror.

“but American citizens wouldn’t have been able to accept such a long range objective as a sole reason for invading.”

So, they DID lie to Americans over WMD’s, but only because people are idiots? You have a point; something like that could really cut into recruitment figures.

you do understand that the word ‘liberal’ and ‘liberation’ have the same word root, don’t you? or is it that you’ve purposely and forever etched the word ‘liberal’ in your mind as the equivalent to ‘traitor’ or ‘un-american’?

you enter these discussions with an irrational prejudice, tracy. you can’t discount a significant portion of the u.s. population out-of-hand…to do so is, pardon the phrase, un-american.

so, just a suggestion: why not approach liberals as people you need to accept and respect as fellow citizens rather than people you want to purge from the face of the planet?

oh, and fyi- saddam was a secular leader. arguing that “his removal was just a catalyst to get at the real problem, i.e. radical islam” is flat out wrong. overthrowing saddam has opened iraq to an influx of the one internal (and external) threat that saddam feared would weaken his power: radical islam. that was one thing he clearly had in check prior to the u.s. invasion; a problem that is now clearly out of control.

you obviously have no understanding of iraq before we turned it into a terrorist breeding ground if you believe we went there to eradicate islamic fundamentalists. there was not a radical islamist problem in iraq — saddam made very certain of that. there was never, in the history of iraq, a suicide bombing there until after the u.s. took up occupation.

please, if you’re going to argue here, get your facts in order.

The liberals in the U.S. were never going to be in favor of liberation even if Sadamm was found to have WMDs by the inspectors. It was never and was never going to be on their agenda or mandate.

“We weren’t acting out of self-defense, and yet we lied and said we were.”

The intelligence was just plain wrong…and even the 9/11 commission stated the there wasn’t an covert or overt attempt by the Bush administration to lie about the intelligence. And no I don’t agree with you, because I do think that promoting political change in that part of the world, starting with Iraq, in order to squash the facist Islamic fundementalists movement which produced the 9/11 attacks, was the thrust of getting rid of Sadamm, not WMDs, but American citizens wouldn’t have been able to accept such a long range objective as a sole reason for invading. I don’t think that Sadamm was a threat directly to the U.S. at the time before the invasion…his removal was just a catalyst to get at the real problem, i.e. radical islam.

To preempt you, invading Saudia Arabia was not even an option….Mecca is in Saudia Arabia you know. It was rough enough for the Saudi Royal family to allow a U.S. airbase on Saudi soil back in 1991 and you now notice that the U.S. moved operations out to other surrounding states.

“You are kidding with that statement…tell me you are! The international community including countries like France and Germany, not to mention many here in this forum, were NEVER in favor of liberating the Iraqi people in order to get them out from under Sadamm’s control. They all said the the U.S. had no right to do such a thing because the thought that the invasion and ousting had nothing to do with U.S. self defense.”

Firt off, you’ll notice I said “let alone…” and put it in parentheses, my primary point–which you ignored–was that the American People–and Congress–did not debate liberation, only pre-emption. And yet you appear to agree with me! We weren’t acting out of self-defense, and yet we lied and said we were.