POST WITH HONEST…PART 2
Let’s dissect the liberal mind further. Censor, a LAL poster and passionate Bush hater makes a good argument on paper. If he only used facts to back it up.
Censor,
The 9/11 Commission report said there was “no credible evidence” of a collaborative relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda in relation to 9/11. However, the report says there is ample evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda collaborated in terrorist activities, including training terrorist how to hijack airplanes at the Salmon Pak facility in Iraq. Didn’t see that in the New Republic. Similarly, ample evidence of WMD programs and the ability to ramp them up quickly has been documented and neutralized since the invasion.
How many times do you and others have to be shown quotes and documents from Kerry, Clinton, Albright, the UN, France, Germany, Russia showing that all of them….all of them believed that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and that regime change was the only solution. It was their song that changed when Bush did what they didn’t have the political will to do.
Here’s the rationale for war in Iraq. Number one. It has stopped cold the efforts of a crazed madman who has demonstrated the means and the will to use WMD and support terror against America. If Saddam had actually built a nuclear weapon, it would have been to late. LET ME REPEAT THAT FOR THE THICK OF SKULL. When the bullet is flying out of the barrel of the gun, it’s to late to put on the body armor. Number two. The war in Iraq has sent a clear message that the western world is awake now and the game is on. There will be a price to pay for being a terrorist, supporting terror and give safe harbor to those who do. It took a man with conviction and principle to make the difficult decision of shedding American blood to send that message. And finally, there will be no better cure for the powder keg that is the Middle East than to have a strong thriving Democracy in Iraq. Why do you think there is so much opposition in the Middle East and around the world to a democratized Iraq? It’s going to upset the whole apple cart and countries like France and Germany are going to lose their “cash cow� relationships with dictators like Hussein.
Was it not prudent to focus on Iraq, our sworn enemy, in the hours after the 9/11 attacks? After all, we knew of specific links between Iraq and the planners of the first World Trade Center attack. It would seem to that common sense and caution would make you look at all possible suspects. Once it was determined there was no specific and actionable intelligence indicating an Iraq connection, the focus turned to Afghanistan. Would John Kerry have done it any differently? We don’t know. What we do know is that the key to fighting terrorism is defeating state sponsorship and complicity. There is ample evidence that Iraq was engaged in this kind of activity, as is Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea and others. Defeating Hussein and establishing a democratic Iraq was the most prudent step to take. There will and should be more.
Censor says that the Bush administration struck fear into the hearts of Iraq about Hussein’s WMD’s. Yes, this is true, but it was the first Bush administration that first did it. Then the Clinton administration established regime change in Iraq as official U.S. policy, a policy supported by John Kerry.
The United Nations had voted on resolution after resolution, asking Hussein to allow inspectors into Iraq. He refused. There was and is unquestionable evidence that WMD programs were being ramped up moving forward, but the world needed more information to know for sure. Hussein refused to provide it. To this point, there have been no major stockpiles of WMD’s discovered in Iraq. So what? Should we have waited for the stockpiles to be built up? Should we have waited for a nuclear, chemical or biological weapon strike before we acted? What is Kerry’s position on what we should have done? WE DON’T KNOW.
Censor, your extensive and detailed arguments against the Iraq war are based on liberal propaganda, media spin and pure conjecture.
The aluminum tubes your refer to could have been used for a number of purposes that violated UN resolutions, including uranium enrichment but also for creating long range missiles. Your statement that “experts agree” that the administration’s claims about how those tubes could be used were wholly without merit is just absolutely false.
The statement about Hussein seeking uranium from Africa was and is an established fact. The British government still stands by its intelligence claim to this day. The main questioning of this statement came from Robert Wilson, a democratic political operative whose statements, have since been discredited.
Do you actually understand the nature of intelligence gathering? Like most liberals in this political season, your hindsight is brilliant, but when you are dealing with intelligence in real time, there are always uncertainties. ALWAYS. That will not change if John Kerry gets elected. You demand proof and unquestionable evidence before acting. This is not Star Trek. We cannot scan the surface for life forms and active weapons system then set our phasers to stun. In the real world you have to have the balls to make the call, even when you may not have all the facts.
The second-guessing by Kerry and by liberals like you is a cowardly condemnation made from the sidelines and in hindsight. WHAT ABOUT TOMORROW?…..WE DON’T KNOW! We know that we have sworn enemies who will do all in their power to wipe us off the face of the earth. We know that the only way to change that is to kill them or convince them we can live together on planet earth. That convincing will start when the Muslim world sees Iraq emerge as a beacon of freedom and democracy. I don’t trust John Kerry to get that done. I do trust George Bush. There can be no question that Bush has made mistakes. That is the nature of war and world diplomacy. The unexpected happens. But at least Bush is not afraid to act or only acts in half measures. The Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive action and the steps we have taken in Iraq and Afghanistan has turned the world on its ear. Contrary to your assessment of Bush as an ignorant warmonger, I see him, and I think history will see him, as a brave and bold leader who made the tough decisions that had to be made to create a new order of peace and harmony among the nations of the earth.
zoot potatoe Says: August 27th, 2004 at 12:38 am
It has stopped cold the efforts of a crazed madman who has demonstrated the means and the will to use WMD and support terror against America.
now if only they’d do that to a man that has admitted to have nukes, Kim Jong-Il.
I believe that the removal of Saddam Hussein was a good thing, but I also believe there were better targets to go after to remove WMDs, like North Korea. I also wonder why Bush does nothing about the crisis in sudan, since he likes getting involved in foreign affairs…
You also ask would Kerry have thought different about Iraq… I believe he would, caus it was Cheney that pushed for war in the first place. and Kerry wouldnt’ have been anywhere close to Dick Cheney.
while it can be implied, Saddams refusal to let inspectors in doesn’t “confirm” he had revamped WMD programs…
then you ask should we have waited for Husseins piles to build up. I’d wish we would go after stock piles of WMDs that are already MADE, then, in the future time provided, gone to Iraq and look, then, with their weapons being made, the Iraq war wouldn’t look so bad.
and, finally
“Like most liberals in this political season, your hindsight is brilliant, but when you are dealing with intelligence in real time, there are always uncertainties.”
thank you for putting most liberals instead of all
censor Says: August 27th, 2004 at 2:44 pm
Buck, what happend to your calm and well reasoned argument. Part 2 reads like a bunch of fist waving and hot air. My point is, the Iraq regime change was part a polical Agenda before 9/11. When starting the war rally, Bush & Co made a number of claims despite the best intelligence in the world advising them (repeatedly) otherwise. I personally find that a bit suspect.
As far as the tubes:
“In INR’s view Iraq’s efforts to acquire aluminum tubes is central to the argument that Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, but INR is not persuaded that the tubes in question are intended for use as centrifuge rotors. INR accepts the judgment of technical experts at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) who have concluded that the tubes Iraq seeks to acquire are poorly suited for use in gas centrifuges to be used for uranium enrichment and finds unpersuasive the arguments advanced by others to make the case that they are intended for that purpose. INR considers it far more likely that the tubes are intended for another purpose, most likely the production of artillery rockets. The very large quantities being sought, the way the tubes were tested by the Iraqis, and the atypical lack of attention to operational security in the procurement efforts are among the factors, in addition to the DOE assessment, that lead INR to conclude that the tubes are not intended for use in Iraq’s nuclear weapon program.” -Declassifed Jul 03
To Quote a declassified memo from the Senate Intelligence Committee.
“On the tubes, in addition to our general remarks above, we suggest not playing the cited intercept, as it is taken out of context and is highly misleading. Meantime, we will work with our IC colleagues to fix some egregious errors in the tubes dicussion.”
On this basis the State Department warned Powell not the include that in his UN Speach. As we know, he did anyway.
The IAEA validated the State Deparment’s Warnings, however the white house claimed the uranium hypothesis was the “consensus view”
When I have time, I will write a more detailed response.