Thing you have to believe today...

[Larry Gude]

...to believe we have no business being in Iraq...

1. That Saddam Hussein was not a threat to our national security and would not be in the near and forseable future.

That's it.

The Iraqi War Resolution states CLEARLY for anyone who cares to see and know what every Senator and every member of the House based their vote on: Hussein WAS a threat, IS a threat and would continue to be so in the future, time being the only matter. NO!?

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031201-123723-4738r.htm

Will anyone honestly be surprised as more and more evidence builds that Hussein (GASP!) was working quietly to do us harm?

Will anyone honestly be surprised if WMD information builds and builds in terms of Iraqi dissemination to known terror groups?

Will anyone be surprised if we are attacked again, say a subway or other vulnerable target, and that some bio bug is used and that as the investigation unfolds, it turns out Iraq helped over the last decade in some tangible form?

Will anyone be surprised when (not if) more and more facts are uncovered about Iraqi WMD programs and finding actual weapons?

I just don't get it. The leading contenders, including those who know better, for the Democratic nomination for President basically act like we are attacking Mother Theresa.

What is in it for them to take so precarious and reality defying a position?

Are these people all secretly working for Karl Rove?

The great dope, Wes Clark, has recently found this seething fake rage thing when a few months ago he was basically a Republican.

I am starting to worry that there is some terrible plot to eliminate the Democratic Party by getting them to commit mass political suicide.

George Bush is basically doing a pretty good job but if Hussien or Osama or both turn up dead in the next few months, will there be a recognizable Democratic Party left that anyone will have anything to do with?

Would you bet your future on neither one being caught or killed?

The economy is rebounding. Jobs follow growth. Bush is spending money faster than any Democrat could dream. Partial Birth Abortion is banned. Seniors are getting medical goodies. And we are hunting down and killing terrorists just as fast as we can find them.

I mean, worse case, say we DO get hit hard again, some airliner thing or whatever, what in the hell will any Democrat have to say that won't get them egged? "SEE! I told you we should have done nothing!"

I am honestly getting worried that there will be no healthy check to the rise in GOP political power because all the leaders of the loyal opposition are in a death race to see who can drink the most Cool- Aid.

The Vaster than I ever thought Right Wing Conspiracy?

 

[ceo_pte]

and not believe in FREEDOM... We have it here, that's why we can post on boards like this.

 

[Bruzilla]

I believe I would be surprised if it turned out that Hussein was supplying terrorist groups with WMD. Why? Because it's one thing to give terror groups some AK-47s and a place to shoot them, and another to give them weapons that are capable of killing thousands. Hussein may have been a lot of things, but he wasn't fool enough to take that step. There have been plenty of countries in the Middle East with WMD programs (Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Jordan, etc.), and all of these countries have been in bed with terror groups like Bin Ladin's, yet they've never given them any WMDs that we're aware of despite the fact that these weapons could have proved to be decisive in several conflicts. One has to ask why they weren't given out? I think it's because the price to pay for that victory would have been more than any leader or country wanted to pay.

I'll also be very surprised if there's another terrorist attack on US soil. So far we've destroyed the Taliban's and Al Quada's safe havens in Afghanistan, and we've taken out a major Muslim country, which served as a major sugar daddy for many terrorist groups. What better time would there have been to attack the US than while we were directly attacking their vital interests? Especially given the fact of how most of the media was reporting on a daily basis that another terrorist attack could be a death knell for G.W. Bush.

Lastly, what does it matter if we ever catch Hussein or Bin Ladin? It's been over 58 years since we rolled into Berlin and there's still some doubt as to whatever became of Adolph Hitler. Does the fact that we never found Hitler mean that we never defeated the Nazis?

 

[Larry Gude]

Why? Why not?

...this is not exactly the most resounding endorsement I can think of...

Hussein may have been a lot of things, but he wasn't
fool enough to take that step.

This is the guy who chose to see his military wiped off the map TWICE in 12 years instead of cutting some kind of deal. Not fool enough?

We know that he did try to have GHW Bush assassinated. That right there is illustrative of what is wrong with the Democrats positions to me. Clinton lobbed a few cruise missiles in response but would have had to wipe him out had he succeeded.

To me, someone who tried once for that kind of brass ring isn't going to just give it up. An attempt on our prez, even if it was Bubba, is all I need to send men to war.

Same thing with his "Saladin" dreams. Weapons are the key.

I firmly believe Hussein had, as has been reported, ties to the first World Trade Center attack. I firmly believe he had/has ties to Al Queda. Why WOULDN'T he?

Plausible deniability.

Hell, we have US citizens who in the same breathe argue that there are no weapons of mass destruction and that Don Rumsfeld personally gave the blue prints to Saddam in the 80's.

We have some 35% of our population and ALL of one major parties candidates for president who refuse to even read the IRW. They'd rather call their 'real' enemy, W, a liar.

As long as Saddam can (could have) walk a line, 1/2 the US population is content to wait until a 9/11 or Pearl Harbour before we do anything about it.

That's politics in a democracy.

As far as Hitler goes, the Reich died. Give me a few years of no credible sightings of either one plus the end of Al Queda as a terror driven policy thorn and peace in Iraq and I'll be happy that they are off the major geo-political scene. I'd prefer a body however.

 

[Bruzilla]

I never said that Saddam wasn't foolish... I mean anyone that is willing to place his security in the hands of the French couldn't be anything but foolish. But what I think is correct is that he wasn't foolish enough to give WMDs to terrorists. Was this because he's thinking about the world's best interests? More likely it was because he knew that today's terrorist ally can quickly become tomorrow's enemy.

I'm sure there are lots of countries with intelligence organs who have a plan or two on the books to knock of foreign leaders. The fact that the plan never came to fruition, even without US counteractions, shows it wasn't a very serious plan and certainly not worth going to war over.

You said that it's been reported, and you believe, that Hussein had ties to the first World Trade Center attack. What credible government official or agency ever said that? I'm a news junkie and watch all of the cable news networks and aside from a bunch of retired officers who were speculating about a connection, where was this reporting? I heard lots of reporters asking "Was Hussein involved with 9/11?" and lots of so called "experts" saying "well, there's a chance...", but I've never heard any credible person saying there's a link between Hussein and 9/11. I have heard, and agree with, comments that Hussein provided field and financial support to al Quada, but that's it.

I agree with your statements about how the Left thinks of Rumsfeld and Bush. I get tired of hearing how the US armed Iraq in the 80s. Yeah... try to find any American arms over in Iraq. Everything they had they bought from the Soviets/Russians, Germans, Italians, and French.

Yes, half of the US population is content to wait until a 9/11 or Pearl Harbour before we do anything about it, but that's not an argument that's based on national security. Rather it's people who are letting their dislike of the Republicans take all of their focus. Nothing that Bush does will ever make them happy because they hate the man, not his policies.

And bravo for saying "... the Reich died." That's exactly what I'm saying. It isn't important that we kill Hussein or Bin Ladin. What's important is that we kill the regime.

 

[Larry Gude]

Obvioulsy...

...I can only offer this stuff. I have no idea what is true and what isn't.

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iraq/956-tni.htm

So I'm stuck with 'what is possible'...certainly this is.

And 'what is probable'...the Bush bashers basically say "Saddam Hussein WOULD NEVER lower himself to some kind of sneak attack'.

I find this insane.

I find it simple to believe the worst about him.

So, we put the fear of Uncle Sam into the hearts of EVERYONE who may be tied to terror, whether they actively support it or turned a blind eye or were simply thinking about it.

We offer 25 million people a new tomorrow.

We take a chance at changing the world for the better in a big way.

I think it is critical to remember what was really attacked on September 11, 2001; globalization, a world market place.

It is easy to see who benefits, most everybody, and it is easy to see who is not in a very good position to benefit and what is threatened.

So anyway...

 

[Otter]

Re: Obvioulsy...

Originally posted by Larry Gude
..."Saddam Hussein WOULD NEVER lower himself to some kind of sneak attack'.

Oh yeah, Mr Rogers, indeed.

 

[Toxick]

Originally posted by Larry Gude
What is in it for them to take so precarious and reality defying a position?

Quite simply: Power.


They lost the presidential election in 2000 (whatever they say about it, they lost). They lost the midterm elections... They are lost in a complete power vacuum. And there is very little promise of obtaining any power in their foreseeable future.

Instead of rethinking the platform, it's far more easy to convince oneself that the opposition, is not just "opposition". They are not people who believe differently, but still want the best for the country and their children...

They are EVIL.

They don't just disagree - they ENGAGE IN GENOCIDE.

This is why BUSH is more evil than HITLER. more evil than Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Stalin, Milosevic, Chairman Mao or Geghis Freakin Khan.

This is why you have people who want to be human shields to PROTECT a maniacal murderous dictator. Because they've convinced themselves that Bush is evil and that anything he says and anything he does is corrupted to the furthering of all things evil.

I mean, I thought Clinton was a joke, a liar, a pig, a laughing stock, and a contemptuous idealist twonk - but I never thought he was evil.

The more I listen to the Democrats and their rhetoric, the more I'm convinced that they care less about the good of the country and humanity than they do about regaining the power they've let slip away over the past decade.