posted on September 6, 2003 11:54:17 PM new
But consider, as well, what has happened in the Near East since Sept. 11, 2001:
The Taliban have been overthrown and a decent government has been installed;
the possibility for a civilized form of governance exists in Iraq;
popular resistance to the dictatorship of Iran's mullahs has intensified,
and Pakistan became a leading American ally in the war on terror.
The American military is leaving Saudi Arabia, not in retreat or with apology, but because it is no longer needed to protect Saudi Arabia from Saddam;
Yemen has started cooperating in the war on terror, and new alliances between the U.S.
and small stable Gulf states have been established.
Kuwait's future is secure, the threat from Saddam having been eliminated;
Jordan is secure, no longer having Iraq's tank armies and radical nationalist influence at its back;
Syria has gone quiet, downplaying its traditional anti-Americanism.
Lebanon's Hezbollah has stopped cross-border attacks into Israel;
Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations have been restarted, a truce declared, and a fledgling Palestinian leadership established that might actually be prepared to make a real peace with Israel.
That's every country from the Khyber Pass to the Mediterranean Sea. This is not to say that the Near East has been forever transformed, but because of American resolution and action, there is a historic possibility for such a transformation.
It all hinges, however, on success in Iraq. And with everything at stake, what is the left doing?
Everything it can to undermine the enterprise. By implying both that it was launched fraudulently (see yellowcake, above) and, alternately, that it has ensnared us in a hopeless quagmire.
Yes, the cost is great. But remember that just yesterday we lost 3,000 lives in one day. If this region is not transformed, on some future day we will lose 300,000.
If we win the peace and leave behind a decent democratic society, it will revolutionize the region. And if we leave in failure, the whole region will fall back into chaos, and worse.
posted on September 8, 2003 08:58:41 PM new
LOL helen - What ya wanna bet the President will get most of what he's asked for?
And if Congress does come close to that figure....you'll get what YOU were asking for.....$15B for Afghanistan. If I remember correctly you were one complaining the President had bombed this poor country and then quickly lost interest in their future...and had turned his interests to Iraq....leaving the children to clean carrots as a way to survive.
Be careful what you ask for....you may just get it. lol
[ edited by Linda_K on Sep 8, 2003 09:00 PM ]
posted on September 9, 2003 07:00:46 AM new
I'm sure that he will, Linda. But I see nothing to laugh about. Do you? Or is that just some kind of nervous habit that you have. I notice that you tend to laugh frequently and inappropriately about very serious topics.
Although Bush will probably receive his money his chances for re election will take a significant plummet.
With your weird sense of humor, you may find it appropriate to laugh with the Halliburton guys...They are doing a happy dance and probably laughing too.
posted on September 9, 2003 07:15:38 AM new
so helen...since you continue to work at showing youself just how intelligent you are, how your thinking is the only correct way of seeing things....maybe you'd like to answer some of the questions I have posed.
And then please give me a list of all the Congressional democrats who professed saddam DIDN'T have any bio/chem/womd. I sure don't remember hearing about them. Show us a list [it will be very, very short] of those democrats in congress who even suggested such an idea. No....most of our representatives believed saddam was a threat to his neighbors and the US OR they wouldn't have vote to give him war powers.
That's why you see a lot of lol's in my posts. Because you far left dems here are in the very, very minority of those who think saddam was a good guy.
Members of congress were misled and used by the Bush administration. Giving George Bush a blank check for this war was a major mistake.
You state, "That's why you see a lot of lol's in my posts. Because you far left dems here are in the very, very minority of those who think saddam was a good guy."
Of course you've never seen anyone here indicate that Saddam was a good guy. You only attempt to use dumb allegations like that to bolster your pitiful lack of information.
posted on September 9, 2003 07:55:49 AM new
Helen, I’m sorry, but it’s getting embarrassing with Linda et.al, I’m gonna have to give them some ammunition.
Yes Linda I think Saddam was a good guy, handsome fellow, great hair line, deep mysterious eyes, and a crack shot too they tell me, a real man’s man, fathered many children and patted lots too, always nice to his mum apparently, I wish he were prime minister of Australia.
Quick Linda start another war, Saddam is still lurking!!!
Don’t you even wonder why Mr.Dumbya would even ask for Mr. Kissinger knowing of his involvement in the big stink that happened on the other 9/11.
Don’t the right have any respect for your dead?
Don’t they care?
Do some even think acceptable losses for access to oil????
posted on September 9, 2003 08:03:00 AM new
So....now you're saying that all the democrats that represent us in Congress were 'fooled' by what ONLY President Bush said? If you believe that they only take the word of our President to make their decisions, then that is laughable.
OR maybe you're implying they're too stupid to examine the facts for themselves? That THEY had no other recourse to full examine the intelligence for themselves. Even those democrats on the defence committee????
Show us all how smart you are and answer my questions about clinton saying we 'just didn't know' if womd was still there after 1998, why Hillary voted to give Bush war powers. Is she dumb too? An innocent observer who would believe anything the President said? And you wonder why I find what you state laughable.
And my other questions about the UN and why it would have been wasting all those years working to get saddam to cooperate and prove he had no weapons.
No, you've never answered them before and I seriously doubt you will now....because you can't and continue to support your cause of leaving Saddam in his previous leadership role.
posted on September 9, 2003 08:09:08 AM new
I'll type more slowly this time Linda.
Clinton 'didn't know' because (logic 101)
You can't show me some_thing to prove No_thing.
P.S.
Don't forget that the ships were already on the way over before 9/11.
posted on September 9, 2003 08:16:26 AM new
Never answer your questions? Don’t be so silly.
Linda, (logic101)
Give me evidence to prove that you haven't concealed a stash of plutonium somewhere in Texas.
posted on September 9, 2003 08:21:53 AM new
Your turn Linda!
who seldom addresses questions put directly to her
Can you please explain to us why, in mr. president’s opinion, Kisssinger would have been the best choice to head the inquiry?
posted on September 9, 2003 08:21:56 AM new
I'm not forgetting anything. Especially the fact that you aren't an American and I really could care less what you believe. While you certainly are free to voice whatever opinion you have, it's worthless because you don't vote on any of the issues we have in America. And your leader did have the guts to go against popular opinion in your country and support us in the war with Iraq.
The UN voted to force saddam to prove he had no womb [all]. Remember resolution 1441? Maybe in your opinion they had no 'reason' to do so???? But he wouldn't cooperate. The ships were there because this administration was smart enough to know he wasn't going to do something he hadn't done in 13 years.
posted on September 9, 2003 08:27:33 AM new
Linda, I am not here to defend Hillary Clinton or any other member of congress who voted for this war. Frankly, I believe that many members of congress voted because it was politically expedient to do so. You may remember that everything happened under rush conditions set by Bush, -- including a reminder that Iraq had weapons that could be deployed in 45 minutes and Americans whipped into a patriotic war fervor. Bush lied, based on what he described as intelligence and under this pressure, congress caved.
Now, in answer to your question about Clinton...Whatever he knew or did not know should have no significant bearing on wheather or not we should go to war during Bush's term. Bush had the benefit of current intelligence from all government agencies, and the Pentagon. The fact that he misused that information cannot be blamed on Clinton.
posted on September 9, 2003 08:38:37 AM new
I know you are “American and ..really could care less what’ I or in fact the world believes and that’s why people like you won’t concede to international laws.
(the neocons that is)
Iraq is not an ‘American Issue’ so get off your high horse!
YES I “Remember resolution 1441” do you?
Did it call for war?? NO!
The ships were there because the shelf life was up on the WOMDs and we knew it,
And our great leaders needed backing for an act of war but not for ‘ship manoeuvres’!!
Oh and I forgot about expecting you to answer questions, I should have remembered Hogan's Heroes 'Ve Ask Ze Qvestions'.
posted on September 9, 2003 09:19:54 AM new
I don't agree helen. If you read any reports from the CIA, they stated many times that during clinton's administration he 'tied their hands' about who they could use as informers. Make it almost impossible to get anyone who qualified under his standards. Chaney changed that so we could get as much information as possible to be able to make decisions.
And the intelligence you speak of was not only from that one source although the British still stand behind it. So did many in the Arab nations that reported on what saddam was doing. Even his own son-in-laws, who told the world what they KNEW he was doing, were killed upon their return to Iraq. I'll believe Britians's intelligence before I'd ever believe something saddam said. But hey....if you think saddam was telling the truth...far be it from me to try to get you, for once to believe your own country, over saddam.
[i]You may remember that everything happened under rush conditions set by Bush -- including a reminder that Iraq had weapons that could be deployed in 45 minutes. Bush lied, based on what he described as intelligence and under this pressure, congress caved[/b], President Bush did not lie. That fact has been argued and been disproven. He said exactly what information he had received from the British. Yes, I remember. And I was glad to see the vote forced before the elections. That way everyone would be on record as to whether they supported protecting our country or not, before they were to be elected.
And if you noticed the republicans, once again made history by gaining those democratic seats, when that had never happened before. Pretty much showed how all those who were screaming the rep party would be voted out because of the 2000 election, didn't it? lol And now all those votes are on record. Make all the excuses you want for them. They're elected adults with minds of their own who would NEVER let a republican president get away with anything. They supported it because they reviewed the information available and agreed with President Bush.
Or maybe you're saying that the democrats just acted like a bunch of good little sheep and followed blindly what a president they despised was saying, because they were rushed? Well that doesn't say much for their leadership if you believe that to be true. lol
[ edited by Linda_K on Sep 9, 2003 09:29 AM ]
posted on September 9, 2003 09:32:07 AM new No, Linda. I said exactly what I meant and I'll repeat it again. Your efforts to twist and spin are embarrassingly dumb.
Linda, I am not here to defend Hillary Clinton or any other member of congress who voted for this war. Frankly, I believe that many members of congress voted because it was politically expedient to do so. You may remember that everything happened under rush conditions set by Bush, -- including a reminder that Iraq had weapons that could be deployed in 45 minutes and Americans whipped into a patriotic war fervor. Bush lied, based on what he described as intelligence and under this pressure, congress caved.
Now, in answer to your question about Clinton...Whatever he knew or did not know should have no significant bearing on wheather or not we should go to war during Bush's term. Bush had the benefit of current intelligence from all government agencies, and the Pentagon. The fact that he misused that information cannot be blamed on Clinton.
~
After trying to pin the blame on five fall guys, do you also remember the final 'fessing up in a White House statement delivered on July 7, that Bush should not have used the uranium allegations in his address.
posted on September 9, 2003 09:43:57 AM new
Yes, there was disagreement as to whether or not that information should have been included. There was no lie. He just repeated what Britian's intelligence was saying at that time. And what they still support today. So you choose to believe saddam's side and I'll stick with the American's and the Brits.
See...the thing is...no intelligence is totally reliable. NONE. It's not a science. Our leaders get the 'reports' presented to them each and everyday and make decision based on that. Bush makes his calls just as all presidents have done before him. The fact that you don't agree with the decision he made, doesn't mean it wasn't supported by the TOTAL evidence at the time. AND I'm not blaming clinton. I've said many times I think he did the right thing in bombing Iraq when he too, believed he was up to no good. The US just had no way to be sure whether saddam still had weapons remaining or not. That's why I brought clinton up. Because he said the same thing.
I don't see this as a republican issue vs. a democratic issue. I see this as an issue that involves all US citizens and the protection of our nation against the terrorists. They just have different ways of approaching it. I agree with the way President Bush is tackling it.
posted on September 9, 2003 09:49:55 AM new
A few more lies that you may have missed.
"Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bombmaking and poisons and deadly gases... [which] could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints." - President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002.
THE FACTS:
The alleged Al Qaeda training camp, which Colin Powell described to the United Nations in February, is later revealed to be outside Iraq's control and patrolled by Allied warplanes. By late June, Michael Chandler, the head of the U.N. team monitoring global efforts to counter Al Qaeda tells Agence France Press: "We have never had information presented to us -- even though we've asked questions -- which would indicate that there is a direct link."
posted on September 9, 2003 09:50:48 AM new"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa," Bush declares in the State of the Union address.
THE FACTS:
In March, Mohamed ElBaradei, director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), tells the U.N. Security Council that the documents substantiating the claim of alleged Iraqi efforts to buy uranium in Niger were fakes (and bad ones at that) and that "these specific allegations are unfounded." The unnamed ex-ambassador whom the CIA sent to check out the story tells The New Republic: "They knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie."
posted on September 9, 2003 09:51:54 AM newU.S. officials present evidence suggesting that Iraq tried to buy aluminum tubes for use in centrifuges for the uranium enrichment process.
THE FACTS:
IAEA's ElBaradei later reports that extensive investigation "failed to uncover any evidence" that Iraq intended to use the tubes for any project other than the reverse engineering of rockets.
posted on September 9, 2003 09:52:36 AM new
In early April, the Pentagon "confirms" discovery of a biological and chemical weapons storage site near the town of Hindiyah, complete with suspected sarin and tabun nerve agents.
THE FACTS:
Fourteen barrels of liquids are reassessed to be pesticide.
posted on September 9, 2003 09:53:16 AM new
In early April, a white powder found at a site near Najaf is described as possible chemical agents, and presented as a likely "smoking gun."
posted on September 9, 2003 09:55:25 AM new
"We believe [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." - Vice President Cheney, March 16, 2003 on Meet the Press.
THE FACTS:
After the fighting, an Iraqi nuclear scientist cuts a deal for refuge with the United States. Buried in his garden are documents and parts of a gas centrifuge, which could be used to enrich uranium for bombmaking. But the process of enriching uranium would require hundreds or thousands of precisely machined centrifuges, working together perfectly.
THE SPIN:
The administration declares this evidence that Bush and Cheney were correct in saying that Saddam had never given up hope [italics added] of building nuclear weapons. From "possession" to "hope" in one easy spin.
posted on September 9, 2003 09:56:40 AM new
"Biological laboratories described by our Secretary of State to the whole world that were not supposed to be there, that are a direct violation of the U.N. resolutions, have been discovered," Bush tells reporters, on May 29, referring to trailers the administration says are mobile labs.
THE FACTS:
For weeks, numerous independent experts express serious doubts about the trailers' purposes; a classified State Department intelligence memo cited by The New York Times also cautions about premature conclusions.
THE SPIN:
"The experts have spoken and the judgment of the experts is very clear on this matter," says Fleischer. Colin Powell splits hairs in backing the White House: State experts "weren't saying it was not a mobile lab, they just were not quite up in that curve of confidence that the rest of the intelligence community was at..."
posted on September 9, 2003 09:57:33 AM new
THE CLAIM:
In his State of the Union address, Bush claimed Iraq had the capacity to produce 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 25,000 liters of anthrax and 500 tons of sarin, mustard gas and VX nerve agent. He said Iraq also had 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical weapons, plus several mobile biological weapons laboratories and an active nuclear weapons development program.
THE FACTS:
Despite coalition troops combing the country, and vast reward monies offered, none of this arsenal has been uncovered.
THE SPIN:
The administration "remains confident" that something substantial will be found.
