posted on February 3, 2004 09:36:33 AM new
Kay vindicates Bush
In light of weapons inspector David Kay's recent statements, it is mystifying to me that President Bush and Republicans aren't claiming vindication and challenging Democrats for exploiting the issue. Some observations about this:
1. Kay did say we didn't discover major stockpiles of recently developed WMD in Iraq, but almost everything else he said supports the president's position, exposing his opponents as wrong and reckless. Kay said or implied that:
A. "The intelligence community owes the president (an apology) rather than the president owing (one to) the American people."
B. The administration did not pressure the intelligence agencies to overstate the WMD threat.
C. While Bush relied on possibly erroneous intelligence, so did Saddam himself and his generals, the Clinton administration, France, Germany and Britain.
D. "What we learned during the inspection made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than, in fact, we thought it was even before the war."
E. Iraq was a magnet for international terrorists who were free to operate there, and plan and conduct their deadly mischief.
F. Saddam was flagrantly violating U.N. resolutions in a number of respects and feverishly trying to do so in others. While there were supposedly no major WMD stockpiles, there were probably WMDs, some of which may have been removed to Syria in the weeks preceding our invasion. Saddam was trying to weaponize the deadly agent Ricin, and he was clearly developing missile systems in contravention of the resolutions.
G. Saddam's scientists may have duped him about their progress in developing WMD.
2. Bill Clinton recently said that when he ordered the bombing of Iraq's suspected WMD sites, we couldn't be sure whether we (and Britain) destroyed all of them, 50 percent or 10 percent -- because we didn't have inspectors on the ground to determine the extent of the damage. While Clinton was trying to take credit for possibly destroying Iraq's WMD, he inadvertently exposed his party's hypocrisy. Did Democrats complain that he bombed these sites when we didn't even know if WMD were there? Did Democrats complain about weaknesses in our intelligence because we never learned whether we struck pay dirt with those bombing attacks? Did they call for an investigation?
3. It's a little hard for me to swallow the idea that just one of Saddam's scientists deceived him, much less a network of them who would have had to discuss their lies conspiratorially, increasing the chances that they would be exposed (and then murdered).
4. But, if Kay is correct that Saddam was duped, how can we say we had an avoidable failure of intelligence? If a dictator with unchecked power has faulty intelligence about his own regime, how can our intelligence agencies be blamed for having that same info?
5. Intelligence is at best, an inexact science. It is hard to stomach all these armchair quarterbacks demanding perfection from the very intelligence organizations they and their like-minded predecessors emasculated in previous decades. If there were intelligence failures, they were probably not technological ones, but those of human intelligence (HUMINT), which is precisely what liberals weakened.
6. I question Kay's assertion that "you cannot have pre-emptive foreign or military policy unless you have pristine, perfect intelligence." Since much intelligence depends on the human factor, which is inherently imperfect, we will often not be completely certain about our intelligence. Yet, as even Kay admits, it was imperative that we act anyway. The only way we could prevent Saddam from developing and using WMD or sharing them with terrorists was to remove him from power forcibly.
7. And with all due respect to Mr. Kay and others, we did not, as I've written many times before, have the burden of proving Saddam had WMD. He had the duty of proving he had destroyed them and his programs. This he deliberately and defiantly failed to do. Our "preemptive" attack was justified with or without the continued existence of WMD. In this sense, it wasn't even preemptive; it was to enforce already violated resolutions.
8. President Bush has been pressured to conduct an independent investigation even though we don't know for sure that there was truly an intelligence failure that could realistically have been avoided. But as important as intelligence is in our war on terror, we can greatly benefit from a comprehensive review, provided its purpose remains constructive -- to expose and solve problems -- rather than to find a convenient scapegoat.
9. It doesn't make sense that Bush would have lied about WMD knowing that his lie would be exposed when we defeated Iraq. It's time for Democrats to "move on."
June 10, 2003
Why the Lies About WMD Matter
A Crime Against American Values
By RAY CLOSE
former CIA analyst
"....We might start by reminding our audience that there are several subjects that are NOT germane to the current debate, because they are not questioned by anyone. These include the following:
1. That Saddam Hussein was a vile despot who terrified and enslaved the population of Iraq;
2. That Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction, that he used them against his own people, and that he probably would not have hesitated to reconstitute his WMD program at some future date if given the opportunity.
Those subjects should be excluded from the debate entirely.
The issues that are critically important, on the other hand, are these:
1. The Bush Administration declared that it had irrefutable, ironclad proof that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction that posed an imminent threat to the safety and security of the United States, and this claim was used as the justification for launching a preemptive war.
The whole question of whether initiating preemptive military action is appropriate at all for a democracy like ours, under any circumstances, is a subject that deserves much more careful debate on the national level here in the United States than it has received --- in terms of its moral justification, its constitutional legitimacy and its practical utility as an instrument of national policy. But on one vital point EVERYONE is already in complete agreement --- that preemptive war cannot possibly be considered unless there is compelling evidence of an imminent threat to our national security. Not an unprovoked attack against a POTENTIAL FUTURE threat; not a war based on an intellectual conviction that harm COULD be done to us someday by a particular foreign enemy. Those are ideas that are new and unique to the self-proclaimed "Bush Doctrine". We are, by our own established moral and legal constraints, limited to launching military attacks ONLY against an enemy who poses an IMMINENT threat to our physical safety and our vital national interests, or who has already committed an act of war against the United States. There has been no national debate in which a change in those long-accepted and time-honored criteria has even been proposed for consideration, much less approved.
Today, it is very clear that no legitimate casus belli existed. In fact, many of the intelligence reports on which this momentous decision was based, and which were used to give that decision a patina of moral justification, were largely unsubstantiated.Some of the intelligence was even based on documentation that was known at the time to have been forged. In other words, it should be acknowledged beyond any question that the claimed "imminent threat to the safety of America" was a complete myth.
2. The main issue, we must conclude, goes far beyond the question of how available information was evaluated and used in making policy decisions. We are not talking just about errors of judgment on the part of earnest and conscientious analysts in Washington, and we are not denigrating the quality of U.S. surveillance technology or challenging the probity of our human intelligence sources. Nor are we limiting our concern to the question of whether or not certain individual officials in the Administration tinkered with the intelligence process to please their bosses or to support partisan political agendas --- serious as such corruption would certainly be.
What emerges as beyond dispute is the simple and straightforward reality that a preemptive war was launched on the basis of intelligence information that was represented to the American people and to the world by our leadership as incontrovertible proof of conditions that they must have known perfectly well did not really exist. Thousands died in that war. Immeasurable physical damage was done to an entire nation. A critically important principle of international law was violated and mocked. That was not only dishonest and immoral. It was a crime against those values for which America stands most proud.
Ray Close was a CIA analyst in the Near East division. He is a member of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) and can be reached at: [email protected].
******
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
[ edited by bunnicula on Feb 3, 2004 12:49 PM ]
posted on February 3, 2004 12:59:12 PM new
A. As CIC, it is Bush's responsibility to determine that his NSC was not presenting info not based in reality.
B. Valerie Plame
C. Only Bush used the "intelligence" to launch a preemptive war
D. No WMDs are more dangerous than WMDs that were an imminent threat? How so?
E. The 9/11 terrorists went to flight school where?
F. Probably? May have been? Weasel words.
"Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said yesterday that he does not know whether he would have recommended an invasion of Iraq (news - web sites) if he had been told it had no stockpiles of banned weapons,"
posted on February 3, 2004 01:09:40 PM new
All this whining and crying by the left is getting old... lets cut the BS... we did we have taken over Iraq... what do want... to give it back to Saddam?
President Bush just did what should of been done in 1991 however at that time we still had some respect for the UN, since then that org has made it self the laughing stock of despots everywhere...
I support President Bush and I don't care if he did lie... we did the right thing...
oh and btw if you can't vote here STFU.... your word is worthless...
Editor's Note: This article was first published by TruthOut.org, and is reprinted with permission.
After several years teaching high school, I've heard all the excuses. I didn't get my homework done because my computer crashed, because my project partner didn't do their part, because I feel sick, because I left it on the bus, because I had a dance recital, because I was abducted by aliens and viciously probed. Houdini doesn't have as many tricks. No one on earth is more inventive than a high school sophomore backed into a corner and faced with a zero on an assignment.
No one, perhaps, except Bush administration officials forced now to account for their astounding claims made since September 2002 regarding Iraq's alleged weapons program.
After roughly 280 days worth of fearful descriptions of the formidable Iraqi arsenal, coming on the heels of seven years of UNSCOM weapons inspections, four years of surveillance, months of UNMOVIC weapons inspections, the investiture of an entire nation by American and British forces, after which said forces searched "everywhere" per the words of the Marine commander over there and "found nothing," after interrogating dozens of the scientists and officers who have nothing to hide anymore because Hussein is gone, after finding out that the dreaded "mobile labs" were weather balloon platforms sold to Iraq by the British, George W. Bush and his people suddenly have a few things to answer for.
You may recall this instance where a bombastic claim was made by Bush. During his constitutionally-mandated State of the Union address on Jan. 28, 2003, Mr. Bush said, "Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent." Nearly five months later, those 500 tons are nowhere to be found. A few seconds with a calculator can help us understand exactly what this means.
Five hundred tons of gas equals one million pounds. After UNSCOM, after UNMOVIC, after the war, after the U.S. Army inspectors, after all the satellite surveillance, it is difficult in the extreme to imagine how one million pounds of anything could refuse to be located. Bear in mind, also, that this one million pounds is but a part of the Iraqi weapons arsenal described by Bush and his administration.
Maybe the dog ate it. Or maybe it was never there to begin with, having been destroyed years ago by the first U.N. inspectors and by the Iraqis themselves. Maybe we went to war on a big lie, one that killed over 3,500 Iraqi civilians to date, one that killed some 170 American soldiers, one that has been costing us one American soldier's life per day thus far.
If you listen to the Republicans on Capitol Hill, however, this is all just about "politics." An in-depth investigation into how exactly we came to go to war on the WMD word of the Bush administration has been quashed by the Republican majority in the House of Representatives. Closed-door hearings by the Intelligence Committee are planned next week, but an open investigation has been shunted aside by Bush allies who control the gavel and the agenda. If there is nothing to hide, as the administration insists, if nothing was done wrong, one must wonder why they fear to have these questions asked in public.
The questions are being asked anyway. Thirty-five Representatives have signed H.R. 260, which demands with specificity that the administration back up it's oft-repeated claims about the Iraqi weapons arsenal with evidence and fact. The guts of the resolution are as follows:
Resolved, That the president is requested to transmit to the House of Representatives not later than four days after the date of the adoption of this resolution documents or other materials in the president's possession that provides specific evidence for the following claims relating to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction:
(1) On Aug. 26, 2002, the Vice President in a speech stated: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.... What he wants is time, and more time to husband his resources to invest in his ongoing chemical and biological weapons program, and to gain possession of nuclear weapons."
(2) On Sept. 12, 2002, in a speech to the United Nations General Assembly, the president stated: "Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons. Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon."
(3) On Oct. 7, 2002, in a speech in Cincinnati, Ohio, the president stated: "It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons."
(4) On Jan. 7, 2003, the secretary of defense at a press briefing stated: "There is no doubt in my mind but that they currently have chemical and biological weapons."
(5) On Jan. 9, 2003, in his daily press briefing, the White House spokesperson stated: "We know for a fact that there are weapons there Iraq."
(6) On March 16, 2003, in an appearance on NBC's Meet The Press, the vice president stated: "We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. El Baradei frankly is wrong."
(7) On March 17, 2003, in an address to the nation, the President stated: "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
(8) On March 21, 2003, in his daily press briefing the White House spokesperson stated: "Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly. All this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes."
(9) On March 24, 2003, in an appearance on CBS's Face the Nation, the secretary of defense stated: "We have seen intelligence over many months that they have chemical and biological weapons, and that they have dispersed them and that they're weaponized and that, in one case at least, the command and control arrangements have been established."
(10) On March 30, 2003, in an appearance on ABC's This Week, the secretary of defense stated: "We know where they are, they are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad."
On June 10, 2003, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) transmitted a letter to Condoleezza Rice demanding answers to a specific area of concern in this whole mess. His letter goes on to repeat, in scathing detail, the multi-faceted claims made by the Bush administration regarding an Iraqi nuclear weapons program, and deconstructs those claims with a fine scalpel. "What I want to know is the answer to a simple question: Why did the president use forged evidence in the State of the Union address?" the letter concludes. "This is a question that bears directly on the credibility of the United States, and it should be answered in a prompt and forthright manner, with full disclosure of all the relevant facts."
It is this aspect, the nuclear claims, that has led the Bush administration to do what many observers expected them to do for a while now: They have blamed it all on the CIA. A report in the June 12, 2003 edition of The Washington Post cites an unnamed Bush administration official who claims that the CIA knew the evidence of Iraqi nuclear plans had been forged, but that CIA failed to give this information to Bush. The Post story states, "A senior intelligence official said the CIA's action was the result of 'extremely sloppy' handling of a central piece of evidence in the administration's case against then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein."
Ergo, it wasn't the dog who ate the WMD. It was the CIA. Unfortunately for Bush and his people, this blame game will not hold water.
Early in October of 2002, Bush went before the American people and delivered yet another vat of nightmarish descriptions of what Saddam Hussein could do to America and the world with his vast array of weaponry. One week before this speech, however, the CIA had publicly stated that Hussein and Iraq were less of a threat than they had been for the last 10 years.
Columnist Robert Scheer reported on Oct. 9, 2002, that, "In its report, the CIA concludes that years of U.N. inspections combined with U.S. and British bombing of selected targets have left Iraq far weaker militarily than in the 1980s, when it was supported in its war against Iran by the United States. The CIA report also concedes that the agency has no evidence that Iraq possesses nuclear weapons."
Certainly, if citizen Scheer was able to read and understand the CIA report on Iraq's nuclear capabilities, the president of the United States could easily do so as well.
The scandal which laid Bill Clinton low centered around his lying under oath about sex. The scandal which took down Richard Nixon was certainly more profound, as he was accused of misusing the CIA and FBI to spy on political opponents while paying off people to lie about his actions. Lying under oath and misusing the intelligence community are both serious transgressions, to be sure. The matter of Iraq's weapons program, however, leaves both of these in deep shade.
George W. Bush and his people used the fear and terror that still roils within the American people in the aftermath of 9/11 to fob off an unnerving fiction about a faraway nation, and then used that fiction to justify a war that killed thousands and thousands of people.
Latter-day justifications about "liberating" the Iraqi people or demonstrating the strength of America to the world do not obscure this fact. They lied us into a war that, beyond the death toll, served as the greatest Al Qaeda recruiting drive in the history of the world. They lied about a war that cost billions of dollars which could have been better used to bolster America's amazingly substandard anti-terror defenses. They are attempting, in the aftermath, to misuse the CIA by blaming them for all of it.
Blaming the CIA will not solve this problem, for the CIA is well able to defend itself. Quashing investigations in the House will not stem the questions that come now at a fast and furious clip.
They lied. Period. Trust a teacher on this. We can spot liars who have not done their homework a mile away.
******
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on February 3, 2004 01:33:24 PM new
Twelvepole, you live in the USA, a free and diverse society where many points of view need to be considered. While you might feel more comfortable in a fascist society where any dissenting speech is supressed, the USA is not one of those. I find your STFU antiAmerican behaviour, since it attempts to surpress a value most Americans hold dear.
So why do you support liars? The ends don't justify the means. That's a basic moral principle.
“The moral worth of an action does not lie in the effect expected from it, nor in any principle of action which requires to borrow its motive from this expected effect.”
posted on February 3, 2004 02:33:00 PM new
Snowy, you and Twelve are in different leagues. He doesn't want me, Kiara, Austi or Skylite to be involved in discussing (on a discussion board) any Bush issues because they're none of our business.
posted on February 3, 2004 02:59:41 PM new
If all you can do is bash American and our Great President, that is your choice... just don't cry when a real american calls you on it.
I don't see any reason to discuss "family" business with outsiders...
That socialist country to the north has their issues, why not start a discussion on them?
Why? because no one really gives a sh*t about your country...
It is like all the jealous little girls want some to...
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
posted on February 3, 2004 03:21:00 PM new
Nothing to say about the topic? I thought not. Your strength doesn't lie in rational discussion, twelvepole.
Yes, the US actions do affect Canada, Australia, and many other nations. Canada has servicepeople serving in Afghanistan. Some of them were killed by the US in a "friendly fire" incident. Canda opened up its borders to many on the planes that couldn't land here on 9/11. Canada has been at our side, as has Australia, through some horrific conflicts. Many Australians died in the terrorist bombing in Bali. One could not ask for better allies, and friends. Part of alliance and friendship is listening to what they have to say, and considering the different perspectives presented. Every side grows when such engagement happens.
Twelvepole, you actions in trying to shut down Canadian and Australian voices are certainly reminiscent of the behaviour of the Soviet Union government. They didn't like dissent or engagement either. They learned.
rfort
You have the right to an informed opinion -Harlan Ellison
[ edited by snowyegret on Feb 3, 2004 03:22 PM ]
posted on February 3, 2004 03:23:22 PM new
Where have I ever bashed Bush or America? I live on the border and have relatives and friends on both sides and I do business on both sides and I go back and forth whenever I wish. Many from the US reside in Canada.
I think it's only sensible to be aware of issues in other countries.
I don't see any reason to discuss "family" business with outsiders...
What a stupid comment! There is no reasoning to this type of thinking. Whatever happens in the US affects everyone else. Canada has war dead from this war on terrorism so we are involved in it also. It's costing us a lot financially too.
It's really silly to judge a whole country by just a few people. Twelvepole, you're so focused on your own tiny piece of the world that you can't break out. In fact you recently stated that these forums had been set up for people in the US and the rest of us weren't welcome. How narrow minded!
You've admitted you've only been to Canada a couple of times. In fact it was there that you probably got your only piece ever. Open your eyes and look at the big picture, it's a big world out there.
posted on February 3, 2004 03:24:12 PM new
Twelve, I have repeatedly asked you to show me where I've ever put down Americans. All you can come up with is calling other countries socialist sh*tholes, like that's some kind of defense. You're all talk. You can't back up anything you say and I don't expect that to change soon.
"I don't see any reason to discuss "family" business with outsiders..."
The last time I checked, we are all just renting space in the countries we live in. The world belongs to everyone, Twelve.
posted on February 3, 2004 06:00:46 PM new
Lol twelve, if you put everybody on ignore you will be not have anyone to argue with and in effect you will just be reading your own posts. lol!
posted on February 3, 2004 07:24:04 PM new
I don't care if he did lie... we did the right thing...
I don't care if he did lie... we did the right thing...
I don't care if he did lie... we did the right thing...
I don't care if he did lie... we did the right thing...
Nope - tried but it doesn't get any better if you just keep trying.
Maybe there are enough voters now with no shame or morals that the administration can really do anything it wants. Don't know how long the republic can survive that.
It may even last a bit longer than professional football.
posted on February 3, 2004 07:54:13 PM new"In fact you recently stated that these forums had been set up for people in the US and the rest of us weren't welcome."
posted on February 3, 2004 10:08:39 PM new
I missed all that, Kiara! What a hilarious link, although I feel sorry for what Austi has to put up with from Twelve and Bear - never a discussion, just name calling & degrading everyone. Where do you two get that from anyway? The Bible? The republican party? Your parole officers?
I doubt too he really has us on Ignore (like it's a bad thing). Nothing he's said in the past has ever panned out. Poor Twelve and his statements.
posted on February 4, 2004 03:15:42 AM newBill Clinton recently said that when he ordered the bombing of Iraq's suspected WMD sites, we couldn't be sure whether we (and Britain) destroyed all of them, 50 percent or 10 percent -- because we didn't have inspectors on the ground to determine the extent of the damage. While Clinton was trying to take credit for possibly destroying Iraq's WMD, he inadvertently exposed his party's hypocrisy. Did Democrats complain that he bombed these sites when we didn't even know if WMD were there? Did Democrats complain about weaknesses in our intelligence because we never learned whether we struck pay dirt with those bombing attacks? Did they call for an investigation?
This statement says the most Bear as it does point out the hypocrisies constantly being shown on the left and Democrats...
Nothing more than BDS coming out, but you know what watching the next 4 years with President Bush will be nice.
Seems like all the canucks claim to fame in the middle east is being bombed for being to stupid to train in the right area... you notice all they can claim is "training" not any real fighting... Annex POS countries to the north and south now... make some real men out of 'em... Personal knowledge how easy the wives give it up when their wallets are out to sea... LOL
posted on February 4, 2004 08:21:49 AM new
Of course not, twelve. [In answer to the above questions] It's okay when their side does it, for exactly the same reasons. But when a Republican president gets the same intelligence information, he, of course, is lying to us. What an ongoing, old, tired, joke.
posted on February 4, 2004 08:39:40 AM new
Both presidents. Read clintons 12-16-98 speech, there you'll see him agreeing Saddam needed to be removed from power. He just didn't have the guts to do so. Left the mess to continue into Bush's administration....just like he did with BinLaden. Had he taken care of either problem/threat this administration wouldn't have had to deal with it ALL themselves. But no....those who support peace at any cost only caused the posponement of what needed to be done.
And now the left has the gull to say Saddam's capture didn't make the world a safer place. ... when even clinton, at that time said it would.
You can't excuse clinton's bombing the '#*!@' out of Iraq for exactly the same reasons and turn around and call this President a liar. Only makes yourself look silly/stupid.
posted on February 4, 2004 08:56:18 AM new
You are the misguided one, linda. You are suffering in a time warp. This is 2004 and George W. Bush is the president. The situation in 1998 when Clinton made that speech has changed. Bush has led the country into a preemtive war, ignoring intelligence information and without regard to the opinion of the international community.
Bush is responsible for our current situation and for the fact that our country and the world is less safe.
posted on February 4, 2004 09:11:48 AM new
The laugh is on you, helen. Most American's don't have a problem with Bush taking out Saddam. Most are glad that threat, seen from the past three administrations, has been taken care of. You and other ultra lefties here just don't get that the majority of American's see this issue differently than you and aren't one bit upset that Saddam is no longer in power.
Get used to it. The war on terror is going to continue during his second administration.
posted on February 4, 2004 09:38:17 AM new
I know twelvepole is reading this though he is wimping out and pretending to have me on ignore because he doesn't have the knowledge to discuss topics here and can only spout his ignorance by pretending he is shielded.
The Canadians in Afghanistan were on a marked training course and were with other British and US forces when the incident happened. This was a well-defined, well-marked training course for all coalition forces, not just Canadians.
Here is some info about present conditions.
'Operation Athena' is the Canadian Forces' contribution to ISAF-Kabul <http://www.afnorth.nato.int/ISAF/index.htm>, the International Security Assistance Force in the Afghan capital. ISAF's goals were set by the UN, but the Force is commanded by NATO. The CF, providing almost 2,000 troops, is, by far, the largest contingent of ISAF-Kabul.
The UN-mandated International Security Assistance Force was created in late 2001 to help bring stability to the country. Canada is a major contributor to the effort and has been the lead nation of ISAF's Kabul Multinational Brigade since August 2003.
The 2002 Tokyo Donors Conference of 60 countries (including Canada) pledged $4.5 billion in assistance to last until 2006. That's more than Afghanistan's entire gross domestic product for 2002.
posted on February 4, 2004 09:47:14 AM new
I'm not laughing linda. It appears that only you are gleeful over the situation now. "Taking out Saddam" involves more that the removal of one man from a hole, linda. That's a fact that previous presidents all realized...including, incidentally, Bush's father. Have you noticed that the war goes on without Saddam?
And still, you fail to see that there was no immediate threat from Saddam. That's astounding. You may count yourself among the Americans being polled with this belief who are now being called ignorant.
The terror, linda is in the White House. The bush administration is a terror to the entire world and that is one reason we and our friends are an increasingly popular target.
posted on February 4, 2004 09:49:17 AM new
According to Globalstewards.com this is how YOUR democratic presidential candidates voted on the war. Make all the excuses for why they did so....FACT remains they did vote for the war.
------
2004 DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES INFORMATION
AUTHORIZATION FOR WAR WITH IRAQ SCORECARD
The Center for International Policy provided a record of how the current Congressional candidates voted on the Authorization for War with Iraq bill (H.J.RES.114). For non-congressional candidates, see links to their "statements" below.
Congressional Candidate Vote
Senator John Edwards (NC) Yes
Senator John Kerry (MA) Yes
Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (OH) No
Senator Joe Lieberman (CT) Yes
So YOUR current leader to win the democratic nomination also voted to take this nation to war with Iraq. But I'm sure, according to many here, he just didn't understand what that meant, being a war veteran and having voted against the Iraq war in 1991. LOL Maybe Dean was right about Kerry.
posted on February 4, 2004 09:55:56 AM new
Kiara, I'm sorry.
Linda, I am neither silly or stupid, but your unquestioning support of a liar that is frittering away the lives of our troops certainly calls into question your intelligence.
The majority opinion rules?
How do you explain world opinion on the war in Iraq being for the most part (that's the majority) negative then?
The War on Terror? Where's Osama? What nationality were those hijackers again? Or do you think killing thousands of Muslims, no matter that they nothing to do with 9/11 is "a good thing" and you support it in the name of "the War on Terror"?
The War on Terror? The domestic terrorists seem to be a bit of a problem, don't you think? Where's the criminal that sent anthrax through the US Mail?
What is a just war? This doesn't meet the criteria, LindaK.
You have the right to an informed opinion -Harlan Ellison
