Bush on iraq...(here we go again.)

[Esquire M Busterbury]

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/21/bush-on-911/

Let me first say, I don't know the ideology, political position, or previous wrongdoings/nazi affiliations of the site hosting the clip. I only watched the clip.

That being said, this really does chap my hide. I imagine folks who lost friends & family on 9/11 clenching their fists & grinding their teeth upon hearing this. I know I would.

And though they never claimed Saddam ordered the attacks, there was no shortage of them connecting the two in every other conceivable way. "Slam Dunk" was the most appropriate phrase I believe. (Why, the person who said that surely deserves a medal of freedom or somesuch...wait a minute)

If more people could watch things like this maybe it could put a dent in the supposed 50% of the country that believes that Iraq still possesses WMDs. (Even if we did have the receipts...old joke that still applies.)

(edited after reading a little after the clip) Can anyone comment on this statement:
"The Total Information Awareness program was killed by a bipartisan congress in 2004 but George Bush is running the program anyway."
Anyone who's heard about the program already knows why it's bad for us (but it fights terrorism!)...but to think that it might be going on anyway! Would it be reasonable to think that the phone record fiasco is simply a faucet of this gem?

 

[Camp David]

... this really does chap my hide...If more people could watch things like this maybe it could put a dent in the supposed 50% of the country that believes that Iraq still possesses WMDs...

Sure... we could have left Iraq alone and fight the terrorists here, in New York and Washington on our home turf on 09/12/01! That would have been called stupid by the way! The first rule of war is to confront the enemy on his home turf... that is one of the reasons we went to Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere... and thank God!

btw... listen to the President's entire explanation rather than grabbing a soundbite to edify the liberals!

Camp David

 

[Esquire M Busterbury]

First off, the first rule of war is to finish any wars you've started before launching another. (Won't see germany doing THAT again)

Secondly, any "pre-emptive" war had dang well be justified. (Read: since Saddam didn't have oh, say, ANYTHING to do with 9/11, the justification has since seemed a little false. If it was really based upon the concept that they posed a real threat to us, there were only about a half dozen other countries that seem to pose a more real threat to us than iraq.

I'd LOVE to hear the rest of his stammering & watch his shifty body language. Please post a link. In the meanwhile, I'd appreciate the toning down of such vulgar name calling (such as liberal, conservative, left wing, right wing, demo, repub, or anything of that sort.) It seems that it's just too easy to label opposition as any of these things and that in and of itself is a justification to write off much of what someone says.

And on a side note, is it more stupid to wait for them here, or to go do something that in all likelyhood will CAUSE the aformentioned scenario.

But thank JESUS we've had the strength & courage to attack those unrightous uneducated religious radicals. Thanks jesus. May you continue to bless us with such intelligent, reasonable, and more importantly honest leaders for our (obviously) deserving nation. Amen.

 

[Redworm]

Sure... we could have left Iraq alone and fight the terrorists here, in New York and Washington on our home turf on 09/12/01!

Can you provide any evidence to suggest that not invading Iraq would have led to battles on the streets of New York with the same people that destroyed the towers?

 

[johnbt]

"since Saddam didn't have oh, say, ANYTHING to do with 9/11"

Do you believe Saddam had anything to do with the Iranian war? How about the invasion of Kuwait? Do you think he had any Kurds killed?

Do you like Saddam or just hate the President?

John

 

[jcoiii]

Chemical weapons are WMD. Check the definition

 

[Epyon]

Ummmm....

Because we kicked the crap out of Iraq when Bush Sr. was in power. It was rather obvious Iraq didn't have much capability in amassing any assault against America. It's also been proven Iraq and Al Qaeda had no connections. Al Qaeda is funded by bin Laden, and his family. (Oh yeah, fun fact: the Bush family, bin Laden family, and Saudi tyrants do business with each other.) So why is it that we haven't caught bin Laden yet?


Epyon

EDIT: Jcoiii, it's been said Israel has chemical weapons and nukes. So does America... oops... time for an invasion on those nations too right? Oh but Israel is pure and free from persecution because they can do no wrong, just like every American is fed to believe that the Arabs are wrong and Israel is always right no matter what. The Middle East agenda sickens me, America has no business there, start investing in alternate fuel and get the f$%k out of there. When nations launch pre-emptive wars for "national security" and start feeding their people the idea of "you're either with us or against us" mentality, start trampling our rights openly without the people rebelling, then you're no better than the regimes we're toppling over "for national security" and to promote American busin.... I I mean "democracy". I don't believe in imperialistic take-overs and the set-up of puppet governments. Saddam was a puppet who out-lived his use, and so we took him out. Same with the Taliban, great work government, I feel safer knowing America is will always have a need for enemies and conflicts so that people are more willing to give up their rights.

 

[jcoiii]

This statement, at least about the other countries that have WMD, while being true, is irrelevant to the argument. Those who state that iraq had no wmd are flat out ignoring facts. So, Bush stated that we were taking down iraq because they had WMD. This is fact, confirmed. (I can dredge up news reports if you wish). Now, if you want to argue that Iraq having WMD is not a good enough reason, that's fine. But I am simply tired of the statement "Iraq did not have WMD." It's simply not true.

 

[Esquire M Busterbury]

Do you believe Saddam had anything to do with the Iranian war? How about the invasion of Kuwait? Do you think he had any Kurds killed?

Which is why we played both sides again the middle on the iranian war...Kuwait? Wasn't he busy shaking hands with Donald Rumsfeld before that happened? And as far as him killing kurds, that was a horrible point in iraqi history. 20+ years ago. Should we be invaded for killing Indians? And again, killing kurds didn't seem to bother us much at the time this photo was taken...

Do you like Saddam or just hate the President?

What, can't I do both? Are those my only choices? Can I hate liars & despots & dislike them both? 30 years ago would you have been asking me if I simply LOOOVE the vietcong or hate dear Mr. Johnson? What gives?

Chemical weapons are WMD. Check the definition

So how many did he use against us during our last invasion? Wow, that many? Sounds like a real threat to me. Good thing we invaded, oops, I mean occupied. Wait, that a taboo term too? I'll stick with liberated. Good thing we liberated those poor souls. Otherwise they might have (somehow) hurt us. If they didn't use them during our invasion, what in your mind makes you think we were a target when we were leaving them the funk alone?

Those who state that iraq had no wmd are flat out ignoring facts.

Like the our receipts? (that joke just won't die) Ignoring facts...interesting. Like the fact that Bush & company tried their hardest to convince us & the world of the connections between 9/11 and saddam. When that didn't hold, we went to wmds. When that sank, it's that it 'needed doing anyway', after all, just look at the kurds (how cruel, the travesty!). How many reasons is the administration going to have to go through before we get to the real ones?
Fact is, saddam was a pretty evil dictator. Other fact is that most iraqi's lives were generally better, safer, and more productive under his rule. (at least from the few iraqi's i've heard from) Back then you only had to worry about incurring his wrath when you spoke up. Nowadays you have to worry about walking out the door. But at least he won't be gassing anymore kurds. Chalk up another good deed for lady liberty.

btw, as far as the better/safer/more productive comment, before you start picking at it, realize that we've killed more iraqis than saddam ever has, even in his good years. Nothing has returned to prewar level, be it electricity, social svcs, or anything significant or necessary to living a productive or even safe life.

 

[jcoiii]

So how many did he use against us during our last invasion?

Again, that's changing the argument. Not having and not using are two different things. But if you want to go that route, I'll pose an equally pointless question. "How many has he used?"

 

[badbob]

Considering our current administration, W's pet name for Carl Rove (Turd Blossom) might be very prophetic.

badbob

 

[Esquire M Busterbury]

Again, that's changing the argument. Not having and not using are two different things. But if you want to go that route, I'll pose an equally pointless question. "How many has he used?"

We knew had HAD them since we sold them to him. The arguement for war was that he had the ability and the intentions to pose a threat to us. The perfect time to test that assumption was when we first started to invade. Since none were used, one can assume that they lacked the ability or the will to use them, thereby negating the assumption that he was a credible threat. How pointless was that?

But good thing we knocked them back another 100 years, should we remind our grandchildren to re-invade them again just to make sure they won't use them then? Surely they'll still be a little sore at us until then. (and we KNOW they've got them! It's not like we've found them since we got there, therefore THEY'VE STILL GOT SOME!)

Edit: just had another thought, if the rationale for war was that they supported or harbored terrorists (as they may have), there were, again, a half dozen other countries that might have merited a response before iraq.

 

[Eghad]

There is no proof that installing a democratic style government in Iraq will end the war on terrorism. Terrorism supercedes national boundries. Terrorism is not a national entity with defined borders. How do you fight something that is an idea with conventional forces? The current adminsitration does not understand that concept. The third generation of warfare is the battle of nation(s) vs. nation(s). The nation no longer has sole providence over warfare. Fourth generation warfare is that of ideas and cultures that cross national boundries. The war we are fighting now is one of Western culture vs. Islamic fundamentalist culture of the terrorists.

Iraq is now a breeding ground and training ground for the fourth generation warriors who want to destroy the United States and western civilization. Instead of gaining confidence with the population of Iraq, we have alienated some by Abu Gharib and the recent isolated incidents in which U.S. Soldiers may have committed atrocities. We isolate ourselves from the population. I would venture to say we have made quite a few enemies of native Iraqis who were neutral our supported us shortly after the war.

The Administration destroyed any stabilization that might have occured by disbanding the Iraqi Army
instead of using them and weeding out the bad apples as time went on. Iraq now has to import fuel for daily use. Imagine a nation that has the third largest reserve of oil having to do that. By winning the war we destabilized a nation and let the floodgates open for terrorists to come into Iraq. This administration had no plan for after the Iraq War. Something which our troops and taxpayers have paid dearly for.

 

[GoSlash27]

jcoii,
His *alleged* posession of WMDs (which he may or may not have had at the time) was only part of that rationale. He supposedly presented a "clear and present" threat due to his posession of them. I.E. He had physical control and command over them.
To the best of my knowledge (feel free to correct me) the only things found there that even comes close to WMDs was a pile of rusty expired used-to-be WMDs dating back to the Iran war.
Is this what you're claiming as "WMD"s? Just so we're all clear on the point.
The main threat during the runup was nuclear weapons. "Smoking gun...mushroom cloud" Does that ring a bell?

You can spin it all you want, but not a single rationale given for this war has stood up, including this one. This stuff was not only *not capable* of deployment as a "W", it wouldn't have caused "MD".

 

[Eghad]

But good thing we knocked them back another 100 years, should we remind our grandchildren to re-invade them again just to make sure they won't use them then?

So what do you propose to do about nuclear weapons in Iran?

 

[Esquire M Busterbury]

Eghad, I agree with much of what you're saying but...

The war we are fighting now is one of Western culture vs. Islamic fundamentalist culture of the terrorists.

My understanding was that the terrorists wish to fight against, not our western culture, so much as our western apathy towards the effects we have on other nations. Not that they hate our freedom, but hate the effects we've had in their home country. Example: the soudis flying the planes on 9/11 may have been more angry about our propping up their princes or having troops in their lands as opposed to simply our secular culture. Why'd they hit the WTC again? Does it have anything to do with the world bank or it's relationship to Soudi Arabia?

So what do you propose to do about nuclear weapons in Iran?

Again, I'm no expert, but I would think an open dialogue would be a start. Heck, ANY communication between their country and ours would be a start. We know where this path leads (to N. Korea) Are we to continue communicating through CNN and open letters to each other's country?? I'd heard speculation that there was a possiblitiy of ceasing enrichment in favor of letting the russians or someone else do it. I don't know what the right path is, all I know is that our fearless pathfinder has seemingly been leading us off a ravine and into a pretty deep mess of stickerbushes (most pleasant analogy of our foreign policy, ever!).

 

[Eghad]

Islam does not condone usury......

from a member of the Islamic Party of Britian M S M Saifullah:

"It is true that Muslims have started 'monkeying' the Western values blindly in almost everything. This comes with the rejection of Islamic values which are considered to be 'old' and hence should be 'discarded'. The so-called 'Freedom', 'Human Rights', 'Democracy' and 'Women's Rights' in Europe and America is nothing short of a joke. It may impress uneducated people in so-called Third World countries, but anyone who has studied history knows that these things came about in spite of the Church'

here is a verse....

Those who devour usury will not stand except as stands one whom the devil by his touch has driven to madness. That is because they say: Trade is like usury: but Allah has permitted trade and forbidden usury.... Allah will deprive usury of all blessing, but will give increase for deeds of charity, for He loves not any ungrateful sinner.... O you who believe, fear Allah and give up what remains of your demand for usury, if you are indeed believers. If you do it not, take notice of war from Allah and His messenger, but if you repent you shall have your capital sums; deal not unjustly, and you shall not be dealt with unjustly. And if the debtor is in difficulty, grant him time tin it is easy for him to repay. But if you remit it by way of charity, that is best for you if you only knew. [Surah al Baqarah, verse 275-280].

Islam is not something that muslim do on sundays. They do it 24/7, 365 days a year for life. They have the Koran which is the "word" and the hadith which are the "practical examples" set by the Prophet. These govern everything from personal hygiene, clothing, business practices, diplomacy, government and even making war. Islam has had no Reformation like Chrisitanity did. Secularism does not exist in the vast majority of Islam. To my knowledge Turkey is the only democratic style muslim nation with a secular government. Which means they are on the terrorist hit list also.

Freedom of any kind is diametrically opposed to the fundamentalist islam of the terrorists. To destroy the apathetic effects of western culture on Islamic nations you must destoy those who are apathetic to western culture and ideals and the source of those ideas.

Terrorism is for effect, to influence the population of its target to to make the government give what the terrorists what they want. Spain caved into the terrorist demands after the bombing there. Luckily us Americans and Brits are made of sterner stock. The WTC is a symbol of our economic prosperity. The first attack on the WTC failed and was finished in 2001. We were told they would come back to finish the job.

If a fundamentalist muslim is doing his duty in Jihad it is okay for him to lie, cheat and steal from a nonbeliever because doing his religious duty as a jihadist exempts him from those sins.

Muslims will say that suicide is a sin in Islam. Doing your duty as a suicide bomber and jihadist forgives you for commiting suicide. That is why we have seen the rise of female bombers. Consider a female who has dishonored her family by having sex outside of marriage or a child out of wedlock. Strap that bomb on lady and be a good jihadist and kill some nonbeilievers and you have restored honor to your family and you get to catch the express train to paradise.

In the west we think of dealing with other people in a honest and forthright manner. Doesnt work that way with a fundamentalist Islamic person. Since you are a non believer he can do whatever he needs to do in the name of Jihad.

look up the word Dhimmi.

 

[Heist]

WMD were represented non stop wall to wall as "Nukes". A nuclear weapon being used against the US was paraded back and forth constantly while couched in the word 'WMD', and when no nukes turned up, everyone fished around for a while and then bobbed back saying "WMD doesn't just mean nukes!"

 

[wingman]

Sure... we could have left Iraq alone and fight the terrorists here, in New York and Washington on our home turf on 09/12/01! That would have been called stupid by the way! The first rule of war is to confront the enemy on his home turf... that is one of the reasons we went to Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere... and thank God!

Perhaps if we had controlled borders and immigration then 9/11 nor a war
would have been necessary. Protect your home front and then fight your
enemy on his turf.

 

[rick_reno]

Sure... we could have left Iraq alone and fight the terrorists here, in New York and Washington on our home turf on 09/12/01! That would have been called stupid by the way! The first rule of war is to confront the enemy on his home turf... that is one of the reasons we went to Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere... and thank God!

Is that the reason we're there? Or is that today's reason? It's changed since the President originally pitched his case for attacking Iraq. Why did it change?