Iraq War

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

I agree with a lot of what you have said here. You are right- we cant undo the damage that has been done by one of the worst administrations in the history of this great country.

But...I do have issue with the last sentence of your post. Do you really believe this to be true in regards to the last 6 years? Remember, after 9-11, the country rallied around Bush. Any dissension from congress was labeled as "unpatriotic" and close to being treasonous. the power that was granted to this administration has not been seen since WW2. Sorry, Danzig, but the blame rests almost entirely on the Bush administration in this case.

from what i've read, the dems basically conceded any and all foreign policy regarding terror--they didn't want to be viewed as 'soft on terror' in the elections after 9-11. if bush suddenly had more power than he should have, i'd say more was given than taken! the blame can't rest almost entirely on bush, as the federal govt is not almost entirely vested in that branch of the fed govt. congress voted for the war, including sen kerry, yet now they 'see the light'. in other words, as polls and the wind blows...
so, if this all turns out right in the end....was all this b.s., because change wasn't affected over night, because it got difficult and sometimes ugly, suddenly unnecessary? would bush no longe be subject to calls for impeachment? if he deserves to be impeached, then so does every member of congress who voted for this. wouldn't break my heart to see that happen, cut corruption out from the core!

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

from what i've read, the dems basically conceded any and all foreign policy regarding terror--they didn't want to be viewed as 'soft on terror' in the elections after 9-11. if bush suddenly had more power than he should have, i'd say more was given than taken! the blame can't rest almost entirely on bush, as the federal govt is not almost entirely vested in that branch of the fed govt. congress voted for the war, including sen kerry, yet now they 'see the light'. in other words, as polls and the wind blows...
so, if this all turns out right in the end....was all this b.s., because change wasn't affected over night, because it got difficult and sometimes ugly, suddenly unnecessary? would bush no longe be subject to calls for impeachment? if he deserves to be impeached, then so does every member of congress who voted for this. wouldn't break my heart to see that happen, cut corruption out from the core!

If we viewed the "case" to go to war with Iraq as courtroom, the Bush admin would be the prosecution and congress would be the jury. Now, if the jury was given false and misleading evidence, how can we blame them for coming to the wrong verdict? The part about the false and misleading evidence has been proven and now they want to turn the verdict. Unfortunately, its too late.

The spin on "why" we went to Iraq has changed so many times that its hard to keep it straight. First and foremost, we were supposedly going because Sadaam was a threat to American security with weapons of mass destruction. After it was shown that indeed that was false, it became a mission to lead the Iraqi people from the tyranny of Saddaam's regime and liberate them with police zones and no bid contracts. Now why are we there?

Only the blind would see any end in sight. This is a mess that will be around for years to come. And the world knows that we created it.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

If we viewed the "case" to go to war with Iraq as courtroom, the Bush admin would be the prosecution and congress would be the jury. Now, if the jury was given false and misleading evidence, how can we blame them for coming to the wrong verdict? The part about the false and misleading evidence has been proven and now they want to turn the verdict. Unfortunately, its too late.

The spin on "why" we went to Iraq has changed so many times that its hard to keep it straight. First and foremost, we were supposedly going because Sadaam was a threat to American security with weapons of mass destruction. After it was shown that indeed that was false, it became a mission to lead the Iraqi people from the tyranny of Saddaam's regime and liberate them with police zones and no bid contracts. Now why are we there?

Only the blind would see any end in sight. This is a mess that will be around for years to come. And the world knows that we created it.

i read that congress knew exactly what the intelligence really was--it wasn't faulty, they were told the same things as the prez. but the members felt they were between a rock and a hard place--dems especially thought that a no vote on the war would cost them the elections in '02--so they voted for the war, so they wouldn't be viewed as being soft on terror. the cia is their fall guy.
if the cia lied, don't you think their would have been investigations that would make the iran contra hearings look like a pta meeting???
and as for wmd's...how did we have such a good idea that saddam had these weapons? because we provided a lot of them! remember the iran/iraq war? (for some reason for many years we based our entire foreign policy on the 'enemy of my enemy is friend' system. incredibly flawed system!! it gained us afganistan and iraq.) remember the gassing of the kurds? gas is a wmd....

all the truths behind all this may never come out. what about oil for food? what about kofi annan and his son? the u.n. mess? what about russia and france worrying more about $ than doing what's right?

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

i read that congress knew exactly what the intelligence really was--it wasn't faulty, they were told the same things as the prez. but the members felt they were between a rock and a hard place--dems especially thought that a no vote on the war would cost them the elections in '02--so they voted for the war, so they wouldn't be viewed as being soft on terror. the cia is their fall guy.
if the cia lied, don't you think their would have been investigations that would make the iran contra hearings look like a pta meeting???
and as for wmd's...how did we have such a good idea that saddam had these weapons? because we provided a lot of them! remember the iran/iraq war? (for some reason for many years we based our entire foreign policy on the 'enemy of my enemy is friend' system. incredibly flawed system!! it gained us afganistan and iraq.) remember the gassing of the kurds? gas is a wmd....

all the truths behind all this may never come out. what about oil for food? what about kofi annan and his son? the u.n. mess? what about russia and france worrying more about $ than doing what's right?

Danzig,
Here is what Congress was told, as quoted from G W Bush's State of the Union Address, 2003:
"The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.

Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide."

In his previous State of the Union, he stated that there were three mobile weapons labs, numerous references to 9-11 and Iraq's complicity, anthrax...on and on.
You are certainly entitled to believe as you wish.
So am I.

[Downthestretch55]

Danzig,
Here's a list of the top 40 lies:
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0730-06.htm

[Downthestretch55]

http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/520/81/

[skippy3481]

Dts, is there a quote from bush saying he was 100% sure they had wmd's or that he simply thought they had them/was building them?