Originally posted by BitRaiser
Even more ridiculous is the fact that there is no evidence and no credible charge they can pin on Bush. What will you impeach him for, making bad
laws? Congress is doing that 24/7. How about short sighted foreign policy or politicizing the war effort? If so then why didn't they impeach
"Saddam Hussein has weapons of Mass Destruction".
Done deal. He lied to the public to justify an illegal war.
No he didn't, and that only shows that you are another victim of the media brainwashing. Technically the U.S. could havei nvaded Iraq without any
evidence whatsoever for WMDs. There were seven reasons the U.S. invaded Iraq. Now I'm not saying you have to agree with those reasons, the U.N.
didn't, I do, but to say that Bush just lied over WMDs is a complete falsehood.
First of all, it was President Clinton who started this whole fiasco regarding Saddam having WMDs, Bush just actually had the guts to invade. Every
major politician, Democrat and Republican, said Saddam had WMDs until Bush actually wanted to invade. And even then, the evidence was pretty clear.
The reasons for invading Iraq though were that:
1. Saddam Hussein has never abided by the terms of the Persian Gulf War cease-fire and has continued to violate 17 UN Security Council Resolutions
(obviously confirmed by the United Nations).
2. Saddam Hussein is engaged in a systematic pattern of deception regarding his weapons capabilities (later confirmed by the Duelfer report and chief
U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix) and continues to thumb his nose at the World Community.
3. Saddam Hussein possesses WMD (now apparently refuted by the Duelfer report ).
4. Saddam Hussein has ties to terrorists, including members of al-Qaida and Ansar al-Islam (confirmed by the 9/11 commission).
5. Saddam Hussein intends to develop additional WMD programs, making him a threat to all counties in the Middle East (again confirmed by Duelfer).
6. Saddam Hussein's removal would help in the war on terror by initiating the democratization of the Middle East. (Imagine that, nobody ever talks
about this one and recent events prove this to be true)
7. Saddam Hussein is a ruthless dictator and war criminal, he and those members of his régime need to be brought to account for their crimes on
humanity (confirmed by The UN Commission on Human Rights, the UN General Assembly, the International Red Cross and Amnesty International).
(Here they are):
Refusal to Admit Human Rights Monitors
Violence Against Women
Executions and Repression of Political Opposition
Abuse of Children
Disappearances, including over 16,000 Kurds and Shiites
Denial of Basic Freedoms: Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Information
Withholding of Food
Crimes Against Muslim Religious leaders and their followers
(There’s more, but to wrap it up, Powell concluded):
In Summary, the goals of the United States are simple
1) fight terrorism, to include those that support or harbor terrorists
2) uphold and enforce United Nations Security Council Resolutions
3) disarm a dangerous regime that possesses weapons of mass destruction; and,
4) remove a ruthless dictator (i.e., Saddam Hussein) and promote Democracy in the region
I'm not going to say the man was perfect, but his general policy was much more moral than the current one in place.
No it wasn't. he clearly let Osama bin Laden escape when they knew he was responsible for the original WTC attacks. The actual footage of that was
even shown in the documentary "The Pathway to 9/11."
I don't see how anyone can say throwing a dictator out of power is "immoral."
And BTW, capitalism is not the "antithesis" of democracy. Communism, fascism, socialism, etc...are