Where is the Left's apology to Bush?

Originally posted by curme
No one argues that Saddam didn't have chemical weapons at one time, but not the WMD's
that Bush stated was the main reason to go to war. Bush either lied or was poorly misinformed. Saddam wasn't a threat to anyone.

It was Powell who was misinformed, he found out a CIA employee falsifed WMD .....
The truth is out there, we just gotta look for it.

You just can't come and say well this is what happened, and make people look bad.


I bet documents were falsified for the justification of going to Iraq for revenge and to put this asshole to rest, and well as peace of mind for the Iraq community.

I think they were all good reasons without WMD...

But what is WMD...

What is classified as WMD... Does anybody know the true definition of it?

People say well this doesn't count...

So tell me.... What does.

as quoted by curme
Saddam wasn't a threat to anyone.

Definitely wasn't to his own people, eh?



seekerof

Saddam wasn't a threat to anyone

except his own people and his neighbors. Didn't he invade a few countries? I thought he launched scuds at Isreal? Didn't he try to assasinate Bush Sr.? Ask the Shia in southern Iraq if Saddam was a threat, ask the kurds what they think.

Why people stick up for Saddam is beyond me. Lets not forget his two wonderful progeny,stellar examples of humanity those two, not to mention the Bath party in general.

V

True Seeker......but what about all the other countries that have a just as bad or even worse dictator? Are we suppossed to be the worlds clean up machine? Why aren't we "liberating" all these other countries if this is the justification for war?

WMDs for the Taking? (Iraqis looted radioactive materials -- enough for Dirty bombs)

Al Tuwaitha�s scientists still can�t fully assess the damage; some areas are too badly contaminated to inspect. �I saw empty uranium-oxide barrels lying around, and children playing with them,� says Fadil Mohsen Abed, head of the medical-isotopes department. Stainless-steel uranium canisters had been stolen.


"The well-known Al Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Center, about 12 miles south of Baghdad, had nearly two tons of partially enriched uranium, along with significant quantities of highly radioactive medical and industrial isotopes, when International Atomic Energy Agency officials made their last visit in January."

And the UN left it in Saddam's hands and kept telling us how there is no danger.


The looted materials could not make a nuclear bomb, but IAEA officials worry that terrorists could build plenty of dirty bombs with some of the isotopes that may have gone missing.

All of this could've been prevented years ago if Hussein had been removed instead of negotiated with and stroked.


ARTICLE


See what happens when you leave pansy asses in charge of things??

And then who do you blame? None other then an evil republican who has a bad foreign policy.




I guess the UN COULD OF done a better job, but look at the evidence.

How many warnings did he get, and no action was taken?

Politcal favorites aside...or should I say self righteous attitudes aside, this doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out.

Why people stick up for Saddam is beyond me.

V




I don't understand this logic. Just because people say that him being a bad dictactor wasn't the reason we went to war....people think they are sticking up for SH. SH was a very deranged individual that needed taken down...yes, but this was NOT the reason the american public was told we were going to war for. NOONE is sticking up for this madman.....just pointing out the lies to get us there in the first place.....be it from GWB, Powell, or some CIA agent.....doesn't matter. We were still lied to, bottom line.

MacMerdin, good point.
But who do you suggest "cleans up" the messed up messes of the world, the UN, maybe? I'm seeing a great track record from them already.....(please note the sarcasm)



seekerof

Originally posted by Seekerof

as quoted by curme
Saddam wasn't a threat to anyone.

Definitely wasn't to his own people, eh?

seekerof

What I meant was, it wasn't a threat to the region or the world. If it was Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordon, Canada, etc. would of helped us. Yes, he was a terrible man to his people, but my favorite part of the world for slaughter is around Indonesia. For decades stuff has been going on over there that makes Saddam look like a choir boy.

EDIT: And Saddam could of been removed through diplomatic means. He wasn't for the same reason we let Berg's killer go free.

[Edited on 18-5-2004 by curme]

Originally posted by MacMerdin
True Seeker......but what about all the other countries that have a just as bad or even worse dictator? Are we suppossed to be the worlds clean up machine? Why aren't we "liberating" all these other countries if this is the justification for war?

Since America has the capability to do good, I think it's doing a pretty damn good job, with liberating Germany, South Korea, Bosnia, Rwanda, Iraq, and helping Israel establish a homeland, let's not forget Russia, and France.

No other country would ever do what America does.

The second secret of Fatima was that Russia needed to be liberated from Communist Russia. It was.. By America.


The world is not a perfect place, after the Berlin wall, did you see china? Tienamen Square? Their socialist/communist government killed those freedom fighters.

I think since we have the capabilities to liberate people, we should. And I think after Iraq, there are going to be many other countries liberated, which is a good thing.

Quit thinking negative... Almost seems like you people don't give a # about oppressed people.


Bush administration isn't perfect, but it's dont alot of good... And they didn't jerk Hussein off like the UN did, or like Clinton did to North Korea.

They went in a got er done.

Apologize to Bush!?!

I will apologize when you apply pressure to my cold, dead chest and manipulate my throat to make the escaping air reverberate to sound like an apology.

Originally posted by curme
Bush either lied or was poorly misinformed. Saddam wasn't a threat to anyone.

You almost had me convinced you knew what you were talking about until you got to that last line.

MacMerdin said:

I don't understand this logic. Just because people say that him being a bad dictactor wasn't the reason we went to war...

Your putting words in my mouth. I was referring to what someone said about Saddam not being a threat to anyone.

Variable

Originally posted by curme

Saddam wasn't a threat to anyone.

What I meant was, it wasn't a threat to the region or the world. Wasn't a threat!!!!!!!!!!!! Iran?????? Kuwaitis????????? Israel?????????? Your a complete dumbass!!!!
You really need explain yourself more thoroughly, what you meant is a load of crap...... I don't know if your wheels aren't turning until after someone calls you on it or if they just aren't turning at all and your on auto pilot because you've drank the same stupid cup as the rest of the sheep who sound just like you............ An original thought, please.If it was Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordon, Canada, etc. would of helped us. Yes, he was a terrible man to his people, but my favorite part of the world for slaughter is around Indonesia. For decades stuff has been going on over there that makes Saddam look like a choir boy.Is this why you side with Hussein because he looks like a choir boy compared to Indonesia??? What garbage.

EDIT: And Saddam could of been removed through diplomatic means. He wasn't for the same reason we let Berg's killer go free.


Me:::::::::::: Right and all those times when the UN softly warned him over and over and NEVER did anything even when it was WAAAAY past due for removal, and never did... Just kept giving him warning after warning...

Do you know the UN is so #ing corrupt? Do you know who heads the UN?? An old murderous tyrant who's wife used to burn people alive...

Berg's killer btw has been caught... 4 of them........
And they will be brought to justice and die horrible long out death........HOPEFULLY.

Originally posted by Venus


You almost had me convinced you knew what you were talking about until you got to that last line.

Well, don't leave me in the dark! How I'm I going to learn? To whom was he a threat? Bush has said that Iraq had no ties to al queda. Sure, he was brutal to his people, but as it has said many times before, a lot of people are brutal. Saddam's Army was an under-equiped joke. He had no Air Force, no Navy. Who was he a threat to? Turkey? Syria? Saudi Arabia? Iran? US? Was he going to invade Kuwait again?

Originally posted by TrueLies


Berg's killer btw has been caught... 4 of them........
And they will be brought to justice and die horrible long out death........HOPEFULLY.

We caught Abu Musab Zarqawi? Cool. Gotta link? I want to read more about it.

Curme,

What are you 10?? If you have the internet at your finger tips go learn for yourself. Look up the Persian gulf war.

Look at how the Soviet Union, Germany, France, China, and Egypt helped Iraq in the making and/or enhancing of chemical weapons.

This was a war over dominance .
Rulers in both countries hoped to reduce the power of the other in order to bolster their own domestic and international power.


Here let me help you... and READ IT!! Your annoying me.
Persion War 1 & 2

Are you saying Iraq was going to start another war with Iran or someone else? Shoot missiles at Israel? Were they really strong enough to do that? Wow. Good thing we stopped them before they started WWIII and Saddam ruled the world. Why didn't 99% perecent of the world not help us if he was so dangerous? Oh well, they'll thank us later.

Because alot of them smoke from the same crack pipe as you do.

While i'm sure democratic countries supported America, i'm not sure if they deployed troops...
But i'm sure some must of. It's the noble thing to do, and when your in a democratic society it's good thing to do if your allies with whoever is going to war...
In this case it was America.

Why should sensible people even explain themselves to the leftists, who don't understand anything unless it's some drivel that is either some double standard, or a socialist viewpoint.

Before Saddam was in power, who put him there? The USA and the Iraqi people. Who kept Saddam in power? The Iraqi people.

[Edited on 5/18/04 by RedDragon]

Originally posted by curme
Well, don't leave me in the dark! How I'm I going to learn? To whom was he a threat? Bush has said that Iraq had no ties to al queda. Sure, he was brutal to his people, but as it has said many times before, a lot of people are brutal. Saddam's Army was an under-equiped joke. He had no Air Force, no Navy. Who was he a threat to? Turkey? Syria? Saudi Arabia? Iran? US? Was he going to invade Kuwait again?

please read this slowly and try...just try....to see the point!

The Pugnacious Antiwar Left
David Limbaugh
Tuesday, May 11, 2004
The pugnacious antiwar Left, after shooting mostly blanks at President Bush since we invaded Iraq, believes he is finally wounded. And like sharks, their appetites are surging with the scent of his first drops of blood.
Will the Left's dream of destroying George Bush finally be realized with reports of our soldiers' abuse of Iraqi prisoners of war? I am optimistic that the answer is "no" after hearing President Bush firmly announce that he will stay the course. But it won't be because the Left tires of trying.

They have tried everything, mounting every conceivable criticism since we attacked Iraq. Nothing has worked yet, including such gems as "quagmire," "unilateralism," "unwelcoming Iraqis," "we haven't captured Saddam" and "Bush lied about WMD," to name a few.

But they really thought they'd hit pay dirt with Richard Clarke's book and counterintuitive testimony declaring, in essence, that President Bush's powerful performance as commander in chief since 9-11 is overshadowed by his relative laxity toward terrorism prior to 9-11. Ultimately his claims proved to be so irrelevant -- if not incredible -- as to be absurd.

This abuse incident, though, gives the Left new reason for hope. But their fantasy that these revelations will show that we should never have attacked Iraq is bizarre. And their hope of indicting the entire Defense Department, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and President Bush over the actions of a few is shamefully ludicrous and shows they're looking for any excuse to undermine the administration during this election year.

More important, the Left's hysteria over the abuse illustrates how differently they view the enemy, and how much they misapprehend the motives and mindset of conservatives and President Bush. It underscores just how detrimental it would be to American security if they recaptured the White House during this critical, white-hot phase of the War on Terror.

The Left is intrinsically appeasement-oriented. You have to club them over the head with evidence before they'll acknowledge the evil and threat of terrorism. September 11 was such a club, but they've already forgotten about it, with their leader John Kerry saying we're exaggerating the threat.

Their appeasing nature leads many of them to agonize over what we did to cause Osama to attack us, to prefer isolated cruise missile attacks, sanctions or endless weapons inspections to full-scale military assaults, and to ignore Saddam's multiple violations of U.N. resolutions. It deludes them into believing that terrorists can be negotiated with and mollified and that the Arab press could be won over but for our infractions.

But the most troublesome aspect of the Left's na�ve worldview is that it precludes them from understanding the scope of the War on Terror. They seem to believe that since Osama masterminded the 9-11 attacks, we should limit our response to Al Qaeda and possibly the supporting Taliban regime.

President Bush has understood from the beginning that we are fighting a transnational enemy with many components and a number of sympathetic sponsoring states. We didn't have to prove the existence of WMD or an ironclad nexus between Saddam and 9-11 to justify attacking him. We merely needed to satisfy ourselves that he was part of the terrorist swamp from which the enemy is spawned. And there is no question that he was one of the foremost enablers of terrorism, including Al Qaeda, in the world.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not backtracking on WMD. But Saddam had the burden of proving he had complied with the U.N. resolutions, and he chose not to, which justified our reasonable belief that he did have WMD and either destroyed them immediately before our attack, sold them, or moved them to Syria or elsewhere.

But since President Bush correctly believes we need to take the war to the terrorists instead of waiting around for the next attack, he was justified in striking Iraq in order to help drain the swamp irrespective of the WMD issue.

This is an entirely different dynamic from any idealistic or imperialistic vision the so-called neoconservatives may hold. That we are trying feverishly to turn control over to the Iraqis by the stated deadline is proof that neo-conservative empire building is not the president's goal, though he doubtlessly believes that an Arab democracy in the Middle East could produce a multiplier effect.

That terrorists from inside and outside Iraq are hellbent on preventing Iraq's democratization demonstrates the president's grasp of the scope of the war is far more accurate than the Left's.

I'm not holding my breath, but wouldn't it be something if the Left would quit the gotcha-games against President Bush and direct their considerable energies toward helping him drain the swamp?