“[F]rankly, [the sanctions on Iraq] have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.” – Colin Powell, February 24, 2001
“But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let’s remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.” – Condoleeza Rice, July 29, 2001
For more on the many stunning flips, flops, mixed-messages and more flops of Bush Iraq Policy, click here for documented details.
Pre-911!
Iraq is very a part of the War on Terrorism.
Paul sadly parroted:
"Pre-911!
Iraq is very a part of the War on Terrorism."
So between July 29, 2001, when we "were able to keep arms" from Saddam and "his military forces have not been rebuilt" and September 11, 2001 (abou 40 days later) Saddam was able to rebuild his military, acquire weapons of mass destruction and become a threat to not only his neighbors, but a threat to America as well?
Do you prefer the grape or the cherry, Paul?
Saddam has been a threat since 1991. His planes were firing on ours, especially before the war. He broke resolution after resolution. All he had to do was show us what he had instead of giving the inspectors the run-around. We found illegal long-range missiles. We found illegal weapons from Russia and France. But, you conveniently forgot all of that.
He should have been taken out in 1991 and would have if we didn’t go to the through the UN first.
One reason why I voted for Bush was to go after Saddam. We all wanted Clinton to do it.
Um, so if Powell and Rice were so wrong, why weren’t they fired? And why aren’t you calling for them to be fired for that matter?
Ahh – 911! So, no terrorists are in Iraq? Ah, I think they are. Let’s kill them all there!
But, that being said, Colin and Rice were not wrong in their statements with the information that they had at the time. How can the intel be so wrong (WMDs) at the same time be so right (no WMDs)?
No one really knew! Kerry mentioned WMDs as late as 2003.
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation .. And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction…. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real." – Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23 , 2003
It’s these kinds of statements that make Kerry unfit to command because he is changing his mind today, with the wind, trying to get the Howard Dean anti-war base. He is in a quagmire!
Can I not have my own opinion on Iraq? Besides, Iraq is also for the changing of the Middle East. Just think what could occur in the future if Iraq became a democracy and even friend of Israel. The stakes are high (and the radical muslims know it) but it could work. Iran could fall from within because of their young population. Or, they are next!
I was thinking tonight. What idiot would have fought in the Alamo? They must have all been duped? 200 against 5,000? That is nuts! 200 dead. TN had the most militia and TN was not treatened in any way. Oh, but what did the Alamo accomplish?
"Can I not have my own opinion on Iraq?"
Paul, you haven’t had your own opinion on anything since Reagan was inaugurated. Dupe.
Paul,
How can anyone be so wrong? As noted before, after the inspectors had done been at work again in Iraq, we all knew something was wrong with the recieved intel and the accepted picture of the WMD situation in Iraq. Instead of looking at the intel in hand, from the same organization (Iranian agent Chalabi aside for the moment) that most of the intel on WMD was based this Administration opted for war. Why? Because the unintel supplied by THEIR man in Bagdad (probably an agent of Iran, and a man already convicted of fraud) converged with what they wanted to do.
Before the war, the inspectors were saying that within just a few months Iraq would be disarmed. So here we are more than a year later with a situation worse than before. This invasion created within Iraq a whole new category of terrorist. Certainly there were those allies of al Qaeda in the North (protected by our no fly zones; cf. Dr. Rice’s statement) but the followers of Sadr is populated by people who were oppressed under Hussein. The marginalization of certain groups within Iraqi society because they did not agree with the Bush roadmap for Iraq created this army and this aspect of the insurgency.
Had the inspetions process gone on the Hussein regime would have been disarmed without one American life being lost. How long would a relatively toothless Hussein regime been able to maintain power? Notlong at all. My suggestion is that the invasion was an attempt to preempt the formation of a government that was not in the interest of certain aspects of foreign policy (which is obviously driven more by corporate interests rather than the interests of your average citizen.) i dont know about you but i would rather pay more money, rather than the blood of our kids, for gas.