Iraqi Freedom Held in Balance by Elections?

<p>Vacant,</p>

<p>"This current invasion is called pre-emption. it was meant to topple Saddam hussein, since he did intend to procure WMD as well as other advanced conventional weapons."</p>

<p>See that's the thing. He did not intend to procure WMD. After the Gulf War WMD's were nothing more than an unrealistic dream for Saddam, the Duelfer Report (the very same report that discovers the oil for food scandal) has concluded this. The report goes on further to say that there is 0 evidence Sadamm ever tried to reconsititue WMD ambitions. Furthermore, his initial lost dream for WMD's was not out of desire to attack the United States or sell to a terrorist organization, he just wanted to adequately oppose Iran and Israel.</p>

<p>The major problem with this is that the report proves Saddam was no where near an eminent threat to the United States. Bush misled us. Saddam was not actively pursuing WMD's like Bush wrongfully accused. Way back when Saddam was actually pursuing a program, it had nothing to do with attacking the United States or aiding terrorists, like Bush wrongfully accused. If he did not rush into Iraq like a panicked housewife, and instead allowed the time for the Duelfer Report and 9/11 comission report to surface, it would be more than clear that pre-emptive action was the wrong choice.</p>

<p>Let me ask you a question... If Bush waited 6months longer to go into Iraq... after the Duelfer Report and 9/11 Comission Report both concluded Saddam does not have any nor is pursuing WMD's.... do you think he still would have made the same decision to strike pre-emptively? If your answer is no, than you agree with the error in judgement on Bush's behalf. If your answer is yes, it is a very unrealisitc situation, Congress would have never authorized war, and the American public would never have accepted it.</p>

<p>And if you ask why the Oil for Food Scandal has nothing to do with building a strong coalition here is why: To our knowledege only France, Russia, and China were involved with the Scandal. Only 1 of these nations, France, was involved with the prior Gulf War Coalition. Furthermore, it is not like Bush had any prior knowledge about this scandal while making the decision to go into Iraq seemingly rushed and alone. We all learned about it in the past weeks. Therefore it is not like it had any affect on his maverick decision, thus it was an error in judgement at the time.</p>

<p>That USA Today link, actually explains the whole Duelfer Report rather unclearly... search around on the internet you will find less ambiguous articles that explain exactly what I just did.</p>

<p>To answer your question as to who am I...does it matter?</p>

<p>Babybird,
"Sarcasm, do you speak it? I'll just say that it's not usually Republicans aligned with being the martini drinking elite"</p>

<p>To be totally honest with you, I don't think I have fully comprehended a single thing you have said during the entirety of this thread. What is your point and what does it have to do with anything that is being discussed? Are you attempting a random discussion of party afiliation stereotypes? If so, republicans would be the coprorate martini drinkers and the dem's would be the blue collar workers.... however stereotypes are totally irrelevant, wrong (for the most part) and surely not how one should make political decisions</p>

<p>Hmm lets see, Saddam + psychotic mind + paranoia + assassination attempt on Bush I + America hater + praising the 9/11 attacks + shooting at our planes on a near daily basis during Clinton's administration + buying off UN officials + opposing UN demands + making billions in illegal money + reassuring his position as murderous dictator + seeking to restart his WMD program (clinton, bush, and intelligence agencies around the world back this up) = Not a threat? Hmmm....</p>

<p>And you are quite wrong about Oil-for-food. The scandal was already brewing since its inception in the 90s. We are just now seeing exactly far up the UN the corruption, bribes, money laundering, and illegal trading went.</p>

<p>And since you clearly did not understand babybird's post, here's a hint:</p>

<p><a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sarcasm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sarcasm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>now that we've already seen Saddam to be a clear danger, do you think we should have:</p>

<ol>
<li>Waited for UN resolutions (obviously they would have never come)</li>
<li>Continue with useless UN programs (corruption, bribery, ineffectiveness)</li>
<li>Saved our "reputation" with the UN and did nothing (like the UN does already)</li>
<li>Overthrow Saddam immediately.</li>
</ol>

<p>Thank you, vancat. Once again proving which party does humor better. </p>

<p>Oh no, wait...that was party-ist, I take it back</p>

<p>"We have documentary evidence about orders from the leadership to preserve a strategic [chemical weapons] capability...That means to keep the production equipment ready to produce at any given moment. UNSCOM uncovered work on the nerve gas VX and says that 3,000 kilograms of VX is missing."
~ Rolf Ekeus, head of UNSCOM, June 1997 right before he was kicked out of Iraq by Saddam.</p>

<p>"UNSCOM has shown that it is very, very easy to conceal this sort of thing."
~ Creena Lavery, special assistant to the director of UNSCOM, July 1997.</p>

<p>"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
~ President Bill Clinton, February. 4, 1998.</p>

<p>"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction........"
~ President Bill Clinton, February 17, 1998.</p>

<p>"Iraq is a long way from (here), but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use neuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
~ Secretary of State Madeline Albright, February 18, 1998.</p>

<p>"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
~ National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, February 18, 1998.</p>

<p>"The Iraqi government, the officials, had lied consistently about their having chemical and biological weapons.... they said we don't have any biological weapons. Then, of course, we found out that they had some 2100 gallons of anthrax... They said we don't have any chemical weapons and we found they had four tons of VX... They're also developing something called ricin...which is a deadly poison for which there is no antidote."
~ Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen, April 2, 1998</p>

<p>"We urge you......to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missle strikes on suspect Iraqi sights) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
~ Senators Tom Daschle, Carl Levin, and others October 9, 1998 in a letter to then-President Clinton.</p>

<p>"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
~ Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, December 16, 1998.</p>

<p>"Hussein has......chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction."
~ Sec. State Madeline Albright, Nov. 10, 1999.</p>

<p>"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
~ Senator Carl Levin D-MI, September 19, 2002.</p>

<p>"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
~ Al Gore, September 23, 2002.</p>

<p>"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven immpossible to........deter, and we should assume that it will continue as long as Saddam is in power."
~ Al Gore, September 23, 2002.</p>

<p>"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
~ Senator Ted Kennedy, D-MA, September 27, 2002.</p>

<p>"We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability."
~ Senator Robert Byrd, D-WV, October 3, 2002.</p>

<p>"I will be voting to give the president of the U. S. the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsonal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
~ Senator John F. Kerry, D-MA October 9, 2002.</p>

<p>"He has systematically violated.......every significant U.N. resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons.........this he has refused to do."
~ Senator Henry Waxman, D-CA, October 10, 2002.</p>

<p>"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
~ Senator Hillary Clinton, D-NY, October 10, 2002.</p>

<p>"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop neuclear weapons and will likely have neuclear weapons within the next 5 years.....we also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
~ Senator Jay Rockafeller, D-WV, October 10, 2002.</p>

<p>"We are in possession of ..... compelling evidenc e that Saddam Hussein has ........ capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
~ Senator Bob Graham, D-FL, Dec. 8, 2002.</p>

<p>"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein ....... he is miscalculating America's response to his ...... grasp for weapons of mass destruction......So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real......."
~ Senator John F. Kerry, D-MA, January 23, 2003.</p>

<p>Last but not least...</p>

<p>"Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent [Anthrax], which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.</p>

<p>There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist.</p>

<p>There are also indications that the agent [VX nerve gas] was weaponised. In addition, there are questions to be answered concerning the fate of the VX precursor chemicals...</p>

<p>...inspectors have found at another site a laboratory quantity of thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor.</p>

<p>In addition, Iraq has refurbished its missile production infrastructure. In particular, Iraq reconstituted a number of casting chambers, which had previously been destroyed under UNSCOM supervision."
~ Hans Blix, Report to UN Security Council, January 27, 2003.</p>

<p>And finally....</p>

<p>Once again, from members of the SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE:</p>

<p>Sen. John D. Rockafeller (Vice-Chairman of this committee): "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next 5 years... we also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
~ October 10, 2002.</p>

<p>Sen. Carl Levin: "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."</p>

<p>From the SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE:</p>

<p>Sen. John Kerry: "I will be voting to give the president of the U. S. the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsonal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security... Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein... he is miscalculating America's response to his... grasp for weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real."</p>

<hr>

<p>in conclusion:</p>

<p>We could have:
1. Waited for UN resolutions (obviously they would have never come)
2. Continue with useless UN programs (corruption, bribery, ineffectiveness)
3. Saved our "reputation" with the UN and did nothing (like the UN does already)
4. Risk even more death and destruction in the future (both iraqi citizens, us troops, other innocents)
5. Overthrow Saddam immediately. <------hint</p>

<p>"And you are quite wrong about Oil-for-food. The scandal was already brewing since its inception in the 90s"</p>

<p>So Bush's reason for not seaking a credible coalition was that he knew of the french, russian and chinese corruption?? Comon Vacant you know better than to argue that...look kout the successful gulf war coalition, of the above countries, only the french participated</p>

<p>you are forgetting one critical fact... Sadamm was NO LONGER PURSUING A WMD PROGRAM... his actions turned into mere dreams post gulf war...all of those above statements were either based on premature or faulty intelligence.... what our intelligence shows now is that all of the people quoted above would be incorrect....saddam was not pursuing wmd's... read the deulfer report... no one is contesting it to my knowledge.</p>

<p>what is the difference between the majority of those people quoted above and george bush? George Bush's actions were rushed and he acted on impulse, thus making the mistake of acting on that specualtion without further allowing time to pass to clarify it as fact..he acted irrationaly and thus misled us... how many of the above would act in the same way? Not many thankfully....you quoted Clinton during his presidency... did he choose to invade Iraq based on that speculation? Of course not</p>

<p>Babybird the adults are talking and you have not contributed a single post worthy of a read during the entirety of this tread... so quiet (vacant I give you that much respect at least)</p>

<p>politics are one of two things:</p>

<p>1) everyone disagreeing with each other</p>

<p>2) everyone agreeing with each other</p>

<p>yawn. I suggest trying on a sense of humor.</p>