Posted on 12/27/2003 8:20:35 AM PST by Chi-townChief
Because there is no connection. To the contrary, we knew that Osama hated Hussein. He was not sufficiently devoted to Islam. He ran a secular nation with only minor accomodations to Islamic leaders. To presume a partnership was stupid. In fact, none was claimed. There was just skillful speech to imply while leaving the out-"I never said that".
When did it become a legitmate question IF Hussein had WMDs?
It is extremely appropriate to ask that question, since there is where the potential admistration lies exist. Frankly, I do not think that the war would have been legitimate even if he did openly have WMDs. Unless there was a realistic reason to believe that he was preparing to use them (or do you think that he was going to hand them over to his enemy to use?)If mere possession of WMDs justifies war, then when are we invading Pakistan, India and North Korea?
One more point-In 1945, we signed a treaty, the UN charter, where every member nation undertook NOT to attack any other member nation with only two exceptions-self defense or the direction of the security council. This war violated that treaty obligation. (The UN security council did NOT authorize the use of force. All the resolutions were orders to Hussein. When the force question was put to the Security Council, it FAILED, and it did not take a veto. The USA withdrew the request when they realized that it was going to get only 4 of 15 votes.
Greeley says No. Apparently Tom Ridge agrees with him, because he's put the nation on high terror alert . Hmmm. Maybe Saddam's capture DIDN'T make us all that more secure?
Right, but what does that have to do with Iraq? We haven't found any WMDs there. Nobody had found any before we invaded, either. And Hussein's son had told us they'd destroyed them. Looks like he wasn't lying. == but a lot of American young men and women are lying dead because we decided to go in anyway.
Why don't you and Pat Buchanan proclaim your above screed in the Kurdish town where saddam gassed 5,000 Kurds to death.
So what? All intelligence sources pointed towards it. That's good enough. That's the main reason we went in and there's no reason to back away from it.
Hussein should of opened his doors to the world and proved it.....we have nothing to be sorry for.
As terrible as that was, it was years ago. It's since then that Hussein's son said they destroyed the WMDs. Instead of ranting at me, tell me where the WMDs are -- the WMDs that were the excuse for our going in?
That is irrelevant to the discussion.
You initially said that Bush did "a crappy job" justifying the invasion of Iraq.
I then pointed out that almost 70% of the population agreed with the Iraq war. By any measure, that is a very significant amount. So whether or not you think Bush did a good job, the numbers say he did.
I was thinking some of the posters to this thread sounded like Michael Moore. Questions that have absolutely no purpose, but to undermine the administration are obvious, tiresome, and easily ignored. That those questions keep getting asked over and over again reflects on the questioner to this American.
Face it Lefties...we trust this President, and with his accomplishments so far, any "scandal" that can be manufactured will have as much impact as Rush Limbaugh's drug problems. You guys will hoot and blow, but we'll keep tuning in.
And of course the word of those two sadistic murders is plenty good enough for you.
Saddam had plenty of time and diplomatic cover by his allies in France, Germany and Russia to either remove, hide or destroy his WMD's.
Big deal. The majority of Americans believe that Hussein was the triggerman in 9/11. As of now, their opinions are based upon false info (hopefully we will learn otherwise).
Bush has opened himself up for attack by constantly rewriting the rational for war. It was not necessary to do so.
And hussein's son is the epitomie of truth. Sheesh you Buchananites sure have an amour for the french based words, naive and moron, IMO.
Nobody can find them, bub. Mighta, coulda, woulda is all we had in the way of "evidence" of WMDs-- we've sent hundred of American young people to their graves (and consigned thousands of others to lives without limbs - and other massive injuries) without any evidence that Iraq has WMDS. And it looks like the reason we had no evidence is that there WEREN'T WMDs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.