Posted on 10/20/2006 2:18:37 PM PDT by WinOne4TheGipper
Do you really think the period from 1945 to 1990 was completely uneventful in terms of U.S. involvement in the Middle East? Or that the events that unfolded in the Middle East from 1945 to today have no relation to each other?
She's full of crap, WMDs were FOUND!!!
Oops -- that last post was intended for you, not me.
To not vote for her is to vote for defeat in Iraq. Defeat is not an option.
She screwed up but to allow her opponent to win her seat is bad for our country. Anyway, it's her last term.
The Statement of Principles put out by by The Project for the New American Century clearly outlines their plans. I personally think Hanson and his buddies in the White House are wrong. Iraq is proving the opposite of their projections. Democracy may not, after all, be compatable with all cultures.
She's running for Prez.....put her finger up in the wind and out came that statement.
The only reason to go into Iraq is to protect the U.S. from WMD's and a ruler who has proven that he is fully capable of using them. Without WMD's I cannot imagine a legitimate reason to go to war with Iraq.
That's just it. Every Texas FReeper could vote against her and she'd still win by a comfortable margin. I am not giving this seat to Radnofsky. If i thought she could win, I'd vote for KBH, but it isn't going to happen.
I can. Hussein's firing on our planes patrolling the No Fly Zone was reason enough, and he should not have been allowed to stay in power after the attempt on the life of former Pres. Bush.
Another loser heard from -- who advises her? John Dean?
So now is her seat in play? HOW STUPID!!
Who said their were no WMDs?
Nobody said they weren't moved in the 11 months of UN debates.
Hutchinson is going retarded.
their = there
So...do you know for SURE she said what they are saying she said?
I keep reading stuff like this, but when I hear context and tone discover that huge portions of the information are being left out.
Her information is factually inaccurate. WMDs WERE found in Iraq (nuclear and chemical) and people who are able to research it can find documentation to back it up. We have all read about 500 or so chemical shells, but how about the nuclear material that was moved in late '03 early '04?
Here is a link from the BBC...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3872201.stm
Sorry folks I certainly don't mean for this to be a thread hijack but the "no WMD' myth has been perpetuated (even here) for far too long.
I agree with her.
Did you read anything else in the article?
Honestly, from a conservative standpoint, the danger of WMDs was the only factor significant enough to justify the war. The point of a war is to counter a serious threat to national security (which WMDs would have been), not to build a democracy in another country.
Ah, you're one of the conservative purists who looks for any excuse to punish a Republican who doesn't meet your exacting standards by voting for a person who represents your views even less.
This is logical in your world. Pity.
Not if her reason for supporting the war in the first place was the danger of WMDs. Any person who took that position would only be remaining consistent by saying what she said.
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.