Yes, Bush lied (WND'S Title)

WorldNetDaily ^ | Oct 6, 2003 | Paul Sperry

[Cindy]

OPINION Ping

[Support Free Republic]

How we have, and can, change the world

History of Free Republic

Click The Logo To Donate

[UncleJeff]

I figured that WHERE this was published made it newsworthy.

[backhoe]

I believe that where there is smoke, there is fire:

-IRAQ- some links to terror--

-All Terror, All the Time-- FR's links to NBC Warfare, Terror, and More...--

-Time to kick the tires & light the fires, folks- terrorism gathers across the World...--

[Cindy]

FYI Links of Interest...

FOX NEWS.com (AP): "KAY: CLUES EXIST ON ANTHRAX, MISSILES STILL IN IRAQ" (October 5, 2003) (Read More...)

WorldNetDaily.com: "BOTULINUM 'IS WMD' State Department Spokesman: Lethal bio-toxin 'kills people, It kills people in large quantities'" (October 4, 2003)

THE WASHINGTON TIMES.com: "IRAQ PAID NORTH KOREA TO DELIVER MISSILES" by Bill Gertz and Stephen Dinan (October 4, 2003)

AFTENPOSTEN.no (English) - News from Norway: "HACKERS THREATEN POWER NETWORK" (ARTICLE SNIPPET: "Norway's power grid is subject to aggressive hacking every day, carried out by computer terrorists apparently intent on cutting electricity to wide areas of the country. Agencies in charge of power production and the network have so far managed to thwart their efforts." (Updated September 30, 2003) (Read More...)

TOWNHALL.com: "THE BATTLEFIELDS IN IRAQ AND AT HOME" -Column by Diana West (COLUMN SNIPPET:"Speaking on Lebanese television from Norway (where he has political asylum -- thanks, Norway), Kreikar gave his take on the Islamic nature of the war on liberated Iraq. "The resistance is not only a reaction to the American invasion," he explained. "It is part of the continuous Islamic struggle since the collapse of the caliphate." By "caliphate," he was referring to the centuries'-long Islamic rule that dissolved at the end of World War I with the defeat of the Ottoman Empire. "All Islamic struggles since then are part of one organized effort to bring back the caliphate."") (August 19, 2003) (Read More...)

AFTENPOSTEN.no (English): "KREKAR EXPECTS TERRORIST ATTACKS" (ARTICLE SNIPPET: "Mullah Krekar believes the group Ansar al-Islam, which he has led in the past, will retaliate violently to what they see as an unmotivated attack on them, TV 2 reports. The US civil administrator claimed that members of the north Iraq based group had returned to Iraq, planning terrorist actions.") (Read More...) (August 11, 2003)

AFTENPOSTEN.no (English) - Search Term: "KREKAR"

INSIGHT On The News online: "THE LINK BETWEEN IRAQ AND AL-QAEDA" by Scott L. Wheeler (September 29, 2003) (Read More...)

SEPTEMBER 11, 2001: "ATTACK ON AMERICA!" (UPDATED DAILY.)

[piasa]

The article is almost pure drivel.

[Amelia]

The 90-page, top-secret report,

My questions:

How did the author become privy to a top secret report?

Why is the author publishing the contents of a top secret report?

Shouldn't someone be prosecuted for revealing the contents of a top secret report?

[NetValue]

This is a "blame America" viewpoint.

Saddam's actions for two decades threatened the stability of the middle east. His invasion of Iran and Kuwait, and his intention to go for Saudi Arabia took the middle east and the world to the brink of a far larger war.

The National Intelligence Estimate is not the highest of intelligence documents. It is a general intelligence assessment. There are far more sensitive and definitive intelligence documents available to decision makers. These we will never see or hear about. I trust the totality of intelligence the President and Congress has available.

It is unhelpful in a time after America was actually attacked to raise uncertainty about the legitimacy of our response. All I can say is looking at the big picture, if you want to solve the terrorism threat, you have to solve the middle east problem and to do that you need stability. Saddam was one major cause of instabilty. He was not the only one.

Iraq lies between Syria and Iran. Iraq is now strategic real estate. Those governments would do well to learn from what happened to Iraq. We are there to bring stability to the area so the bigger issue can be resolved politically rather than militarily (but that outcome is availabe too, if necessary.)

[Cindy]

re post no.8

Those are very good questions Amelia.

[Amelia]

Thanks.

The problem is, if the report is "Top Secret", we don't have access to it, so we have to take the author's word for what it says and doesn't say (even leaving off the question of whether we should be discussing it in the first place.)

That being the case, it's really impossible for the average person to verify whether or not, as the author purports, Bush lied.

However, we can assume that the writer has an agenda.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

Excellent observations. Were we to look at the big picture, rather than parsing the reasons given for a particular action, we would see that terrorism has been adopted as the primary tactic of war by a mad Islamic militant group mired in the third century. Just as the Communists before them, their goal is world domination. In fact, I think they enjoy the support of the Communists even today.

Had this group been properly addressed in its early stages of aggression, as Reagan partially did, we wouldn't be where we are today. GHW Bush was too sensitive to the UN. Clinton was a selfish coward whose real allegiance probably lay more with them than us. The only effective way the problem can be addressed is the way W did it. Now he is being attacked from all sides by those too afraid to act and those who prefer us to lose this fight.

Hell, even the Communist are starting to see that this group of nuts is a threat to them as well. But not our homegrown lefties. They keep chewing around the edges and launching brash frontal attacks on Bush. They have yet to grasp the seriousness of the situation. They are too blinded by their political games and quest for power, never stopping to think that they will be forced to deal with these extremists themselves. Once that day comes, hopefully never, they will wish for a George Bush, a Dick Cheney, and a Don Rumsfield.

[stradivarius]

The author of that article is fixated on whether Saddam Hussein as an imminent threat to the U.S. He doesn't understand that Saddam Hussein was certainly a long-term threat to the U.S., and he was in the perfect position to be removed. That's the meaning of the Bush Doctrine.

The weakness of his reasoning is the assumption that the U.S. needed to wait until a nuclear threat is upon us, rather than proactively defusing the threat when we know for certain it's just a matter of time before the threat materialized.

There were several valid and independently sufficient reasons to remove Saddam Hussein's totalitarian regime from power (any one of which was sufficient by itself):

1. Saddam Hussein did not provide full disclosure of his WMD programs to the UN weapons inspectors, therefore he was probably hiding WMD, and since he'd used WMD before, that made him an unacceptable risk to the region and to the U.S., especially since he was proven to be developing illegal long-range missiles. Also, one gallon of Anthrax could wipe out an entire U.S. city, and it was too easy to transport, and someone was already terrorizing the U.S. with highly refined weapons-grade anthrax. Disarmament and a full accounting of Saddam's WMD programs and stocks was an obligation of the cease-fire Saddam signed with the U.S. in 1991, and he was in clear violation of the cease-fire agreement.

2. Saddam Hussein had a history of trying to develop nuclear weapons (e.g., French-built Osirak Reactor that Israel destroyed, and another nuclear reactor hidden in a mountain that was discovered during Operation Iraqi Freedom). Iraq has no legitimate peaceful need to have a nuclear reactor for energy, since they have immense supplies of oil, and the same logic holds for Iran. Once Saddam got nukes, either by developing them or buying them, he'd have dominance over the entire region and be undeterrable. He could blackmail the entire world for energy supplies. That was clearly his long-term plan.

3. The human rights atrocities in Iraq had to be stopped, as a moral imperative.

4. Removing Saddam Hussein was the lynch-pin to obtaining stability in the Middle East, which is in American interests. Without the threat of Saddam to Iran and Saudi Arabia, those nations could stop worrying about wars of aggression against them. When they're in a less defensive posture, they can be more open to peace. Something had to change in the Middle East, because it was a festering sore. Removing Saddam was removing the source of a major infection, and in the long-term we hope that Iraq will heal in a way that ill promote healing throughout the Middle East.

For each of those reasons, Saddam Hussein had to be removed from power BEFORE his uncooperative terrorist regime developed nuclear deterrents and became unremovable and unstoppable.

[mathluv]

Does this person work for World Net Daily?

[TomB]

Iraq lies between Syria and Iran. Iraq is now strategic real estate. Those governments would do well to learn from what happened to Iraq. We are there to bring stability to the area so the bigger issue can be resolved politically rather than militarily (but that outcome is availabe too, if necessary.)

Let's not forget also that Syria lies between Israel and Iraq (US). This week the Isrealis attacked into Syria for the first time in 30 years. Coincidence?

Things must be getting very warm in Bashar Assads house.

[wayoverontheright]

had not sponsored past terrorist attacks against America,

Saddam's intent to do us harm was made clear when he tried to assassinate Bush #1. He wasn't cornered then was he?

The CIA is so full of Clintonites it is working against Bush, why won't he fire Tenet?

[Corin Stormhands]

Paul Sperry is Washington bureau chief for WorldNetDaily.com. He is author of "Crude Politics: How Bush's Oil Cronies Hijacked the War on Terrorism" (WND Books, an imprint of Thomas Nelson Publishers).

Well, at least he doesn't have an agenda...

[TomB]

There were several valid and independently sufficient reasons to remove Saddam Hussein's totalitarian regime from power (any one of which was sufficient by itself):

5. He continually violated the terms of the cease-fire that ended the first Gulf War. That alone was causus belli.

[facedown]

bump

[alnick]

Yeah, WND has access to a top secret report. I believe that. </sarcasm>