Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush hasn't justified war (GREELEY ALERT)
Chicago Sun-Times ^ | December 26, 2003 | ANDREW GREELEY

Posted on 12/27/2003 8:20:35 AM PST by Chi-townChief

Was the capture of Saddam Hussein a major victory for the United States? It was certainly a victory in the extended Iraq war. It was a victory for President Bush over the man who plotted to kill his father. It was a victory for the U.S. military and its intelligence service -- especially for the lieutenant and the corporal who figured out how to find him. It was a victory for the Republican Party's plan to keep a stranglehold on American politics. But was it, as the president told us, a victory in the ''war on terrorism''?

Despite the media hoopla and the White House spin doctors, it was not. The administration legitimized the invasion of Iraq as part of the ''war on terrorism'' and deceived the American people into believing that Saddam was involved in the Sept. 11 attack and that he had ''weapons of mass destruction.'' No one, except possibly Vice President Dick Cheney and the Wall Street Journal, believed that Saddam was involved in the attack on the World Trade Center. The weapons of mass destruction have disappeared. The president asks a TV interviewer what difference the mass destruction question makes, now that we have eliminated Saddam from power.

Note how slippery the administration line has been. The purpose of the war now is to get rid of an evil man who had done horrible things to his own people, even if he wasn't a real threat to us. Would those Americans who are willing to settle for that rationale have bought it at the beginning of the war? Such is the slipperiness of the administration's dishonesty that it can get away with a change in motives for the war. Do those who buy this shifting of the deck of cards want to send American troops into North Korea or Iran or a half-dozen African countries to rid the world of similar evil men?

The truth is that Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and their ''neo-conservative'' intellectuals wanted a quick little war with Iraq to display America's strength as the world's only superpower even before the 2000 election. The attack on the World Trade Center provided an excellent excuse to unveil America's unilateral, preemptive foreign policy. Has the war made the United States any more secure from al-Qaida?

It would seem that it has not. Quite the contrary, it has stirred up a whole new phalanx of terrorists in Iraq with which we did not formerly have to contend.

It is reasonably well known that Osama bin Laden instructed his forces to have nothing to do with Saddam because he was a secularist and a socialist and not a good Muslim. A man who imagined himself as the holy Caliph of a new Islamic empire could hardly tolerate Saddam as one of his subjects.

The Iraq war, prolonged by unspeakably bad planning for the post-war period, has distracted the United States from the battle with terrorists. If the military force sent to Iraq and the immense efforts to capture Saddam had been diverted to pursuing bin Laden, Americans would be much safer today.

The ultimate failure of the Bush administration is that it permitted itself to be so consumed by its need to take on Iraq that it lost interest in hunting down bin Laden. Its ultimate dishonesty is the (effective) deception of the American people about Iraq.

So, brave and good American men and women continue to die in Iraq, as do good Iraqi men and women. The military tells us that the Army will have to remain for two more years. The war was not only unnecessary, it was unjust by any and all of the traditional canons of an unjust war.

Gen. Curtis LeMay, who led the firebomb raids on Japan (far more destructive than the atom bombs), once remarked that if the United States should lose the war, he would be tried as a war criminal. The United States won the war and no Americans were tried as war criminals. The victors are never tried.

The Bush administration is planning a trial for Saddam. The Europeans are insisting that it must be a ''fair'' trial, whatever that might be for such a man. No one in the Bush administration will be tried for the unjust and unnecessary Iraq war -- at least not by a court on Earth.

mailto:agreel@aol.com


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Illinois; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: andrewgreeley; greeley; iraq; iraqifreedom; justwar; saddamfreude
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-187 next last
To: CWOJackson
move his weapons out of his own country

We don't have any more evidence of that, than we had of WMDs in the first place. And if the result of the invasion was that WMDs were dispersed - -then that's a lousy, dangerous, scary result.

51 posted on 12/27/2003 9:42:13 AM PST by churchillbuff (?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: zarf
Thanks for your posts here. It is hard to get open discussion sometimes. People have told me that they believe "dissent" or controversy for the Repub party will give fuel to lefty journalists or hurt the Repubs in the election -- which I doubt.

But the journalism idea gains ground when you consider that Dan Rather!! owns New Mexico property/houses on the same compound with Sec Rumsfeld. Read it here, it is true, and need to keep the eyes open.
52 posted on 12/27/2003 9:43:35 AM PST by inPhase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: zarf
Bush has opened himself up for attack by constantly rewriting the rational for war. It was not necessary to do so.

Why don't you give us some evidence of Bush "constantly rewriting the rational for war"?

53 posted on 12/27/2003 9:44:21 AM PST by TomB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
What's your point? All evidence pointed towards him having it.

His behavior was of a man who had something to hide and stiff armed repeated attempts to inspect his country.

Hussein has only his stupidity to blame.

The US and the UK have nothing to regret.

I think Bush has made it harder on himself in that he has shifted his rational for the invasion away from WMD. He should stick by his guns because it is the threat of WMD in the hands of these rag head monsters that is the greatest threat after 9/11.

54 posted on 12/27/2003 9:44:22 AM PST by zarf (..where lieth those little things with the sort of raffia work base that has an attachment?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
Pssssst. How long did the U.N. nations, France, Germany and Russia give Saddam to remove, hide or destroy his WMD's?

Oh, that's right. You and those two grease spot sons of his said they didn't have any. Imagine that.

55 posted on 12/27/2003 9:44:34 AM PST by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
Sneer at me,

No problem, it easy to sneer at people who think that uday and quesay were in any way truthful.

JMO, why don't you go hang out at DU, you and Pat Buchanan would feel much more welcome there.

You both spout the same hate America rhetoric.

56 posted on 12/27/2003 9:44:51 AM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Dane
you are saying the world would be a better place with saddam still in power.

No, I'm saying that the reason we were given for invading Iraq was WMDs. Now you're changing the argument for going in -- after the fact (in other words, doing exactly what Greeley talks about). If we're under an obligation to invade a country merely because it's ruled by a dictator who hurts his people - - and if somebody has "blood on his hands" if he doesn't favor an invasion merely for that reason --- then you have blood on your hands for not calling for us to invade North Korea, or Zimbabwe or Sudan or Cuba. What, you dicatator-lover - you aren't calling for invasions of every country with a murdering dictator! You have blood on your hands!

57 posted on 12/27/2003 9:46:23 AM PST by churchillbuff (?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: MinuteGal
......"Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?"

Personally, I think that it's, in many ways, good that these bozos like Greeley have such a high profile; they offer some insight into how the other half thinks.
58 posted on 12/27/2003 9:47:36 AM PST by Chi-townChief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Dane
More name-calling. Very intelligent. I'm very impressed with your arguments (not)
59 posted on 12/27/2003 9:47:43 AM PST by churchillbuff (?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief
Greeley- Despite the media hoopla and the White House spin doctors, it was not. The administration legitimized the invasion of Iraq as part of the ''war on terrorism'' and deceived the American people into believing that Saddam was involved in the Sept. 11 attack and that he had ''weapons of mass destruction.'' No one, except possibly Vice President Dick Cheney and the Wall Street Journal, believed that Saddam was involved in the attack on the World Trade Center.

Guess what a$$hole (greeley), Iraq was involved in both attacks on the WTC. Ever heard of Ramsey Usef (sp) richardhead? And the current circumstancial evidence is piling up against Atta...prick.

Oh, and the WMD evidence is overwhelming. Plus, so the liberal definition of WMD is clear, the Coalition will find operational (deployable) weapons systems for chemical warfare

$hithead.

5.56mm

60 posted on 12/27/2003 9:48:41 AM PST by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
No, I'm saying that the reason we were given for invading Iraq was WMDs.

And the basic point remains, is the world better off with saddam gone or not. You seem to think that saddam gone is a bad thing for the world. Hey that's your opinion, praise uday and quesay all you want.

The vast majority of people on FR, IMO, are laughing or shaking their heads at your one track mind.

61 posted on 12/27/2003 9:49:47 AM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: inPhase
Where are the polls on Bush's approv rate on war? only thing I can find (time...) was " Respondents were nearly split on the president's handling of the war and rebuilding Iraq,

The question was whether or not Bush did a good job explaining the war on Iraq.

Sixty-seven percent said the Bush administration made the right decision in going to war with Iraq.

62 posted on 12/27/2003 9:49:49 AM PST by TomB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
No, I'm saying that the reason we were given for invading Iraq was WMDs.

And you are wrong. WMDs was only one of a number of reasons Bush gave for going into Iraq. The media focused on that one because of the "scare factor".

63 posted on 12/27/2003 9:52:00 AM PST by TomB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: TomB
All the speeches are archived on the CSPAN web site so I won't chase down the dates.....

Let's start with the major presentations by Powell in the UN "proving WMD" in Iraq. Then the sudden de-emphasis on WMD and shifting the emphasis to bringing democracy to the Middle East (in the end probably the most important reason for the invasion).

On top of that-we start to hear emphasis on the cruelty of Hussein towards his people and the mass graves as a part of the rational for the invasion.

Look, in the historical context, I'm splitting hairs, but Bush never had to stop emphasisng the WMD rational as the MAIN reason for war. The responsibility lies with Hussein (and the UN for that matter), but the administration has left the impression of being "guilty" by not "finding" the WMD and then seeming to change the subject.

64 posted on 12/27/2003 9:52:16 AM PST by zarf (..where lieth those little things with the sort of raffia work base that has an attachment?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief
Just wait a bit, the history re-writers are hard at work.

My sources tell me that the re-write of Saddam has been given to the best dictator apologist's in Hollywood. New history will be invented and ready for release by late spring/early summer 2004.
65 posted on 12/27/2003 9:53:37 AM PST by vladog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TomB
There are many many instances of the war being rewritten and I suggest you hit old posts for a documented run down.

However, it started -- to be brief with the soon to be retire Asst Sec Wolfowitz saying that we would be "met with rose petals" that is a quote and serious words from a clown. This did not happen. Many things but next the US dissolved the Iraqi Army which the adm officials see as a mistake.

There are more failed strategies but as yet NO exit strategy.
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/opinion/article/0,1299,DRMN_38_2500290,00.html


"Retired Lt. Gen. Jay Garner, the first American civilian administrator of Iraq, said in a recent interview with BBC radio that a number of major mistakes were made and are still being made in post-war Iraq. Permitting the looting, disbanding the Iraqi military and not relinquishing political control of the country to Iraqis were among the mistakes he cited."

Hear Garner himself, his own role included in the audio and article

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3239166.stm
66 posted on 12/27/2003 9:56:25 AM PST by inPhase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: TomB
No the question -- anyone? is what are the polls like on approval for the war.
67 posted on 12/27/2003 9:57:26 AM PST by inPhase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: inPhase
One more major point!

Most of the press and the Leftists forget that Pres. Bush issued an ultimatum to Saddam, to open his country unconditionaly and surrender his WMD or face the consequences. SH was given ample time to decide as well as comply.......

Guess what, Saddam made the choice on his own, thinking W was as spineless as Bubba and the American public would influence W's decision not to attack. (Wrong again!)

The results are his sole responsibility because he was dealing with a man like Mr. Bush who does what he says he will. And, America kind of respects a man like that as a true leader.

68 posted on 12/27/2003 9:58:46 AM PST by PSYCHO-FREEP (HOW ABOUT rooting for our side for a change, you Liberal Morons!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Mike4Freedom
Who cares if we find WMD or not, that was a mis-direction play in the 1st place. Saddam is gone. Iraq is in the bag. The rest of the Mid-East nitwits have been put on notice.

Anyone who doesn't know that those were the things we were out to achieve, hasn't been paying attention.
69 posted on 12/27/2003 9:58:55 AM PST by vladog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: inPhase
There are many many instances of the war being rewritten and I suggest you hit old posts for a documented run down.

Zarf and I were discussing JUSTIFICATIONS on going to war, not predictions on the war.

No the question -- anyone? is what are the polls like on approval for the war

I don't know how to make this more clear.

Americans support war in Iraq 2-to-1, poll finds

70 posted on 12/27/2003 10:03:32 AM PST by TomB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: vladog
Anyone who doesn't know that those were the things we were out to achieve, hasn't been paying attention.

The administration has bungled the explanation. People like me who agreed with his decision don't have be convinced.

It's the idiots like Greeley who don't get what's going on that need a clear explanation.....the administration made a muddle of it and left the door open for the lefties to bitch.

For pete's sake they had month's and months to prepare for the post war and the possibilities of not finding WMD....

71 posted on 12/27/2003 10:04:19 AM PST by zarf (..where lieth those little things with the sort of raffia work base that has an attachment?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: TomB
Lots of questions on different posts. Almost there; 70 per cent agree on going to war.
I am looking for a poll on the approval for handling of the war.

72 posted on 12/27/2003 10:09:02 AM PST by inPhase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: zarf; vladog
anyway, what is the current explanation? and once again, am looking for a poll on the President's handling of the war. Anyone?
73 posted on 12/27/2003 10:11:36 AM PST by inPhase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: inPhase
I am looking for a poll on the approval for handling of the war.

Unbelievable!

From the SAME ARTICLE:

Sixty-three percent of respondents said they approved of the president's handling of foreign policy and the war on terrorism.

Are you playing a game here, or can't you read?

74 posted on 12/27/2003 10:14:10 AM PST by TomB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson
"he has been known to move his weapons"

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/833665/posts
US satellites 'spot Iraqis hiding suspected arms' (pretty interesting)
times online uk ^ | 1/31/03
75 posted on 12/27/2003 10:17:56 AM PST by backhoe (--30--)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: TomB
No it is not the same. Want to see up front

"approve or disapprove on the President's handling of the war."

There were polls for this previously. A poll is all in what you ask, when, and how you word it.
Not terrorism, your equivocation notwithstanding.


I just want to see the poll when it is done again.
76 posted on 12/27/2003 10:21:45 AM PST by inPhase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: PSYCHO-FREEP
Amen and Amen Freep! Couldn't have said it better!
77 posted on 12/27/2003 10:21:57 AM PST by BluePatriot57 (Amen to Liberal Morons!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: inPhase
You sound like just another Shrill for the Leftist press. You can validate this liar all you want but it merely reveals your true nature.

When Europe was LIBERATED fom the clutches of Fascism, it took more than 5 years to restore a functioning government that would handle the transition to democracy, which still stands today. (although threatened)

Your expectations, that just 1 year after the initial liberation, Iraq should be completely functional, is nothing more than defeatism.

78 posted on 12/27/2003 10:26:44 AM PST by PSYCHO-FREEP (HOW ABOUT rooting for our side for a change, you Liberal Morons!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: PSYCHO-FREEP; All
This is a common ploy here, if one does not agree or thinks for theirself, "why you must be a liberal". Big government IS liberal.

I support our Armed forces deployed in Iraq and everywhere. Mistakes cause deaths, yes those body bags and coffins that our General Officers go to meet in Dover and we are not allowed to see and honor.

I am a fiscal conservative watching the biggest government expansion since LBJ, a favorite of ASST Sec Wolf, go see his Cspan archived talk at Georgetown recently.

Namecalling is counterproductive to any discussion.
79 posted on 12/27/2003 10:34:28 AM PST by inPhase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: inPhase
inPhase, member (Troll?) since 9/1/03.....
80 posted on 12/27/2003 10:34:34 AM PST by PSYCHO-FREEP (HOW ABOUT rooting for our side for a change, you Liberal Morons!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Mike4Freedom
We still need to know did the president lie to us or was he fooled by his advisors? If the second, why are they still around? ... There is no way that removing a bad guy dictator in another nation, that was no threat to us was justified.

You need to check out ebay. They are selling clues real cheap. Obviously you don't have one and are in dire need of one. Happy shopping.

81 posted on 12/27/2003 10:37:02 AM PST by Go Gordon (The older I get, the better I used to be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: inPhase
No it is not the same. Want to see up front

I have NO IDEA what more you want!

"approve or disapprove on the President's handling of the war."

And the article SPECIFICALLY states:

"Sixty-three percent of respondents said they approved of the president's handling of foreign policy and the war on terrorism.

That sentence matches your question exactly!

You cannot get more specific than that.

82 posted on 12/27/2003 10:38:03 AM PST by TomB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: TomB
No it doesn't. It is missing "Iraq" is it not?

83 posted on 12/27/2003 10:41:17 AM PST by inPhase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Mike4Freedom
Because there is no connection. To the contrary, we knew that Osama hated Hussein.

Dude, you need to do a little homework. You are seriously ignorant of many facts, not the least of which is that Osama spent time in Iraq in the late 90's. Whether Osama hated Saddam had no bearing on his ability and/or desire to deal with him in attacking their common enemy. I assume you don't know that Saddam helped train Al Quaeda in Iraq? If you do know that and ignore it, then your posts aren't worth responding to. If you are unaware, then I suggest before you spout your nonsense, get the facts straight.

84 posted on 12/27/2003 10:43:30 AM PST by Go Gordon (The older I get, the better I used to be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: inPhase
This is a common ploy here, if one does not agree or thinks of theirself, "Why you must be liberal". Big government IS liberal.

Big government is neither liberal or conservative, and it's size is an illusion. This government is the product of years of change and the wishes of the general public or majority.

There are many things that many of us do not agree with. But, overall, simply because you as an individual believe the way you do, does not make it invalid or function in the way that you percieve it.

The overall trend as of late, is that the general public is becoming more conservative and concerned with making this government more efficient and less intrusive. Size has very little to do with it...

85 posted on 12/27/2003 10:51:07 AM PST by PSYCHO-FREEP (HOW ABOUT rooting for our side for a change, you Liberal Morons!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: inPhase
No it doesn't. It is missing "Iraq" is it not?

You are desparate, aren't you?

The only person "missing Iraq" is you:

Post #42: "Where are the polls on Bush's approv rate on war?"

Post #67: "No the question -- anyone? is what are the polls like on approval for the war."

Post #72: "I am looking for a poll on the approval for handling of the war."

Post #76: "No it is not the same. Want to see up front "approve or disapprove on the President's handling of the war."


Face it, only after you were proven to be clueless do you try to add "Iraq" to your question. Most people are smart enough to realize the war with Iraq and terrorism are the same thing.

Begone troll.

86 posted on 12/27/2003 10:53:23 AM PST by TomB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: PSYCHO-FREEP
PSYCHO-FREEP WROTE:"Big government is neither liberal or conservative, and it's size is an illusion. This government is the product of years of change and the wishes of the general public or majority. "

Wow, well you could try reading Hayek's "The road to serfdom."

Yeah, also read Patrick Henry. The thought is expressed on the NH plates.
87 posted on 12/27/2003 10:56:05 AM PST by inPhase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Mike4Freedom
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.

Exactly, it was self defense. But, assuming thats argueable (which it isn't because only the US, not the UN, can make decisions on US security) have you read UN resolution 1441? There were "severe" consequences for non-compliance. Just because France and Germany told Saddam they would keep the US from attacking, doesn't mean the teeth of 1441 were not valid. The vote, BTW, on 1441 was 17-0.

Remember, Saddam signed a cease fire agreement back in 91/92 and for over a decade failed to live up to it. I assume you remember Saddam ATTACKED another nation, in violation of Iraq's agreement that they signed with the UN. After he got his butt kicked, he violated the terms of the cease fire agreement and we simply enforced the cease fire agreement. We could ill-afford to let him develop WMD's for use on the US, either directly, or through a surogate.

Just because you are relatively safe in Kansas, Dorothy, doesn't mean the rest of the nation is. The policy of pacification brought us WTC bombing I, the USS Cole, the Khobar towers, the embassey bombing in Africa, etc. etc. etc. I assume you are from the crowd that needed to see a mushroom cloud rise above Philadelphia, Washington, or NY City and wait for someone to take credit for it before doing anything? Wake up to the real world. Read a newspaper and educate yourself on whats going on around the world. We are at war, my friend. And Saddam was part of that war, believe it or not.

88 posted on 12/27/2003 10:57:33 AM PST by Go Gordon (The older I get, the better I used to be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: TomB
Bush's handling of Iraq has also merited kudos with 60 per cent of respondents saying they approved, compared to 48 per cent in mid-November, the Washington Post-ABC News poll showed.

Found it on an India website. Do not imagine that a comment or commenter that has a different opinion tghan yourself is a troll, whateber you mean by that.
89 posted on 12/27/2003 11:00:10 AM PST by inPhase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
Instead of ranting at me, tell me where the WMDs are -- the WMDs that were the excuse for our going in?

Are you aware of the fact that we found the mobile weapons labs? We found parts of their nuclear program. Heck, one of the scientists had stuff buried under his rose bushes and was told to keep them their until the UN removed sanctions. We found delivery systems that violated UN resolutions. We've been going through 9 1/2 miles of paper. When the administration puts all the pieces together within the next 11 months, all the naysayers are gonna have a lot of egg on their faces and NONE of them will admit they were wrong. They won't apologize for for their unfounded accusations.

Oh, I forgot, the President of the United States is supposed to be on TV 24/7 spewing information and intelligence to all the naysayers in an effort to gain support and in the process, blow the cover off our humint and sources. Some advice: Patience is a virtue. Put your trust where your brain tells you to, not your emotions.

90 posted on 12/27/2003 11:05:17 AM PST by Go Gordon (The older I get, the better I used to be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: zarf; Mike4Freedom
You wrote: "Bush has opened himself up for attack by constantly rewriting the rational for war. It was not necessary to do so."

Whether you (or Greeley) like it or not, our President explained very well and very openly and accurately the rational for the BASH*. It is clearly stated, and accurate in every detail, in this insignificant little speech: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html

Perhaps you (and Greeley) missed it; most Americans didn't.



*BASH == Battle Against Saddam Hussein
91 posted on 12/27/2003 11:08:57 AM PST by AFPhys (((PRAYING for: President Bush & advisors, troops & families, Americans)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Go Gordon
What is the matter with the facts? Sec Rum stated that no wmd were found. Nuclear development or harboring is unlikely by Iraq. Dirty bombs, not the same thing but appears Korea is more liklely to have.

The terrorism war and the war in Iraq are asymmetric warfare. Our high tech versus their low tech trying to find -- live on vulnerabilities.

xcuse typos
92 posted on 12/27/2003 11:12:16 AM PST by inPhase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
If we try to crystal ball this problem, let’s remember what we know has actually happened: the ’93 twin towers bombing, the USS Cole, Somalia, etc, and of course 9/11. You know the list (hopefully).

In everyone’s unconscious we knew that a 9/11 was going to happen, not an “if” question – and most feared it was going to be a nuke. Even so, we earnestly prayed it would never come to pass.

Now, in your infinite wisdom, you tell me what are your criteria of enough is enough. What are YOUR rules of engagement? When will you fight for your (and supposedly your family’s) safety?

And finally, in the movie “The Lord of the Rings” at the battle of Helms Deep, a bloodied and bewildered King Theoden turns to his fellows and asks, “What are we to do in the face of such reckless hate?” This is my request to you. Don’t tell me where “we’re wrong” in battling evil, just tell me if you would or could! Remember, you have clear evidence of what has been – now just imagine of what might be – look into the ball.
93 posted on 12/27/2003 11:29:37 AM PST by Texaspeptoman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: inPhase
Bush's handling of Iraq has also merited kudos with 60 per cent of respondents saying they approved, compared to 48 per cent in mid-November, the Washington Post-ABC News poll showed.

And?

If you knew the answer, why did you continue to ask the question? Especially considering you've been given the same answer.

Do not imagine that a comment or commenter that has a different opinion tghan yourself is a troll, whateber you mean by that.

Asking the same question over and over and ignoring the responses is trolling.

94 posted on 12/27/2003 11:34:16 AM PST by TomB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: inPhase
What is the matter with the facts? Sec Rum stated that no wmd were found. Nuclear development or harboring is unlikely by Iraq. Dirty bombs, not the same thing but appears Korea is more liklely to have.

Korea has nothing to do with the facts of Iraq. Rumsfeld said they haven't found the actual weapons - YET. What we have found is parts of their weapons PROGRAM. President Bush told EVERYONE that we were NOT going to wait for the threat from Iraq to be IMMINENT. And he was right. Iraq had every intention of re-constituting its WMD programs as soon as the sanctions were lifted. In order to do this, Saddam had his weapons programs scattered all over the country. We've found pieces of it.

The whole point about Saddam gassing the Kurds in 1988 was not to so much suggest he had chemical tipped warheads ready to fire at a moments notice. It was used as proof that Saddam had no qualms about using such horrible weapons. People also forget, including the news agencies, that while we were in Afghanistan, we found videos of Al Quaeda experimenting on animals with poison gases.

So in Iraq, the analogy is this. If Mosul had a Mr. Coffee machine, and Tikrit had coffee filters, and Bahgdad had coffee grounds, and another city had water - technically Saddam didn't have any coffee. We knew Osama wanted coffee. We knew Osama wanted to destroy the US. So you are the president, what would you have done?

95 posted on 12/27/2003 11:38:03 AM PST by Go Gordon (The older I get, the better I used to be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: TomB
You are wrong again! Presumption wrong try as you may. My third search just before the post yielded this result. It is not the same answer period but I realize that you are not an analyst.

Try again, sincerity goes a long way. You appear to be miffed that your view is not the only one and when you can't answer with reason or logic, you cry wolf.

What about Rum and Rather a known liberal?
What about Wolfowitz's major league mistakes. Sorry, I ask questions.
96 posted on 12/27/2003 11:40:48 AM PST by inPhase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Mike4Freedom
Some WMD HAS been found - do some research.

The truth is coming out about Saddam's connections to AlQaida, and will link to 9-11. Be patient.

Qaddafi didn't give up his WMD b/c he got bored with them.

Your statements are ridiculous.
97 posted on 12/27/2003 11:41:19 AM PST by petercooper (DEAN = Democrats Experiencing Another Nightmare)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff; inPhase
The reason that the WMDs were not captured is exclusively due to the "wonderful", treasonous actions of the "peaceniks" including France, Germany, Russia, and those like yourself. He had 'em; he used 'em; 'nuf said.

And hiding your head in the sand about the hugely successful post-BASH operations, as the lamestream media does, makes them no less successful.

As many others have pointed out, a large majority of Americans get it (as does Quadaffi). Most of the rest are still suffering from the Demodog-sponsored public school system, probably will for the rest of their lives, and comprise the Demodog's ~40% voting base.
98 posted on 12/27/2003 11:42:26 AM PST by AFPhys (((PRAYING for: President Bush & advisors, troops & families, Americans)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief
Is this hubris-ridden jackanape related to Horace? If so he's making like a centrifuge in his grave!
99 posted on 12/27/2003 11:43:52 AM PST by Dionysius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Go Gordon
Sorry don't buy it.

It is accomplished fact that this is asym warfare, taught in the military,
not my idea. I do admire Gen Garner deeply, he admits and reflects on mistakes as a trained soldier (wrt asym warfare.)
100 posted on 12/27/2003 11:44:17 AM PST by inPhase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-187 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson