President didn't mislead us (Iraq)

One thing that no one has considered is the burden of proof. The burden of proof was on Saddam to prove that he had destroyed the weapons program that even the UN said that he had. Saddam did not meet that burden of proof so we took him out.

Next question.

"And they haven't learned: "When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging".
"

Dakota tribal wisdon advises that when it is found that you are riding a dead horse it is best to dismount.

How do you create a "tag line"?

1. We screamed at the UN to reinsert the weapons inspectors...we won and the inspectors spent four mobhs scouring the countryside and turned up no WMD. Everyone but the UK and US felt more time should be allowed to conduct the weapons searches...we invade!

A rather simplistic sketch of events. As the US gave the Iraqi regime a chance to comply with the UN inspectors to prove they had no WMD and no WMD programs, and the Iraqis were not being fully compliant, the US felt it in our best interests to use the only method for determining that the regime had no WMD, nor programs for the same, military action to overthrow the regime.

2. Bush states that Iraq sought to procure uranium from Africa...unsubstantiated yet a state of the union address topic?

No, Bush stated that British intelligence believed Iraq sought to procure uranium ore. Throwout the line from his speech, and nothing would change. Congress had already approved military action against Iraq in October. You have fallen for Demorat spin.

3. "We will topple the regime"...where is SadAss, his sons, the regime? Is our intel so shoddy that we can't locate him? (or bin Laden for that matter...but that's another issue.)

If you think Saddam, et al are in power in Iraq, you are way out of touch with reality. It took several years for us to capture all the bad boys in Japan after WWII and string them up. A little patience is in order.

4. Where are the WMD, the biochem weapons, etc.? Imean, we "knew" they were there...where are they?

This is the Demorat spin taking over your mind again. Remember, we invaded to determine if WMDs and WMD programs existed in Iraq as the UN inspectors were being thwarted in their roles.

5. We "liberated" Iraq? Really? Why did it take 12 years to do that and why are we still remaining in the country without and exit plan?

Yes. Yes. Can you say Clintoon? More Demorat spin, we have, and have had an exit plan. Catch the bad guys, determine the status of all WMDs and WMD programs in Iraq, get Iraqi's infrastructure working again, establish a democratic form of gov't in Iraq, then leave.

The Democreeps know there is a lot of people that will believe them and the media.They will not question the dim-wits or ABC CBS CNN NBC they will say oh my god bush has mislead all of us.Dates does not matter they need something to hate bush and this is it democreeps lies and backed up by the leftwing media.

How do you create a "tag line"? >>

When you go to the Reply screen, look at the box below where you're typing your reply....it will say "Tag line (optional,printed after your name on post) click your cursor into that empty space and type what you want...and you can always change or delete it in another reply.

I'll answer your reponses as you posted them: 1. We screamed at the UN to reinsert the weapons inspectors...we won and the inspectors spent four mobhs scouring the countryside and turned up no WMD. Everyone but the UK and US felt more time should be allowed to conduct the weapons searches...we invade! A rather simplistic sketch of events. As the US gave the Iraqi regime a chance to comply with the UN inspectors to prove they had no WMD and no WMD programs, and the Iraqis were not being fully compliant, the US felt it in our best interests to use the only method for determining that the regime had no WMD, nor programs for the same, military action to overthrow the regime.

Seems they offered proof (12,000 pages of it) and we decided to ignore it...and, have we found these supposed WMDs? Nope....Really gotta scratch your head at this one...yet, we invade and wage a war (interestingly, they didn't even fight!) 2. Bush states that Iraq sought to procure uranium from Africa...unsubstantiated yet a state of the union address topic? No, Bush stated that British intelligence believed Iraq sought to procure uranium ore. Throwout the line from his speech, and nothing would change. Congress had already approved military action against Iraq in October. You have fallen for Demorat spin.

Not quite...we fell for the presidential line! The congress followed the lead of the President...and one can;t "thow out that line"! 3. "We will topple the regime"...where is SadAss, his sons, the regime? Is our intel so shoddy that we can't locate him? (or bin Laden for that matter...but that's another issue.) If you think Saddam, et al are in power in Iraq, you are way out of touch with reality. It took several years for us to capture all the bad boys in Japan after WWII and string them up. A little patience is in order.

Saddam is not in power at the moment, agreed. But...where is he? WW2 was some 60 years ago, before the super intel we have today...and we have no clue about Saddam or bin Laden...strange. 4. Where are the WMD, the biochem weapons, etc.? I mean, we "knew" they were there...where are they? This is the Demorat spin taking over your mind again. Remember, we invaded to determine if WMDs and WMD programs existed in Iraq as the UN inspectors were being thwarted in their roles.

Bush repeated stated "they have the weapons"...and I still ask you (no spin) just where are the weapons or evidence there are any weapons? 5. We "liberated" Iraq? Really? Why did it take 12 years to do that and why are we still remaining in the country without and exit plan? Yes. Yes. Can you say Clintoon? More Demorat spin, we have, and have had an exit plan. Catch the bad guys, determine the status of all WMDs and WMD programs in Iraq, get Iraqi's infrastructure working again, establish a democratic form of gov't in Iraq, then leave.

Your military logic here is completely flawed (and you'd have to answer where Saddam is if that is part of your exit plan!) Can Iraq sustain a democratic form of government?

Seems to me I read this same line about Vietnam (where I spent 22 months and earned a Purple Heart, and served 27 years in uniform)...no leaders in tow, no weapons loacted, and now we want to liberate a prople and establish a government? HHHmmmmm...didn't we screw that up between 65 and 71???

"Seems to me I read this same line about Vietnam (where I spent 22 months and earned a Purple Heart, and served 27 years in uniform)..."

Thank you for your service. I've noticed that some who have served in Vietnam, understandably so, have rather bitter, and cynical feelings, about further military operations in foreign nations. Of course, many others do not.

I have a coworker from Vietnam who has rather bitter feelings about the US overthrowing Iraq when we didn't do the same for his country during the Vietnam War. Kind of a different spin. We definitely screwed up in that war, but it was a political problem that was the cause, not a military one. I think the military ran the recent Iraqi War quite well.

Many of your comments are right out of the liberal talking points.

"WW2 was some 60 years ago, before the super intel we have today...and we have no clue about Saddam or bin Laden...strange."

Not really. As we have found out, "super intel" only goes so far. It is human intel that matters, and that is not improved with technology. Recall that the CIA had restrictions put on it that limited our human intel abilities.

"Can Iraq sustain a democratic form of government?"
A racist statement in itself, although liberals don't seem to think so.

"Seems they offered proof (12,000 pages of it) and we decided to ignore it...and, have we found these supposed WMDs?"
This is what one refers to as partial compliance, not full compliance. They were not complying with UN inspector requests. You seem to have missed the news on several finds so far, i.e. the centrifuge buried in the backyard of a nuclear scientist in Iraq. That is why we attacked, they were not complying. If they would have complied, we would not have invaded. Simple as that. Whether or not we find WMDs is irrelevant, though the liberals are trying to make it relevant.

There are certainly many subtleties in why we went to war, and the Demorats are taking advantage of them in their propaganda war against President Bush. Partisanship over patriotism.

It is part of the liberal mythology being created to attack President Bush that we went to war because we knew they had WMDs. It is because we didn't know, and they refused to prove they didn't have them, that we went.

I will respect your views (though disagree with most).

The "racist statement" was not intended as such. PLease understand that a third world environemnt, complete with wide spread rural inhabitants without much news and certainly no telecomm. capability, does not lend itself to a "government by the people (the Philippnes is a good example historically).

Cynical? Yes!

Spin or no spin, if we toppled the regime, weapons are nowhere to be found, isn't it time to hand Iraq over and get out quickly? Remember why the RVN vets are so annoyed with this...it's RVN al over again.

"PLease understand that a third world environemnt, complete with wide spread rural inhabitants without much news and certainly no telecomm. capability, does not lend itself to a "government by the people"

Hmmmm...sounds amazingly like the 13 colonies that started our nations.

"Spin or no spin, if we toppled the regime, weapons are nowhere to be found, isn't it time to hand Iraq over and get out quickly? Remember why the RVN vets are so annoyed with this...it's RVN al over again."

Absolutely not. If we do not leave a stable, democratic gov't in place when we leave, what was the point in the first place? We must clean up the mess from the previous gov't and leave a foundation for peace in Iraq and the region. A peaceful Middle East will have great benefits for the US and the world.

Watch as the terrorists in Syria, Lebanon and Iran, and other such nations are taken out as time goes on. Afghanistan and Iraq are just the start.

The Don; Your statement: "If we do not leave a stable, democratic gov't in place when we leave, what was the point in the first place? We must clean up the mess from the previous gov't and leave a foundation for peace.."

is exactly what we said about Vietnam!

I guess I need to start scouting out some apprpriate landscape in DC for another Wall?

"is exactly what we said about Vietnam!"

Talk to the Demorats for that war. They got us involved, escalated it, then the Congressional Demorats screwed over the South V.! What losers they are!

"I guess I need to start scouting out some apprpriate landscape in DC for another Wall?"

I agree. A fitting memorial to those who gave their lives to protect America and free the Iraqi people deserve no less.

The Choice: Who Should we trust: Dubya or Saddam.

The Democrats keep saying that Bush misled the world about Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and programs. If this was true, then the Democrats are saying conversely that Saddam Hussain was telling the truth when he said he did not have anything to hide- that he didn’t have any WMD or related programs. (By the way, we have found the scientists and the related program documentation of Saddam’s WMD program, but this is beside the point). So the Democrats are saying, we should not have believed George W. Bush about Saddam, but rather we should have believed Saddam Hussain. This is interesting; and unfortunately, extremely dangerous.

Either Saddam Hussain was misleading the world, or George W. Bush was misleading the world- both cannot have been lying; and they both could not have been telling the truth. The Democrats are saying that we should trust the security of the United States to a mass murderer. The Democrats are saying we should trust the security of the United States to someone you killed thousands of Kurds with chemical weapons. The Democrats are saying we should trust the security of the United States to Saddam used this billions of dollars to finance terrorism around the world. The Democrats are saying we should trust the security of the United States to someone who invaded two of his neighbor’s, Iran and Kuwait; causing well over a million deaths. The Democrats are saying that we should trust the security of the United States to someone who provided terrorists with a base of operations, including the terrorists who conducted the first attack on the Twin Towers in New York, Abdul Yazen. The Democrats want us to trust someone who harbored Abu Nadal- an organization with ties to al Qaeda. The Democrats want us to trust someone who’s intelligence officer met with Mohammad Atta in Prague just months before 9/11. The Democrats want us to trust our security to someone who trained terrorists on how to hijack an airplane with rudimentary weapons (knives) at Salman Pak, on the southern edge of Baghdad, where a Boeing 707 was parked for this purpose, as confirmed by two UN inspectors, three defectors, and our own satellite photographs. The Democrats want us to believe a man who provides money to the family of Hammas suicide bombers; Hammas was the same group who murdered 242 American Marines. The Democrats want voters to trust the security of the United States to a man who carried out extensive diplomatic, logistical, and financial cooperation with al Qaeda ever since the Gulf War, until his imminent demise in May of 2003- they even planned to cooperate on WMD according to a sealed 1998 U.S. indictment of Osama bin Laden. In short, the Democrats would have you believe Saddam Hussein, rather than George W. Bush.

The Democrats want us to believe Saddam when he says: “I’m not a perfect person, but I have nothing to do with al Qaeda.” The opposite is true as outlined in detail by an intelligence memo dated October 27, 2003, which was sent from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller. Weekly Standard; November 24, 2003 issue: The U.S. government's secret memo detailing cooperation between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. According to the memo--which lays out the intelligence in 50 numbered points--Iraq-al Qaeda contacts began in 1990 and continued through mid-March 2003, days before the Iraq War began. Most of the numbered passages contain straight, fact-based intelligence reporting, which in some cases includes an evaluation of the credibility of the source. Intelligence reporting included in the 16-page memo comes from a variety of domestic and foreign agencies, including the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency. Much of the evidence is detailed, conclusive, and corroborated by multiple sources. Some of it is new information obtained in custodial interviews with high-level al Qaeda terrorists and Iraqi officials, and some of it is more than a decade old. The picture that emerges is one of a history of collaboration between two of America's most determined and dangerous enemies.