Oh, duh. But everyone knows that you have to a. present a valid case for war and b. have a good plan. Which Bush never had.
John Kerry campaigned on the premise that he had a "Secret Plan" for Iraq, a plan that would do a much better
job than Bush's plan. Yet after the election, Kerry decided to keep it to himself, so I guess we'll never know.
It is because the Democratic party saw Iraq as a means of political maneuvering that they are completely out of power.
Maybe because Clinton (and Congress) had an impeachment to deal with, which took his attention away from Iraq. Y'think?
No, that's insane. A President who could be so distracted would be incompetent to begin with and should have been impeached for that reason. Bush has had five years of steady charges against him, everything the Democrats could think up and throw at him. Yet he just smiles and brushes it off. And now you expect me to care about what Bill Clinton was actually found guilty of? Bush, on the other hand, hasn't been charged with anything. (Like Tom Delay, I think we see a pattern.)
And whose idea was it to sink all that money into impeaching him for the flimsiest of reasons?
That would be Clinton lying before a Federal Judge, lying before a Grand Jury, lying before the country (as his administration team went to work smearing Monica), and thereby losing his license to practice Law in the State of Arkansas? The Arkansas Bar association disbarred Bill Clinton for a reason. Nothing flimsy about it.
Don't accuse me of being dishonest. Particularly since you conveniently overlook one fact: Clinton did not explicitly endorse pre-emptive war. He authorized funding opposition groups.
Robin, I can't force you to go and read the actual Bill that Clinton signed into law. Here's the very first sentence for you from the Bill itself, from the above Cornell University link:
To establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq.
Not clear enough for you? Here's another one, also from the front page:
Since March 1996, Iraq has systematically sought to deny weapons inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) access to key facilities and documents, has on several occasions endangered the safe operation of UNSCOM helicopters transporting UNSCOM personnel in Iraq, and has persisted in a pattern of deception and concealment regarding the history of its weapons of mass destruction programs.
This was the precise reason Bush went before Congress and the UN, secured their permission to deliver "serious consequences" to Saddam Hussein should he not comply. Clinton acknowledged the abuse of weapons inspectors (Hello, Spectacles!), but did very little about it. Finally:
SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD IRAQ.
It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.
Robin, if you still cannot understand what that means, and why it is called the "Iraq Liberation Act" and not "Iraq let's hope Sanctions Work Act", I can't help you further. There's nothing plainer than the above Article 3 on what Clinton wanted to happen.
Saddam had no WMDs in Iraq. Why? Because the sanctions against Iraq worked! Zack has said that by the time we invaded, Iraq was little more than a fourth-rate dictatorship, and I'm inclined to agree.
And if Saddam Hussein had not stonewalled our inspectors to show this, he'd still be in power! You do understand that, don't you? Bush called Saddam's bluff. Bush never said "We're only invading Iraq because I guarantee neatly labeled stockpiles of WMD". That claim lies only in the fertile imagination of his critics.
Bush would've been better off following Clinton's lead and helping to fund opposition groups instead of pushing a pre-emptive war based on lies and false information.
So Iraqi intelligence contacts spruced up their reports, so what? The left accuses Bush of lying and fabricating intelligence. If he did that, why is he still president? He did not.
The reason Bush claimed we were invading Iraq was because supposedly Saddam a. had WMDs
Bush didn't have to claim Saddam Hussein had WMD, the whole world saw him use them! Why are you so determined to protest the innocence of Saddam Hussein? He had WMD, used them, and showed all signs of wanting to acquire more. So he didn't acquire more, that's good. That doesn't mean we should have left him in power.
and b. was linked to al Qaeda.
That was the determination of the 9/11 Commission, Saddam Hussein was indisputably linked to Al Queda. Did Saddam plan or know of the 9/11 attacks? No evidence. Did Saddam support and pay for Islamic terrorist organizations as a whole? Absolutely. Bush never lied.
As Spectacles points out, this is simply not true.
When Spectacles takes the position of Tariq Aziz, Iraq's representative in the UN up to early 2003, that does not prove anything besides a willingness to believe a dictator. Was Tariq Azis telling the truth, that they were fully cooperating with inspectors? Colin Powell reported that Aziz was lying, and I am inclined to believe a decorated Army General over a blood-soaked dictator. Make your choice.
First of all, this happened during the 1980s and early 1990s. During this time, Saddam Hussein was receiving support from the United States. The US government under Reagan had no problem with this; Iran was our enemy at the time. We didn't have a problem with his WMDs then.
Yes, I remember the left doing everything in their power to lie and claim that America gave Saddam Hussein his WMD. It never happened. But that just showed the depths that Bush's critics were willing to go in order to protest Saddam's forcible removal.
By 2004, Saddam did not have WMDs. The sanctions worked.
And again, Saddam Hussein chose to bluff that he had something to hide, he gave our inspectors the runaround. Bush called Saddam's bluff, Saddam is out of power, and a major financial sponsor of Islamic terrorism is gone. Why is this a problem, again?
We all know that. What would you call our so-called "allies" in Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, and Pakistan? Benevolent dictators?
Yes, I've seen this argument before. Why invade Iraq when there are equally bad dictators around the world? Because with Iraq and Afghanistan as examples, the world's dictators do not need to receive actual invasion. Sometimes, just by letting them see what happens to their brother dictators is good enough. And I can tell you that the world's blood-soaked dictators agree with every bit of anti-war criticism that Bush has received. Think very carefully about what that means, and why they support the side of Bush's critics. The dictators know Bush is effective, even if Bush's critics argue otherwise until they're hoarse.
The invasion had nothing to do with freeing the Iraqi people. If it were, we would not be occupying the country. We would probably be doing what Clinton wanted: supporting opposition groups in Iraq.
This will come as a great surprise to the people of Japan and Germany, who were told we had to occupy them to bring them democracy and freedom. I don't dispute the fervency of your feelings, but I happen to look at history more than feelings. History completely repudiates your above statement.
Another straw man: the supposed Saddam sympathizer or appeaser. I know of nobody who called Saddam a victim or who was pro-Saddam.
You yourself just stated it was the wrong thing to do to forcibly remove Saddam Hussein from power. Did I misunderstand your very precise and very clear statement?
Sure, we could have let Saddam rule another 20 years, let scams like Oil for Food support and protect the dictator through black market channels. But Bush recognized that only the people of Iraq were suffering from sanctions, Saddam Hussein and his bunch were fat, rich, and happy. Bush removed those scum from power, and now the Iraqi people have food, medicine, education, and all the basics that we in our democracies consider necessities.
Funny how the crowd who argues "We should have given sanctions a longer chance!" is the same exact crowd who was saying "End Iraq sanctions now!" before Bush made his Axis of Evil speech. You may choose not to remember the position of Bush's critics, but I do.
And if Saddam has these WMDs in Syria, why haven't we put pressure on Syria to hand them over? Surely, Bush would be interested in a look-see, hmmmmm?
Let me go over the concept of time, and I hope I do not sound anywhere near as condescending as Algore did in his televised debates with Bush. After Bush's 2002 "Axis of Evil" State of the Union speech, things didn't start moving into high gear until Summer 2002. With me so far? From the Summer of 2002, to March 2003, Saddam Hussein had warning
that Bush was looking for his WMD. That means that if Saddam Hussein still had any secret functioning stockpiles, we gave him NINE MONTHS
to get rid of it.
Bush gave Saddam Hussein nine months, Robin. 9 months to hide, destroy, ship out, do whatever with his WMD. There was no rush to war, we gave Saddam Hussein plenty of time to get rid of the labs, the scientists, the paperwork, the experimental evidence, purchasing contracts, all of it. He had 9 months to get rid of every scrap of evidence. And that's not hard in a police state.
Again, you have to have a concept of time in order to think about that. I make a point of it because I wonder if Bush's critics have the slightest grasp of what an absolute dictator can do, if the world's democracies give him 9 months (not counting the years from 1991 to 2002) to cover up. Is it really that hard to think through?
Edited by Ogami, 30 May 2005 - 09:57 PM.