tBlog - We didn't find any WMDs in Iraq...your point is?

We didn't find any WMDs in Iraq...your point is?

Blog For Free!

Archives
Home
2005 July
2005 February
2005 January
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July

tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images

Sponsored
Blog

Bookmark this site!

We didn't find any WMDs in Iraq...your point is?

01.14.05 (12:14 pm) [edit]

I find it funny that the Democrats have been clamoring and clamoring for Bush to come out and "admit" that there were no WMDs in Iraq afterall. All you heard was that "if he would only come out and admit it, we could move on, blah blah blah." What happens? He comes out and says that they are calling off the search because they couldn't find any WMDs. What a mistake. Why is it a mistake? Because giving liberals what they want never works.

Liberals have pounced on this, some even calling for his impeachment. What a load. You people are in need of mental care. EVERYONE thought there were WMDs. Republicans, Democrats, Europe, the U.N., EVERYONE.

Here are a few quotes for those of you who don't believe it:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

EVERYONE thought there were WMDs. So, why you ask, does Bush get blamed for it? Because we are talking about politics. Will they themselves come out and say that they thought the exact same thing after looking at the same intelligence? No, of course not. Blame Bush for being the person to make the final decision. He is the President. If you are going to cast stones here though, throw a few at your oversized heads too. You liberals deserve just as much "blame".

Of course, it was still worth it because everyone also has and continues to believe that Saddam was waiting for the UN sanctions to be lifted so he could start redevelopement of his programs.

So there were no WMDs found. Sucks doesn't it? Imagine what would have happened if Bush hadn't gone to war, a bomb blew up in one of our major cities and pieces of the bomb found in some young child were linked back to Saddam. Hmmm...would Democrats blame themselves or would they blame Bush. They would blame Bush. Why? Because what is good for the U.S. is bad for Democrats and vice versa.

So, take that and stick if were you liberals like it.

posted by: yabasta (reply)
post date: 01.15.05 (4:27 pm)

The point is the world was lied to by the power structure. The lies cost many lives and much money that you don`t really have. You have a bigger national debt than the third world now. have a nice day.

posted by: deshanews (reply)
post date: 01.16.05 (6:44 pm)

What lies? Who are you saying lied?

posted by: ABlain (reply)
post date: 01.17.05 (4:47 am)

Bush gets blamed because he built a pre-emptive war on this alone. It was crucially important to the validity of this war that WMDs were found. Unlike the first war, America was not the defender here, it was the aggressor. For a world power to be a military aggressor sets a scary precident. To not blame Bush and to not consider serious consequences sets an even scarier precident. If there are no serious consequences then it means that world powers can start pre-emptive wars to pre-empt dangers that do not exist.

posted by: deshanews (reply)
post date: 01.17.05 (6:40 am)

Thank you for your reply. It was civil and I commend you for it. Here are the issues I have with your comments:

You said: "Bush gets blamed because he built a pre-emptive war on this alone."

Despite what you say here, what Democrats and liberals say about this and what the press tries to make you believe, this was only one of the reasons for going to war. Now granted, it was a big part of it obviously, but to say that this was the only reason we went to war is completely wrong. If nothing else, I ask you to read the U.N. resolutions requiring Saddam to comply with UN inspectors, which he never did. It told him he must prove that he didn't have any weapons, which he refused to do. He constantly kept inspectors and the world from seeing what was going on. He paid suicide bombers, he allowed AQ terrorist training camps to run freely in his country...something that has been validated since the war started. He was part of the Oil For Food scandal. In this, he was supposed to be selling the oil for the sole purposes of feeding and clothing his people. He used it to build massive buildings and shrines to himself, he used it to illegally purchase weapons and equipment from Russia, France and others...something else that has been found in the wake of war. He broke every one of the resolutions. Once he did that, according to what he agreed to, we were allowed to take force. You may not agree with when it happened, but Bush had every right to do this.

You said:"It was crucially important to the validity of this war that WMDs were found. Unlike the first war, America was not the defender here, it was the aggressor."

It was only "crucially" important to opponents of the war, to find the WMD. Yes, it would have been wonderful to find these. Of course, even if he had found them, opponents of the war would have said the war was not needed and that inspectors would have found them if allowed...wouldn't they? Finding these things would have not made Bush a hero in the eyes of his detractors...only more of a "war monger". America, in this war, was the aggressor for reasons that were correct and just. Read my statement before regarding the UN resolutions that he broke. Saddam agreed to these resolutions in order to not incure more severe punishments after the first Gulf War.

You said:"For a world power to be a military aggressor sets a scary precident."

What? You mean that a world power should wait to be attacked before it makes things right? A world power should see injustice and then act accordingly. We should be doing this now in Sudan, but that is for another time. We don't live in a world now where we can see exactly what country our enemies or the world's enemies reside. These terrorists live everywhere and are working hand in hand with many different governments. Saddam's government was nothing different. He has been working with different terroristic organizations for some time and no one even tries to deny that. I believe it sets a scary President to continue allowing terrorists to attack without coming after them beforehand. This is one of the things that Bin Laden has stated. He has stated that one of the reasons they decided to conduct the activities of 9/11 was that the United States had historically not be preemptive. We had allowed these things to occur without fighting back. This is not a Clinton bash, but a US government over the last 20 years bash. NO ONE has done a good job with this and that is why the terrorists became emboldened enough to attack us on 9/11.

You said:"To not blame Bush and to not consider serious consequences sets an even scarier precident."

Once again, I ask what do we blame Bush for? Do we blame him for being the President forced to make a tough decision? Ok, I agree then. Presidents are forced to make tough decisions. Clinton was faced to make tough decisions in Bosnia. Bosnia forced us to become agressors. We weren't attacked at all. He was the President during the infamous "Black Hawk Down" time. If you want to blame Bush for not knowing there were WMD there and for using force, then you need to blame every member of Congress equally, you need to blame every person on the administration of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush. This is something that has been a result of inaction for quite some time.

You said:"If there are no serious consequences then it means that world powers can start pre-emptive wars to pre-empt dangers that do not exist."

To say this means that you believe Saddam posed no threat to the US or the rest of the world. This is wrong. The UN, the EU, and most members of congress freely admit that Saddam was waiting for the UN resolutions to expire so he could start his weapons program back up. My question to you. Was it good to go in and fight Hitler, even though he posed no real threat to the US? If we could go back in time, while he was gaining power, would it be right to see the small things he was doing, the small and large things he was currently trying to develop and stop him ahead of time? Would that be worth millions of Jewish lives? Yes it would be. Preemption is something that we, and the rest of the world have done for quite some time. The difference here is that we have a President who is a Republican and a Christian and people are holding grudges against him for expressing himself in this way.

Thank you for your responses.

posted by: jbrookins (reply)
post date: 01.17.05 (7:36 am)

Here is the catch; Bush is responsible for the war in Iraq. He was also just re-elected as the leader of this country. While Iraq isn't the sole issue of his re-election it was part of reason he won again. Not everyone sees Iraq as a mistake. The WMD issue is and was a very small part of the reasoning we went into Iraq. Now the consequences of a win or lose in Iraq are huge, but inaction in Iraq would have also been huge. The insurgency has showed the middle east for what it has become, a cesspool of hate, hate developed by despots that feel the oppression of their own people is necessary for their continued power and they are right so they pick someone to be an enemy and draw attention away from their failures as nations and cultures and we are that someone. Our failure for the last 30 years was to recognize this building threat and deal effectively with it as it began.

What the Bush haters fail to realize is that a larger war is being fought and as usual they fail to see it. Only when their homes are in danger and their families’ beheaded will they see what we face. But of course then it will be too late.

http://www.blogrank.net/cgi-bin/blogs/rankem.cgi?id=deshanew