In the Bush/Kerry debate discussion where I stated that Kerry won (BTW, has any liberal Democrat on this board ever said anything gracious about Bush? I don't think I've ever even seen a casual remark about anything Bush has done well), Inner City Blue and I debated which global threats should be addressed.
ICB was making the point that many nation's are nuclear like Iran and North Korea, so why aren't we attacking them? I responded that we just don't use a nation's nuclear capability as the only litmus test. For example, India is nuclear but they're not a threat. Our nation must evaluate both capability and intent when making threat assessments. I think Cheney made this point very well last night.
Cheney said (paraphrasing) "Iraq was that nexus where terrorism and weapons of mass destruction were most likely to come together". Looking back over history, it was Iraq which invaded Iran. It was Iraq which invaded Kuwait. And it was Iraq which used WMD. While the Iran regime is no friend to the US, 1) they don't have the history of aggression that Iraq had, and 2) there are forces within the country leading towards to reforms.
Anyway, IMO these facts help make clear why we'd deal with Iraq differently than Iran (or North Korea for that matter).
Let me conclude by saying this doesn't solve the "should we have used force in the first place" debate. I'm just saying that if we had to pick the biggest national threat to our security, it would be Iraq.
Let me conclude by saying this doesn't solve the "should we have used force in the first place" debate. I'm just saying that if we had to pick the biggest national threat to our security, it would be Iraq.
i don't see how you can look at one and ignore the other. they go hand in hand. so it was important to just pick a country and attack and iraq was the country that fit the bill best. is that it?
cheney lied yet again when he maintained that he has never said that there was a connection between saddam and al qaeda. he's on the record as having said it publicly at least twice in recent months. tell the truth, cheney. you said it. anyone can make a mistake but to perpetuate it with further lies speaks volumes about your character.
The plan to go into Iraq was in place before Clinton. George W. Bush pulled the trigger.
I believe Cheney said, "no connection between Saddam and 9/11". I think he has always stated that Al Queada and or Terrorists associated with Al Queada have been in contact with Iraq - Saddam which, we no know to be true.
I could be wrong. I was wrong once before.
"Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those who say this are witless." ~Ayatollah Khomeini
Jim, good points. But all these debates become very nuanced over time. This particular discussion related to the idea that the administration is so stupid that they invaded the wrong country. Liberals keep saying "What about Iran? What about North Korea?" To address those challenges, I'm saying that Iraq posed a greater threat than Iran or NK.
Prior to the war, it was agreed upon widely that disarming Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do. Kerry thought so, and so did Edwards.
usa
"The plan to go into Iraq was in place before Clinton. George W. Bush pulled the trigger.
I could be wrong. I was wrong once before."
Actually you are RIGHT here.
I think it is lame that the bush/Bush admin. used their war on terror as an excuse to invade Iraq. I would have had more respect for them had they admitted the truth from the beginning. They probably were aware however, that most Americans would not have supported this fiasco had they been honest.
Jim Nasium said this in post #2 :
cheney lied yet again when he maintained that he has never said that there was a connection between saddam and al qaeda. he's on the record as having said it publicly at least twice in recent months. tell the truth, cheney. you said it. anyone can make a mistake but to perpetuate it with further lies speaks volumes about your character.
I hope he did say it. In case you haven't been paying attention....there are connections between Al Qaeda and Husseins regime.
Here is a highlight from my post in your other thread.
Iraqi intelligence documents taken by U.S. forces show a number of efforts by Saddam's government to work with Al-Qaeda, along with other terrorists. The documents also show that Saddam had mustard gas and anthrax, both considered weapons of mass destruction. By the way, some of those weapons, artillery shells with sarin gas, have already been found. You did know that, didn't you?
The papers also show that Iraq trained terrorists, along with orders by Saddam to attack Americans in Somalia. Remember that? The particular memo in question was written 9 months before the Army Rangers were ambushed in Mogadishu, And if that weren't enough, the documents include lists of Saddam's terrorist buddies that he worked with, including al-Zarqawi and al-Zawahiri. The former is still in Iraq, and is responsible for beheading a number of Americans. The latter's voice is believed to be heard on the latest tape broadcast on Al-Jazeera (where else) calling for attacks on Americans everywhere.
Also, anyone who is tired of leftist spin, Stephen F. Hayes has written a concise and hard-hitting book "The Connection. How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America." (Harper Collins). Head to Amazon.com and the book will be in your eagerly-awaiting hands by Monday. You simply cannot read this book and then voice a heart-felt opinion that there was no connection between Hussein and al Qaeda. Read it and you'll have all the information you need to cause your leftist, appeasement-oriented Democratic friends sputtering in confusion.
Now ... a word for you Bush-hating Democrats out there. Save your money. Take the $19.95 list price for this book and give it to a homeless person somewhere. You aren't willing to learn. You don't want to know the truth. You're comfortable with your "Bush lied" mantra and you aren't going to let anything, let alone the facts, invade your political comfort zone. You're going to continue to parrot the "there were no WMDs" line, even though those weapons have been found. You'll repeat with your last breath the "Bush stole the election" nonsense, even though every single Florida recount, even the recount conducted by a consortium of leftist newspapers, has shown that Gore lost. Your hatred of George Bush is stronger than your desire to know the truth. Your belief in your own moral and intellectual superiority prohibits any admission that you might have actually been wrong. So ... save the twenty bucks. Use it to take a few fellow-travelers to see Michael Moore's film. I understand that film is being shown in dark rooms. You should feel comfortable there ... safe from the truth.
10-06-2004 02:51 PM
