No WMD in Iraq

[Demrepdan]

I thought this was interesting. I'm too tired to make an elaborate comment on this right now. But this doesn't surprise me at all....so...maybe that's why I have no  comment on this at this time.


Read this:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/08/sprj.nirq.wmd.report/index.html

[Beet]

This is not surprising at all.

[MAS117]

i agree with beat

[jravnsbo]

still looking and jury is still out.  If WMDs are found, game over for election though.

[Beet]

Plenty of countries have WMD. Look at Libya. That doesnt justify invasion.

[jravnsbo]

Not saying it did either, but what would you say would justify the war?  That is the dem chief argument nowadays.

Plus it would just take it off the table like Saddam and would be big PR wise.

Plenty of countries have WMD. Look at Libya. That doesnt justify invasion.

[Beet]

Not saying it did either, but what would you say would justify the war?

Nothing justifies the invasion of another sovereign country except for special humanitarian concerns. I dont think Bush went to war for humanitarian concerns no matter how they try to spin it now. He didn't care about the Iraqi people and still doesnt insofar as it doesnt affect his imperial designs.

Plus it would just take it off the table like Saddam and would be big PR wise.

That is true, but it really shouldn't given that the administration already admitted months ago that WMD may never be found, and that they don't really care.

[jravnsbo]

Well the Iraq war still is very popular among the people and WMDs while not needed would still be a boost.  That is what I was trying to convey, just like getting OBL- I think if either one happens it will almost be game over.

Well Iraq was sponsering terrorism and not complying with the resolutions it agreed to comply with to end the first gulf war.  So one could argue strongly that the war was justified on those grounds alone, among many others.

Not saying it did either, but what would you say would justify the war?

Nothing justifies the invasion of another sovereign country except for special humanitarian concerns. I dont think Bush went to war for humanitarian concerns no matter how they try to spin it now. He didn't care about the Iraqi people and still doesnt insofar as it doesnt affect his imperial designs.

Plus it would just take it off the table like Saddam and would be big PR wise.

That is true, but it really shouldn't given that the administration already admitted months ago that WMD may never be found, and that they don't really care.

[Beet]

Well Iraq was sponsering terrorism and not complying with the resolutions it agreed to comply with to end the first gulf war.  So one could argue strongly that the war was justified on those grounds alone, among many others.

Actually Saddam never ordered the execution of hundreds of innocent Americans like Moammar Qaddahfi. The worst terrorist threats come from the Arabian penninsula and Pakistan, but Bush gives them billions of dollars in taxpayer money every year. Also Israel has been in noncompliance with a lot more resolutions than Iraq. They also get billions of dollars in taxpayer money.

[Gustaf]

The problem is not that, but the fact that a rather specific reason was given for the war, and the fact that other reasons existed and have been repeated a number of times since then doesn't change that.

Well the Iraq war still is very popular among the people and WMDs while not needed would still be a boost.  That is what I was trying to convey, just like getting OBL- I think if either one happens it will almost be game over.

Well Iraq was sponsering terrorism and not complying with the resolutions it agreed to comply with to end the first gulf war.  So one could argue strongly that the war was justified on those grounds alone, among many others.

Not saying it did either, but what would you say would justify the war?

Nothing justifies the invasion of another sovereign country except for special humanitarian concerns. I dont think Bush went to war for humanitarian concerns no matter how they try to spin it now. He didn't care about the Iraqi people and still doesnt insofar as it doesnt affect his imperial designs.

Plus it would just take it off the table like Saddam and would be big PR wise.

That is true, but it really shouldn't given that the administration already admitted months ago that WMD may never be found, and that they don't really care.

[MAS117]

I agree with jravnsbro, if there is WMD found its game for the dems.... personally i think its over before it started anway especially witht he unelectable dean was the nominee

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

I agree with jravnsbro, if there is WMD found its game for the dems.... personally i think its over before it started anway especially witht he unelectable dean was the nominee

Dean is not the nominee for the DEMS. If he is the nominee already, when did the primary cycle end? I must have missed mine completely. But, I know they haven't even begun. So, how is Dean the Nominee? I do think that if President Clinton comes out to endorse Wesley Clark, it is over for the Dean Juggernaut and Bush's re-election bid. However, both Clintons have stated that they will support whoever becomes the Nominee, they will support him, but they will not come out with any pre-convention endorsement. However, the former President may change his mind and come out for Clark to endorse a fellow Little Rockian.

[00tim]

Not saying it did either, but what would you say would justify the war?

Nothing justifies the invasion of another sovereign country except for special humanitarian concerns. I dont think Bush went to war for humanitarian concerns no matter how they try to spin it now. He didn't care about the Iraqi people and still doesnt insofar as it doesnt affect his imperial designs.

Plus it would just take it off the table like Saddam and would be big PR wise.

That is true, but it really shouldn't given that the administration already admitted months ago that WMD may never be found, and that they don't really care.

Okay so maybe you are right in the fact that Bush did not go to war for humanitarian reasons but that justifies invasion in most eyes of liberals and the invasion was the greatest relief for humanitarian conditions since WWII.

[Mort from NewYawk]

Personally, I think that the justification now given for the invasion, the establishment of a democratic state that would serve as a political alternative to religious tyranny in the Arab world, was the plan all along - this is what Bush really meant by a policy of "regime change".

However, because unilateralism was too politically unpopular here at home, the WMD argument had to be exaggerated.

The truth is, this deception only matters to the 20-30% of the population for whom throwing out the Republicans is a bigger priority than forming a realistic post 9/11 foreign policy.

[jravnsbo]

Fred Barnes said last night Bush made a speech before the war about bringing democracy to the region.  That was a justification before the war.

Personally, I think that the justification now given for the invasion, the establishment of a democratic state that would serve as a political alternative to religious tyranny in the Arab world, was the plan all along - this is what Bush really meant by a policy of "regime change".

However, because unilateralism was too politically unpopular here at home, the WMD argument had to be exaggerated.

The truth is, this deception only matters to the 20-30% of the population for whom throwing out the Republicans is a bigger priority than forming a realistic post 9/11 foreign policy.

[jravnsbo]

attn EUROPEANS:

last night some belgium paper said they had reports and were writing a story ina  newspaper there that the WMDS had been sent out of Iraq and are being stored in Syria, heard anything about this?

[Gustaf]

attn EUROPEANS:

last night some belgium paper said they had reports and were writing a story ina  newspaper there that the WMDS had been sent out of Iraq and are being stored in Syria, heard anything about this?

Europe is not really a unit. I know as much about Belgian papers as I know about Syrian ones, that is to say, nothing. Sorry.  

[jravnsbo]

worth a shot, since we have 4-5 people in here from Europe.

attn EUROPEANS:

last night some belgium paper said they had reports and were writing a story ina  newspaper there that the WMDS had been sent out of Iraq and are being stored in Syria, heard anything about this?

Europe is not really a unit. I know as much about Belgian papers as I know about Syrian ones, that is to say, nothing. Sorry.  

[opebo]

I don't think retroactive issues like 'justifications' for the war matter much in the election.  What matters is public perception of whether we're winning, casualties, and extrication.

[Gustaf]

I don't think retroactive issues like 'justifications' for the war matter much in the election.  What matters is public perception of whether we're winning, casualties, and extrication.

Yes, that's right. Sadly, perception is all that matters...

[Wakie]

I don't think retroactive issues like 'justifications' for the war matter much in the election.  What matters is public perception of whether we're winning, casualties, and extrication.

True.

What is interesting to note is the public perception of what "casualties" truly represent.  Most reporters only count the total # dead (about 500).  What is ignored is the # that have needed to be evacuated due to major injury (that #, according to NPR and the US Military, is 9000).

[opebo]

Whether its 500 or 9,000, its still a very low number by historical standards.  Of course the public's willingness to commit to sacrifices is also at a historical low no doubt.

[Nym90]

And the increasing unwillingness to sacrifice for the good of the country is being fueled by Americans being told that we can have both a massive war against terrorism globally and huge tax cuts, and oh yeah, we won't have to cut government spending on anything else either. And you can keep driving your gas-guzzling SUVs to the shopping mall too...that doesn't increase our dependence on oil from the Middle East or anything.
Where are the leaders who stand up and tell us the truth, that we all have to sacrifice for the good of the country? Let's elect a President who will be honest and straightforward with us about what is required on our part to combat terrorism. With this administration, it is truly ask not what you can do for your country, but what your country can do for you.

[opebo]

And the increasing unwillingness to sacrifice for the good of the country is being fueled by Americans being told that we can have both a massive war against terrorism globally and huge tax cuts, and oh yeah, we won't have to cut government spending on anything else either. And you can keep driving your gas-guzzling SUVs to the shopping mall too...that doesn't increase our dependence on oil from the Middle East or anything.
Where are the leaders who stand up and tell us the truth, that we all have to sacrifice for the good of the country? Let's elect a President who will be honest and straightforward with us about what is required on our part to combat terrorism. With this administration, it is truly ask not what you can do for your country, but what your country can do for you.

Nothing is required of the average American in the war against terrorism except to vote to re-elect GWBush.  If we have to give up SUVs and other integral aspects of what it is to be American, then what the devil are we fighting for?

[Gustaf]

And the increasing unwillingness to sacrifice for the good of the country is being fueled by Americans being told that we can have both a massive war against terrorism globally and huge tax cuts, and oh yeah, we won't have to cut government spending on anything else either. And you can keep driving your gas-guzzling SUVs to the shopping mall too...that doesn't increase our dependence on oil from the Middle East or anything.
Where are the leaders who stand up and tell us the truth, that we all have to sacrifice for the good of the country? Let's elect a President who will be honest and straightforward with us about what is required on our part to combat terrorism. With this administration, it is truly ask not what you can do for your country, but what your country can do for you.

Nothing is required of the average American in the war against terrorism except to vote to re-elect GWBush.  If we have to give up SUVs and other integral aspects of what it is to be American, then what the devil are we fighting for?

What does SUV stand for and why is it an integral part of being American?

I thought it was about democray, freedom and other trivial things, but what do I know about being American...