Simon W. Moon

Generally, yes, but not in the specific case of Iraq.
"No one" thought that they might have a nuke though many thought they might have some left-over chemical and biological weapons.
Part of the PR offensive from Team Bush was to conflate the idea of these smaller scale weapons (b&c) with the threat of a mushroom cloud over a major american city.

__________________
"That is the problem... [we] fell in love with the idea that politicians-- even the slickest and brightest presidential candidates-- were real heroes and truly exciting people. That is wrong on its face. They are mainly dull people with corrupt instincts and criminal children. -H.S.T"

Squawker

Liberals and partisan Democrats, didn’t believe it from the start, so how could they be scared into supporting the war? The majority of Republicans wanted Saddam out a long time ago, so they didn’t need to be scared into anything. There isn’t anyone on this planet that can be sure of what Saddam would or would not have done. It was a totally different story from the left when Clinton went to war in Iraq in 1998, so all this outrage means nothing. Now that most the facts are out, this is a handy tool to whip President Bush with. How long are ya all going to whine about it? The only thing that scares me is the prospect of having the Clintons back in the White House.

__________________
http://users.igl.net/jdsquawker/squawkereagle.gifhttp://users.igl.net/jdsquawker/squawkername.gif

Political Word W/RSS Feed

GPS_Flex

Lets set the record straight here Champs. I was explaining how hypocritical it was for some of the Democrats who supported Clinton’s war in Kosovo to oppose the war in Iraq on the basis that Iraq was not an imminent threat to the USA. There isn’t even an argument that Kosovo was an imminent threat to the USA. Thus, the double standard you lefties refuse to realize.

I explained how the number of people Saddam was murdering dwarfed the number of people Milosevic murdered and pointed out how you lefties refuse to acknowledge the fact that one of the reasons we took out Saddam was to stop his murder/torture.

You called that a lie and used the “Bush said we’d get nuked if we didn’t go to war” smoke screen as the foundation for calling me a liar.

I’ve never met anyone who can’t walk and chew gum at the same time but you are quickly becoming a candidate. When I (hypothetically) say “you were chewing gum”, you (hypothetically) say “that’s a lie, I was walking”.

More than one thing can occur at the same time, like the reasons Bush gave for toppling Saddam. Even if your fallacious argument that Bush said we would get nuked were true, it doesn’t invalidate the other reasons. Perhaps you should stop walking or chewing gum for a second and focus on this little reality of life so you can truly grasp this concept.

Are you with me? Do we now understand that the presence of gum chewing doesn’t preclude walking?

You can’t deny the fact that Bush gave many reasons for going to war and taking Saddam’s murderous regime out of power was one of them.

Are you claiming that Bush and his administration never referred to Saddam’s murderous ways as one of the reasons for going to war?

__________________

Pacridge

That doesn't make any sense either. Many times the right has pointed out that the Dems in congress believed Saddam had WMD's and was a threat. That the Dems also voted to give the President the authority to go to war. I'm certain I've read posts of your’s on this forum that say that make that very point. So it doesn't make any sense to now be claiming that the Dems didn't believe what Bush et el were telling them. What scares me is that so many are so willing to be so misled so easily.

Simon W. Moon

Perhaps not. But the argument cuts both ways. It would mean that there was no way of knowing that the US needed to be protected against Iraq.

Despite this uncertainty, the US intel community's best assessment was that Hussein was deterred from launching an attack on the US directly or by proxy by the promise of what Dr. Rice called "national obliteration."
Before one puts hundreds of thousand of men and women in harm's way, shouldn't there be something a little more concrete than Hussein being unlikely to attack the US in the foreseeable future?

Obviously, if the two events were equivalent, then what Bush did would've been redundant.
What Clinton did was a totally diffferent story. He bombed the place. No hundreds of thousands of ground troops, no commitment of hundreds of billions of dollars, no plans for permanent bases, etc
The two events are quite remarkably different. I'm not sure how one could fail to see these drastic differences and their implications.

I'm not sure I follow you. Why wouldn't it mean anything to be outraged about the country being sold a war based on malinfo?
What those of us who are neither "on the left" nor Democrats? Doesn't our outrage mean anything?

The facts about the aluminum tubes and the yellow cake were out before Team Bush used them to make their case. They were handy to whup TeamBush with back when TB decided to use them. It's not that they all of a sudden just now found out.

As long as I love America and what she stands for I'll be outraged at politicians who lie to her people and waste the lives of her men and women. That's how long.
How long til you find your outrage at having been duped?

Simon W. Moon

Yet, by itself, it was not reason enough.
As Mr. Wolfowitz put it, the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people was "a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it."

26 X World Champs

First. I love when you write things like "you lefties." It sends a tingle down my back. It's so accurate for me too as I'm lefthanded...Me leftie....

Second, and more to the point, see if you can grasp this basic truth?

Had Bush NEVER mentioned the WMDs, the Nukes, the "real" potential that Saddam would attack us in the USA he would never have had the support of the American public, the Congress or the Press. Shall I say it again, just in case my leftieness wasn't clear:

Without the threat of WMDs and Nukes there we would not have attacked Iraq. All the other "reasons" where smoke screens, feeble, pathetic irrelevant excuses, many of which only surfaced after the original reason, WMDs was proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, to be bull****.

What percentage of Americans, given the fact that WMDs did not exist in Iraq, and that Iraq was not a threat would have approved of an invasion of Iraq?

I think I just popped that big DoubleBubble bubble you were chewing on....

As far as comparing Iraq to Kosovo the question is WHY? I was against that war, and I am against this war too, so what's your point about us "lefties" exactly?

More importantly, how many Americans were killed in Kosovo? I don't know the answer, but it is very, very few.

How about in Iraq? 1700+ and counting!

GPS_Flex

He would have had as much support as Clinton had for the Kosovo attack if he hadn’t decided to take the issue to the UN.

The US public and congress would have been more divided over the issue but I think we still would have eventually gone in for humanitarian reasons.

I think that percentage would be around 45% to 55%.

WMD did exist in Iraq but I’m willing to play your game nonetheless.

I see, you think you are smart because you consistently dodge my questions and points but still post your “what if” theories? If you had been chewing “DoubleBubble” when you wrote this you might realize how hard you are running from the issue I won’t let you escape.

It’s about your attacks on Bush while you give Clinton a pass.

Telling us you were opposed to the Clinton wars and doing nothing to attack, defame and destroy him like you are doing to Bush reveals your double standard.

You claim it’s about the issues but it’s really just you being a partisan hypocrite who gives a pass to Democrats and lashing out at Republicans at every opportunity.

You don’t want to look at Kosovo because the war there undermines your support for the Clintons if you apply the same standards to them as you apply to Bush.

My point is you Clinton lovers are nothing but a bunch of hypocrites who have double standards and refuse to judge your own heroes the way you judge Republicans.

The problem with people like you is that you have no moral convictions that are set in stone. You change your moral convictions more often than you change your underwear.

How many were killed on D-day? How successful were we in Africa upon initially entering the war? Perhaps you think we should have tucked tail and run after 2000 US were killed in World War II?

You think we could have bombed them into democracy how?

Pacridge

Yes and when Joe Wilson came forth and made public the fact that he told them the tubes wouldn't work and the yellow cake info was not accturate they publicly "outed" his CIA operative wife. Outting an active, or even retired, CIA operative is a federal offense. Ironically that law was signed into being by GW's father, Bush I.

I agree 110%.

vandree

There are only three instances when war is legal:
1. Self-defense;
2. Humanitarian reasons;
3. when there is a UN mandate.