Bush admits he was clueless about Iraq

[Lurker]

Bush Defends Iraq Invasion Despite Report
 
Oct 7, 3:27 PM (ET)

By JOHN J. LUMPKIN
 

WASHINGTON (AP) - Faced with a harshly critical new report, President Bush conceded Thursday that Iraq did not have the stockpiles of banned weapons he had warned of before the invasion last year, but insisted that "we were right to take action" against Saddam Hussein.

"America is safer today with Saddam Hussein in prison," Bush said in a surprise statement to reporters as he prepared to fly to Wisconsin.

"Much of the accumulated body of our intelligence was wrong and we must find out why," Bush said.

But, he maintained that the Iraqi leader retained the "means and the intent" to produce weapons of mass destruction.

 
Bush spoke one day after Charles Duelfer, the American weapons hunter in Iraq, presented to the Senate and the public a report that Saddam's weapons of mass destruction programs had deteriorated into only hopes and dreams by the time of the U.S.-led invasion last year. The decline was wrought by the first Gulf War and years of international sanctions, the chief U.S. weapons hunter found.

What ambitions Saddam harbored for such weapons were secondary to his goal of evading those sanctions, and he wanted them primarily not to attack the United States or to provide them to terrorists, but to oppose his older enemies, Iran and Israel, the report found.

Bush ignored the report in a hard-hitting new campaign speech attacking Kerry on Iraq Wednesday. He made his first public comments about the final document as he prepared to board his helicopter en route to Wisconsin for more campaigning.

"The Duelfer report showed that Saddam was systematically gaming the system, using the U.N. oil for food program to try to influence countries and companies in an effort to undermine sanctions," Bush said. "He was doing so with the intent of restarting his weapons program once the world looked away."

"He could have passed that knowledge onto our terrorist enemies," Bush said. "Saddam Hussein was a unique threat, a sworn enemy of our country, a state sponsor of terror operating in the world's most volatile region. In the world after Sept. 11, he was a threat we had to confront and America and the world are safer for our actions."


Bush promised to act on the recommendations of the president's commission investigating flawed intelligence on weapons of mass destruction, chaired by former Sen. Chuck Robb, D-Va., and Republican Laurence Silberman, a senior judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

Campaigning in Pennsylvania Wednesday, Bush defended the decision to invade.

"There was a risk, a real risk, that Saddam Hussein would pass weapons or materials or information to terrorist networks," the president said in a speech in Wilkes Barre, Pa. "In the world after Sept. 11, that was a risk we could not afford to take."

A spokesman for his opponent, Democrat John Kerry, said the report "underscores the incompetence of George Bush's Iraq policy."

"George Bush refuses to come clean about the ways he misled our country into war," Kerry spokesman David Wade added.


"In short, we invaded a country, thousands of people have died, and Iraq never posed a grave or growing danger," said Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va.

Vice President Dick Cheney asserted in Miami Thursday that the report justifies rather than invalidates Bush's decision to go to war. It shows that "delay, defer, wasn't an option," Cheney told a town-hall style meeting.

Duelfer's Iraq Survey Group drew on interviews with senior Iraqi officials, 40 million pages of documents and classified intelligence to conclude that Iraq destroyed its undeclared chemical and biological stockpiles under pressure of U.N. sanctions by 1992 and never resumed production.

The U.S.-led invasion pushed one of Iraq's leaders into seeking chemical weapons to defend the country. But it doesn't appear that Saddam's son Odai located any.

Iraq ultimately abandoned its biological weapons programs in 1995, largely out of fear they would be discovered and tougher enforcement imposed.

 
"Indeed, from the mid-1990s, despite evidence of continuing interest in nuclear and chemical weapons, there appears to be a complete absence of discussion or even interest in BW at the presidential level," according to a summary of Duelfer's 1,000-page report.

And Iraq also abandoned its nuclear program after the war, and there was no evidence it tried to reconstitute it.

Saddam's intentions to restart his weapons programs were never formalized.

"The former regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions," the summary says. "Neither was there an identifiable group of WMD policymakers or planners separate from Saddam. Instead his lieutenants understood WMD revival was his goal from their long association with Saddam and his infrequent, but firm, verbal comments and directions to them."

Duelfer's findings contradict most of the assertions by the Bush administration and the U.S. intelligence community about Iraq's threat in 2002 and early 2003. The White House had argued that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons stockpiles and production lines and had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program.

The United States led an invasion into Iraq in March 2003, taking the capital, Baghdad, within weeks. Since then, the United States and its allies have fought a dangerous insurgency of Iraqis as well as Islamic extremists who have come to Iraq to kill Americans.

Some 1,196 coalition personnel have been killed since the start of the war. Of those, 1,060 are American, 67 British and 69 are from other coalition countries. Unknown numbers of Iraqis have also died on both sides of the conflict.

Before the war, Saddam's chief success was in manipulating an oil for food program that began in 1996, to avoid the sanctions' effects for a few years, acquiring billions of dollars to import goods such as parts for missile systems. Duelfer also in the report accused the former head of the U.N. oil-for-food program of accepting bribes in the form of vouchers for Iraqi oil sales from Saddam's government.

 

[spursfan101]

What I found interesting was, that during the debate, Bush referred to some individuals who were " bought to justice" as he put it.  Tough talk, but they weren't actually bought to justice, there living in a villa somewhere in the middle east.  He justified his remarks by saying they are no longer a threat, but, I wouldn't characterize as it in those words.  

[jn]

That would be A.Q. Khan, the founder of Pakistan's nuclear program and the source of most of the world's black market nuclear weapons technology.  I'll see if I can dig up some articles on his current state.  

[rickortreat]

This whole situation is so pathetic that it amazes me that Bush is still in running to be the President.  The reality is Impeachment proceedings should have already started!

1.  Bush failed to win any support from the U.N. which refused to go along with his invasion.  The U.N. declared the invasion illegal.

2. Bush lied to the American people about the reasons for going to war, continually finding new ways to justify the action.

3. Bush lied to the U.S. legislature about the evidence he had, in the effort to persuade them to allow him to act.

4.  Over a thousand American soldiers have died, our most loyal allies suffered casualties and countless Iraqi's have suffered, died, or experienced significant disruption to their existance.

5.  The report above proves the UN/US imposed sanctions on Iraq were working, and Saddam was less of a threat when we attacked than in previous years, since the last US led invasion.

6.  We have lost tremendous prestige and influence in the world, as a result of our actions.

7. Many muslims have been attracted to extremist groups as a ressult of our illegal, unjustified operation, making us more vulnerable to attacks like 9-11.

8.  In spite of all of this Bush and Cheney insist that they chose the correct course of action, and refuse to admit what should now be obvious to everyone:  He was WRONG to order the invasion of Iraq.  

9.  The war cost us a lot of money, the total is still unknown, that's your tax dollars going down the drain.

10.  Even worse, we went over the debt limit and in effect, bankrupted our country.
 

[Joe Vancil]

The U.N. declared the invasion illegal.

Exactly which U.N. Resolution was this?  And why didn't the U.S., with the veto power given to the permanent members of the U.N. security council, veto it?

If you want to say that a single man - Kofi Annan - declared the attack illegal, I've got no problem with that.  The U.N., however, didn't.  In fact, it COULDN'T, which just goes to show why I have no faith in the U.N. in the first place.

Besides - who pays attention to U.N. Resolutions, anyway?  During the entire Clinton administration, Saddam Hussein didn't - and what did the U.N. do about it?  *NOTHING*.

If Bush, on the first day of office, marched the U.S. troops into Iraq, I wouldn't have had a single problem with it.  I'm much more skeptical of him doing it while the U.N. inspectors were back in there.  And I'm rather upset that Clinton allowed Iraq to continue thumbing its collective nose at U.N. Resolutions during his stay in office.

Until the U.N fields its own armed forces - and those being the most powerful - it's not going to be effective as a peace-keeper.  Even the existence of the "veto power" by *ANY* permanent Security Council member - including the United States - makes the U.N. only effective if *EVERYONE* agrees.  Considering you can't even get a Democrat and a Republican to agree on what counts as a vote in Florida, I'd say getting all the countries to agree is just about hopeless.

 

[rickortreat]

OK, fair enough Joe.  It was just Kofi, and not the UN.  But let me preface these remarks by saying that I am not for the UN or World Government by any stretch of the imagination.  

They are a useless organization which can't agree on anything, except that they're better at deciding what is fair and right than any government, and looks to take any opportunity it can to override soverign rights in the name of a new world order.

With that said, they were part and party to Bush1's invasion.  They also had inspectors in Iraq, and based on the current evidence the sanctions were working.

So, where is the legal justification for the US to attack Iraq?  There was no immenent threat, and far less of one than the two other countries in Bush2's "axis of evil" in Iran and N. Korea.

There was no self-defense issue, Joe.  Bush simply decided we could go into and invade Iraq.

Now that you know there was no valid reason for the invasion, (and Bush's arguments get more assinine everyday) just why do you suppose the US invaded Iraq?

Could it be OIL?  Considering the Bush has connections to the oil industry, Haliburton is on oil service company, and one of the prime beneficiaries of US Governmnet spending (Corporate welfare at it's finest and a clear conflict of inerest for the V.P.) and Condoleeza Rice has a oil tanker named after her, it couldn't be OIL could it!?

Think about this: Bush develops a policy which allows it to pre-emptively strike any country under the context that they maybecome a threat sometime in the future, and you're ok with that?  What if China or the former USSR had such a policy?  We've unwittingly become a rogue nation, one that everyone has good reason to fear.  (We've got the big guns and if you don't like it we'll come and invade you too!)

This is a bad, capricious policy Joe, exactly what the founders of this country warned about "foreign entanglements".  

Here's a copy of a link that I found at another password-protected site, I can't vouch for the facts in there, but if true they are as disturbing as Bush's conduct in this war:

Silver gold and Winchester blue

David Bond
Editor, Silver Valley Mining Journal
posted October 7, 2004 15:00 WUT

Toronto, Ontario - A few of the millyings and the manyings (apologies
to Russell Hoban and Riddley Walker) fetched up for Cambridge House's
investment conference on natural resources at this most pleasant
city's convention centre last weekend to purvey and peruse the latest
moose pastures, and despite the underlying treachery of the
pump-and-dump hucksters it was nonetheless a pleasant event.

Toronto - or as we were brought up in British Columbia to pronounce
it, Tahrantah - is our nomination for the continent's Most Agreeable
City. Only in Tahrantah, oblivious as it is to the fads of the Lower
48 and the chowderheads of the Continent, have they managed to merge
tourist traps with 5-star accommodations. Thus at the top of the CN
Tower, on a day so clear that you could see Buffalo and the
smokestacks of the Kodak Rochester Silver Destructory, and in the
main-floor confines of a blithering Marriott Hotel at Eaton Centre,
did we encounter 5-star feasts worthy of silver, gold and oil
baronetcies. There is only one other JW's steakhouse on the planet,
that being in Dubai, and we cannot imagine replicating such quality
willy-nilly.

Even Northwest Orient Airlines, which in our youth was the transport
of Last Resort, to be used only in the event of a driver's strike upon
the Greyhound Bus Lines, has sent its staff to charm school, yanked a
few seat-rows out of its Airbus liners to extend leg-room, and
actually seems willing to please its passengers. Last call for Douglas
airliners, 9s and 10s, old but the best still flying. A drastic
departure from the passenger-purloining depravities of United and
Alaska, Northwest has become. If NWA were to re-introduce meal service
and retain its present congenial staff and generous frequent flyer
program, we would pass the hat dancing naked in the streets to protect
it from its threatened business-as-usual legacy carrier bankruptcy.

Meantime, in Tahrantah, the hucksters were on to their next pitch,
Americans treading upon Wolf the Dauntless Hero's shores, no wonder
they think we are bastards. We will not waste our web-host's bandwidth
to repeat or repeal their latest predictions - we can only offer as
investment advice that you research the madrigals of these madarins,
go long immediately on their recommendations for a week or two, take
out your cash, then short these same issues on a one-year bet. Profits
from this double-ended trade will make richer and accrue quicker'n you
can say Ivanhoe or Nevsun or Just Like Thom Thumb (Calandra?)'s Blues.
Mining in Africa and Mongolia and Newfoundland is such a bummer. But
catch our next PowerPoint show, to be sure and screw the little old
ladies.

Bitterness? Do we sound bitter? Only to the extent that as the last
mad US dollar-swap for tangibles has begun and the musical chairs game
around which we all circle is soon over with. And that a certain kind
of fool is being led yet again to moose pastures with two promising
drill intercepts, when the last tangible mining assets - Sterling,
Shoshone Silver, Pan American, Silver Standard, Apex, Coeur, Canadian
Zinc, Bunker Hill and Hecla and anyone else with proved-up silver
properties - are right beneath our noses.

Plagiarism, we have learned over a hard course of 30 years of
newspaper reporting, is the sincerest form of theft. Herewith we
plagiarise. We cannot, despite our best intentions, re-invent the
wheel nor can we independently vouchsafe for all of its conclusions.
Here's how it got to our desk. Robert Hopper, who owns the Bunker Hill
Mine here in the Silver Valley, scoped it up from Steve Quayle.
Quayle, on his website, www.stevequayle.com, scoped it from this guy.
Bottom line is, Bush and the neocons have out-scammed even the Fed,
which is no mean feat, and they're also hocked our silver and oil.
Here is the gist:

Al Martin, Retired US Navy Intelligence

Bushonomics Explained (Part IV): Where Are the Mising Billions?

On January 20th, 2005, when this regime ends its first term in
office, it will have created aggregate budget deficits (including
depletion of inherited surpluses) of some $1.5 trillion, an aggregate
merchandise trade deficit of yet another $1.5 trillion, and an
increase in total national debt of some $2 trillion, with the economic
pressure being exerted, having been largely responsible for the 38%
decline in the trade-weighted exchange value of the U.S. dollar.....

Furthermore, the Bush-Cheney regime has now depleted all inherited
accrued fiscal reserve balances, as well as all contingency reserve
accounts of all federal agencies, such that the White House has direct
control over some $56 billion in total.

Also the White House unlawfully transferred to the U.S. Treasury's
general operating account some $25 billion from the Federal Reserve,
said sums constituting all of the Federal Reserve's operational
account balances and its emergency dollar-stabilization fund,
whereupon the sums in question were quickly depleted.

This regime has also unlawfully sold some $5 billion worth of
metals, minerals, fuels, fibers and food stuffs from the so-called
national strategic stockpiles without the required congressional approval.

And as we have previously reported, the Bush-Cheney regime has
unlawfully drawn down since March 2001 some 2900 metric tons of gold
(about $20 billion, using the average price of gold from 3/01 to
present) from the national gold reserves and, in so doing, has broken
the statutory reserve requirement holdings of 11,005 metric tons
without the required congressional approval.

Furthermore, as of June 2004, the regime has completely depleted
the national silver reserves without prior consent of Congress, as is
required by law.

This regime has also now depleted what little remaining cash
balances were left, some $13.6 billion, in the nation's 42 public
trust funds, all in a desperate bid to raise revenue in order to hide
the actual size of Bushonian budget deficits, the exact same form of
BFLAP (Bushonian Fantasy Land Accounting Principles) that were
employed from 1984-92 by the regimes then in power, who were equally
desperate to hide the actual size of their budget deficits, the net
result of which was to turn the United States from having been the
largest creditor nation on the planet in 1983 into the largest debtor
nation on the planet by 1992.

Remember, in order to calculate the actual size of Bushonian
budget deficits, now that the nation has gone from GAAP (Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles) back to BFLAP, one must add to the
stated annual budget deficits approximately $125 billion to account
for the so-called annual Social Security surplus payments, which are,
once again, being counted as general revenue instead of being used to
service the Social Security accrued deficit created from 1984/92, now
standing at some $5.3 trillion.

One must also add to Bushonian budget deficits the $25 billion per
year on average that this regime has pillaged from federal accrued
and/or contingency accounts and transferred to the Treasury to be
counted as general operating income.

Thus, in GAAP terms, Bushonian budget deficits are actually
approximately $150 billion a year more than that which has been
stated. We should remember the comments of the General Accounting
Office ( GAO) made in April 1993 regarding its 1981-92 audit review of
the U.S. Treasury wherein the GAO made note of the fact that the
actual size of U.S. budget deficits accrued during that period were
underestimated by at least $4 trillion due to the substitution of GAAP
with BFLAP, a new form of accounting principles, which allowed red ink
to magically be turned into black ink.

Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill made public comments
regarding the so-called "trillions in secret debt" having been issued
under the Reagan-Bush and subsequent Bush-Quayle regimes.

Where are we going?

The GAO, as we have previously reported, announced in its
so-called "end of sheet" comments to its 2003 consolidated audit of
U.S. government fiscal operations that the budget and trade deficits
being accrued by the policies of the current regime were consuming
78.4% of the entire planet's net savings rate, a figure that has now
grown to 81.3%, in order to finance U.S. debt.

The GAO also noted that should the current regime remain in office
for a second term and its policies of "politically popular but
wasteful defense spending" (remember the 2003 GAO audit of the
Department of Defense, wherein the GAO disclosed that some 62% of all
weapon systems in U.S. military inventories either didn't work, did
not perform to specifications, or were otherwise faulty) along with
its encouragement of negative debt finance consumption and continuous
proffering disproportional tax cuts (the aforementioned being the
three pillars upon which rest the concept of Bushonomics) were to
persist, then, by the second quarter of 2009, the U.S. would no longer
be able to service its debt in that the economies of the rest of the
planet could not generate sufficient capital in the form of savings
for the U.S. to borrow in order to finance its debt.

This would leave the U.S. with three options:

A/ to dramatically increase the rate of domestic taxation to
relieve borrowing pressure on the rest of the planet's money;
(Remember Secretary O'Neill's comments about the need of a 65%
marginal federal income tax rate by 2010 should the Bush-Cheney Regime
remain in office for a second term.)

B/ a massive monetization of debt by dramatically cheapening
the dollar;
(Remember Senator Warren Rudman's {R-NH} comments about a
"10-cent dollar" should the scourge of Bushonomics continue.)

C/ the declaration of a "force majeure" on U.S. debt service,
which would be tantamount to a repudiation, and interpreted as such in
the global financial marketplaces.
(Remember the Bank of International Settlements' comments on
this possibility, wherein the BIS stated that should the U.S. adopt
this course, its economy would collapse in five days and the global
economy five days after that.)

Indeed, should the current regime remain in power, the economic
outlook for both the United States and the world remains bleak.

(Editor's Note: Al Martin Raw.com subscribers who are interested in
more proactive measures to protect themselves and their assets are
encouraged to subscribe to Insider Intelligence, which has Al Martin
as its Chief Technical Advisor. Click here for more information).

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

This is not to say that the same would not have been said of the
Klintonistas, had they remained in power for 12 or 16 years longer.
Behind the Monican stained blue dress was the spectre of Marc Rich and
the Metal Men, who invented the art of stealing and were showered with
accolades and pardons for their efforts. As our good friend David
Morgan was heard to say in Tahrantah, the American election on
November 2 will be a matter of determining who is skipper of the
Titanic after she hit the iceberg.

The sad and sorry thing to deduce is that the closer the Titanic gets
to the berg, the better it is for silver.

Let us draw a small map of connectable dots. Bill Murphy and Ted
Butler are gnawing away at what they know is a cancer, but they don't
ever seem to discover its root. Obviously, to both of them, someone in
power is working to suppress the price of silver and gold in order to
suppress public knowledge of the dollar's precarious position. But
who? Could it be our own government?

Even our cab-driver in Tahrantah, one Joe Joseph, a Lebanese
Christian, a refugee from the civil/secular strife there, without
prompting had it figured out: the price of silver and gold is
constant; only the fiat currency fluctuates.

So with our last gold ounce we bought an Armani suit, headed for the
airport, headed west into volcano country, thanking our lucky stars
that we had escaped the hucksters who only took our dollars and didn't
want our silver. And for a limited time only, soon set to expire, this
offer will be continued. The fools actually will take our paper for
silver. Lunge at this opportunity as if it were a new chance at life.
Because it is. Not for long will unlimited paper chase tangible assets
and successfully procure them.

Silver is not a get rich quick scheme. It is a preserve your wealth
scheme.

Think Chinese.

Or just take Bob Dylan's parabolic wisdom in Absolutely Sweet Marie to
heart:

"The six white horses that you did promise
"Were finally delivered down at the penitentiary.
"For to live outside the law you must be honest.
"I know you always say that you agree.
"So where are you tonight, Sweet Marie?"

Oct 7, 2004
David Bond
Editor: Silver Valley Mining Journal



 

[Guest]

They are a useless organization which can't agree on anything, except that they're better at deciding what is fair and right than any government, and looks to take any opportunity it can to override soverign rights in the name of a new world order.

They are a useless organization which can't agree on anything but we should have waited on them to help us decide what we should have done with Iraq?  The UN is COMPLETELY powerless without the US standing behind it -- that's a fact.

With that said, they were part and party to Bush1's invasion. They also had inspectors in Iraq, and based on the current evidence the sanctions were working.

Umm, what "current evidence" shows that sanctions were working?  The evidence that shows France and Russia breaking the rules to pad their pocketbooks from Iraq?  The fact that Saddam was about to "cave" from the political, economic pressure and stress from the sanctions?  When you deal with a dictator like Saddam, he could care LESS what you do with sanctions!  Sanctions aren't going to bother Saddam -- he is going to get his money some way -- it's the Iraqi people who are going to suffer and he didn't really care -- it saved him the trouble of having to kill those people himself.  The sanctions were working -- I don't know how you think they were -- how much money did Saddam have stashed away?  Enough to tell me that he laughed at the sanctions.

So, where is the legal justification for the US to attack Iraq?

IMO, as I have stated before, we should have taken care of Saddam's thumbing of the UN sanctions, playing games with inspectors and violating no fly zones, etc. a LONG time before we did.  Bush made it pretty clear, IMO, way before his speech about weapons of mass destruction.  Saddam you have THIS much time -- and that's it -- if you don't cooperate in this much time, we're coming in.  It was pretty clear to me - and, IMO, it was EXACTLY what we should have done a long time ago.  You CAN'T tell me that Iraq didn't have WMD in the past, can you?  What happened to them?  Are you certain that they were destroyed?  Just because we haven't found any doesn't tell me they were destroyed -- there are several countries (Syria being the top one on the list) who would have been MORE than happy to help hide Iraq's chemical stockpiles.  

Also, we know that Iraq was a country that supported terrorists and gave them refuge.  Saddam was sending $25000 to families of terrorists -- "hey, want to make $25,000?  Strap a bomb to your daughter and send her to kill some Jews -- then I'll pay you $25,000!"  These extremists have shown that they don't care about the lives of their children (esp. their daughters) so their happy to make a little money.  Iraq was a threat -- not just to the US but to the entire world.  Is Iran and North Korea a threat as well?  You bet -- and I hope we deal as tough with them as we did to Iraq.  Do you really think that North Korea is sitting back and watching what Saddam (by thumbing his nose) did to the US/UN and not believing there is ZERO reason why they should cease their striving for nuclear weapons?  The only way to be able to take a tough stand with NK is by finishing what we started with Iraq.  You don't deal out of weakness -- you have to deal out of strength.  

I'll bet you money that Iran is going to listen more to the US/UN after Iraq -- they now realize that the US will act upon the will of the UN, even if a bunch of pompous windbags presiding over the UN NEVER will.

[Guest_Randy]

As if anyone can't guess, the previous post was mine!

[Derek Bodner]

They are a useless organization which can't agree on anything but we should have waited on them to help us decide what we should have done with Iraq? The UN is COMPLETELY powerless without the US standing behind it -- that's a fact.

It's not what the UN could have done (except help bare the burdon of the war), but by gaining UN support you don't lose the approval of the rest of the civilized war.

 â€œDuelfer found no formal plan by Saddam to resume WMD Production, but the inspector surmised that Saddam intended to do so if U.N. sanctions were lifted.”


^-- Sounds to me like the UN sanctions WERE doing their job in eliminating the threat Saddam posed, and that the loss of 1000+ lives, $120+ million, and the precious time lost in the fight of real current threats (you know, Iran and Korea, countries that had WMD’s and a dislike of America, not a country who might one day want to begin persuing WMD’s when effective sanctions are lifted) were not only unnecessary but a deterrence to the real problems of America.

Bush made it pretty clear, IMO, way before his speech about weapons of mass destruction. Saddam you have THIS much time -- and that's it -- if you don't cooperate in this much time, we're coming in. It was pretty clear to me - and, IMO, it was EXACTLY what we should have done a long time ago.

Problem is, Bush didn't do anything Clinton didn't do until after 9/11.  He then used the "threat" posed by Saddam and WMD's to justify giving Saddam a "this time or else" proposition.  If it were just about breaking UN sanctions Bush would have made it more of a priority before the terrorist attacks.

Finally, the US doesn't enforce UN sanctions.  We can't try to portray our wishes as those of other sovereign countries.  If you want to go to war based on the breaking of UN sanctions, you have to act in accordance with the UN.  Not for the UN.  Doing so unilaterally undermines any importance the UN has.

[spursfan101]

Great point dbod. It's apparent that sanctions really were working as no WMD's have yet to be found.  

Sadaam, well, he reminds me of that bully in high school. The one that knew Karate and could kick everyones butt. When called upon to use, he flaked out and got his butt trounced.  Guess Sadaam SHOULDN"T HAVE TALKED ALL THAT SMACK! Or perhaps, not tried to kill the Presidents dad! B)  

[guest-koast]

This thread right hear shows that people will blindly follow anyone and not budge in fear of being called a 'flip flopper' :rolleyes:  I don't see how after learning our sanctions were working, that there was no WMDs, and that Bush admitted he didnt entirely know what was going on that you can still make excuses for him.

Oh and BTW, our invasion did break international laws.  We just never will be touched for it.

[guest-koast]

On top of that, since I cant edit my posts, if they were UN sanctions and Sadaam spit in the face of the UN.....then why is it our sole responsibility to take him out?  Whether you think we should have done it or not doesn't matter because thats not why we went to war.  Typical republican response if you ask me.  "Oh well the world is better without him" which is a crock of crap because our world is no better or not worse with him gone.  Or "he went against the UN he needed to be punished".....well so did we.

[Lurker]

Randy, I find it funny that Bush finally admitted that his reasons for war in Iraq were phony but you keep justifying the invasion.  Basically Bush's reason was what I have said all along....personal vendetta.

Just exactly will it take for you to see the light....for Saddam to personally tell you he had no WMD and no intent to ever get them?  Obviously having the entire rest of the population on this planet say it isn't enough.

[Joe Vancil]

Oh, don't get me wrong.  The reasons we were given for going to war were garbage, because our intelligence community failed us *AGAIN*.  The reasons we were given do not justify the war.

HOWEVER, we had other reasons to go to war - namely, to enforce the U.N. sanctions that Iraq *DID* violate.  Of course, that wasn't the reason we were given, so I now hold the President accountable to the reasons he *DID* give rather than the ones he SHOULD HAVE given.

Right war, wrong time (when the inspectors were back vs. when they had been kicked out), wrong reason (WMD as opposed to violation of U.N. sanctions).  If the U.N. is too weak or too slow to react, like it or not, the burden falls upon the United States as the world's only remaining superpower.  As a superpower, we're not only condemned for what we do, but for what we *DON'T* do when we know we should have.  We have to be active toward the good of the world because no one else CAN be.  We can't be isolationists, despite the attractiveness of the possibility.

With power comes responsibility, and we need people who understand that.  Kerry doesn't understand the need to act.  Bush doesn't understand the need to act for the right reasons.  That's why neither man is fit to run the country.

 

[Lurker]

But Joe the report says that the sanctions WERE working.  Saddam's ability to create WMD as well as his stockpile were destroted after the first Gulf War.  And while PRIOR to 9/11 he was working to circumvent the sanctions and the enforcement had become slack, AFTER 9/11 the sanctions were working; enforcement had been strenghtened.  Basically Saddam's "crime" was manipulating the food for oil program to line his own pockets rather than help the citizens of Iraq.  However THAT is not justification for any country to invade another.

And in a sense isn't that what Bush & his posse are doing?  With their well documented ties to big oil & related services aren't they manipulating this war to line thier own pockets at the expense of the average American?  Damn, the rest of the world better wake up and take out Bush with a pre-emptive strike to save the American people from their horrible leader.