Poll: Sending troops to Iraq a mistake

[Annie]

Originally posted by menewa
Every piece of evidence of WMD found in Iraq has just been some busted old scrap of metal or some microscopic bit from back in the day. There has been no evidence of an active WMD program or of any stockpiles of chemical and bio weapons that the Bush Admin claimed. If they had found them, why isn't Rumsfeld and Co. jumping up and down with glee?

I've read the reports that some people from Saddam's Army met some people from Al Qaeda. But no connection has been made that they devised any schemes together. I admit, they might have, but no proof of this has surfaced.

The president and all his men and woman said over and over that Iraq was an "imminent" threat. They mentioned mushroom clouds occuring in major US cities. If that's not stating Iraq is a threat to the mainland, I don't know what is.

As for connecting Saddam and 9-11. This was connected in a subtle and manipulative manner, beginning with Bush's speech on the one year anniversary of the 9-11 attacks. Why else did a majority of American's polled leading up the invasion believed most of the 9-11 hijackers were from Iraq.

Surprise Menewa, look what just popped up, see you are not just being manipulated by the right, but by the left to. Note the NYT basically say they've had the memo for months, so why now? Perchance, the Commission staff reports were 'outed' and we had to listen to Richard Clarke's pomposity? Could be....:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/25/politics/25TERR.html?hp=&pagewanted=print&position=

June 25, 2004
THE INTELLIGENCE
Iraqis, Seeking Foes of Saudis, Contacted bin Laden, File Says
By THOM SHANKER

WASHINGTON, June 24 — Contacts between Iraqi intelligence agents and Osama bin Laden when he was in Sudan in the mid-1990's were part of a broad effort by Baghdad to work with organizations opposing the Saudi ruling family, according to a newly disclosed document obtained by the Americans in Iraq.

American officials described the document as an internal report by the Iraqi intelligence service detailing efforts to seek cooperation with several Saudi opposition groups, including Mr. bin Laden's organization, before Al Qaeda had become a full-fledged terrorist organization. He was based in Sudan from 1992 to 1996, when that country forced him to leave and he took refuge in Afghanistan.

The document states that Iraq agreed to rebroadcast anti-Saudi propaganda, and that a request from Mr. bin Laden to begin joint operations against foreign forces in Saudi Arabia went unanswered. There is no further indication of collaboration.

Last week, the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks addressed the known contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda, which have been cited by the White House as evidence of a close relationship between the two.

The commission concluded that the contacts had not demonstrated "a collaborative relationship" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The Bush administration responded that there was considerable evidence of ties.

The new document, which appears to have circulated only since April, was provided to The New York Times several weeks ago, before the commission's report was released. Since obtaining the document, The Times has interviewed several military, intelligence and United States government officials in Washington and Baghdad to determine that the government considered it authentic.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by menewa
The president and all his men and woman said over and over that Iraq was an "imminent" threat. They mentioned mushroom clouds occuring in major US cities. If that's not stating Iraq is a threat to the mainland, I don't know what is.

NOT ONCE did anyone from the current administration EVER say that Iraq was an imminent threat to the USA. Please backup your claims with sources.

 

[menewa]

Originally posted by jimnyc
NOT ONCE did anyone from the current administration EVER say that Iraq was an imminent threat to the USA. Please backup your claims with sources.

Here ya go.

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24970

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by menewa
Here ya go.

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24970

Thank you for proving me correct again!!

I never said they didn't say 'imminent threat', I stated it was never stated in regards to the USA.

 

[jimnyc]

And since you sent me to a page of quotes (that proved they never stated Iraq was an imminent threat to the USA) allow me to provide a few quotes from the democratic side of the field:

"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 the! 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

http://www.warroom.com/democratquotes.htm

 

[Annie]

Thanks JimnyC!

 

[menewa]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Thank you for proving me correct again!!

I never said they didn't say 'imminent threat', I stated it was never stated in regards to the USA.

Are we living in alternate realities?

Repeatedly, Bush and his cabinet and his spokespeople said Iraq was a danger to the American people. When they were asked by reporters if the threat was "imminent", they said yes.

What's the problem?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by menewa
Are we living in alternate realities?

Repeatedly, Bush and his cabinet and his spokespeople said Iraq was a danger to the American people. When they were asked by reporters if the threat was "imminent", they said yes.

What's the problem?

I will repeat myself:

BUSH NEVER STATED IRAQ WAS AN IMMINENT THREAT TO THE USA.

Your words mean nothing without reputable sources to back them up. The official whitehouse page archives every speech he ever made. Why not go there and link us to when he stated that "Iraq was an imminent threat to the USA".

It HAS been stated that Iraq was an imminent threat, and they were. Unfortunately, many whackos have attributed that statement to mean they were an imminent threat to the USA - which was never stated.

 

[jimnyc]

" Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html

 

[jimnyc]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/713rhzvm.asp?pg=2

 

[jimnyc]

Another good article:

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031103.html

 

[menewa]

"Well, of course he is.”
• White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question “is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?”, 1/26/03

"The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. ... Iraq is a threat, a real threat."
• President Bush, 1/3/03

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02

You are correct in saying that Bush never publicly said "imminent threat." But his cabinet and spokespeople did agree with that assumption. IMO they were careful in crafting their propaganda campaign so that this could not be hurled back at Bush, but merely at those in his cabinet
And if Iraq was not an imminent threat, than what was the point. More so, since Iraq had not to do with 9-11, the justifcation shrivels into oblivion.
One can argue about semantics all day, but you cannot say the American public was not scared into believing that Iraq intended to kill Americans at home and abroad. This was the basis of Bush's reasoning for invading the country in the first place.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by menewa
"Well, of course he is.”
• White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question “is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?”, 1/26/03

"The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. ... Iraq is a threat, a real threat."
• President Bush, 1/3/03

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02

You are correct in saying that Bush never publicly said "imminent threat." But his cabinet and spokespeople did agree with that assumption. IMO they were careful in crafting their propaganda campaign so that this could not be hurled back at Bush, but merely at those in his cabinet
And if Iraq was not an imminent threat, than what was the point. More so, since Iraq had not to do with 9-11, the justifcation shrivels into oblivion.
One can argue about semantics all day, but you cannot say the American public was not scared into believing that Iraq intended to kill Americans at home and abroad. This was the basis of Bush's reasoning for invading the country in the first place.

First off, please provide sources for content you take from other sites.

Secondly, and AGAIN, none of this states that ANYONE stated "Iraq was an imminent threat to the USA"

You can live by obfuscation all you like and claim you know what Americans thought and what you derived from all the comments. Meanwhile, I'll stick with the FACTS and what was ACTUALLY stated.

Iraq was a threat. They were a threat to the entire ME region, and if left unchecked they would likely have been a threat to the USA.

The basis of Bush's reasoning was not solely Iraq's intent in regards to WMD. I suggest you read the many failed resolutions, specifically 647 and 1441. The ignored resolutions for over 12 years. There were a myriad of reasons given for the invasion. And yes, they were included, and it appears ignored, in his speech to the country.

 

[JIHADTHIS]

The basis of Bush's reasoning was not solely Iraq's intent in regards to WMD. I suggest you read the many failed resolutions, specifically 647 and 1441. The ignored resolutions for over 12 years. There were a myriad of reasons given for the invasion. And yes, they were included, and it appears ignored, in his speech to the country.


Just the UN resolutions were enough. You Dhimmicrats are always crying "we need UN approval, blah blah blah"
What's the point of a resolution if it's not backed up? Bush went to the UN and told them to put up or shut up. How many times do you tell Saddam "do this or else", and there is no "or else"? If anything, Bush made the UN retain its relevancy.

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by JIHADTHIS
The basis of Bush's reasoning was not solely Iraq's intent in regards to WMD. I suggest you read the many failed resolutions, specifically 647 and 1441. The ignored resolutions for over 12 years. There were a myriad of reasons given for the invasion. And yes, they were included, and it appears ignored, in his speech to the country.


Just the UN resolutions were enough. You Dhimmicrats are always crying "we need UN approval, blah blah blah"
What's the point of a resolution if it's not backed up? Bush went to the UN and told them to put up or shut up. How many times do you tell Saddam "do this or else", and there is no "or else"? If anything, Bush made the UN retain its relevancy.

Not to mention the nearly 12 years that they were shooting at ours and the Brits planes, also in violation of UN resolution and document Saddam agreed to.

 

[JIHADTHIS]

Originally posted by Kathianne
Not to mention the nearly 12 years that they were shooting at ours and the Brits planes, also in violation of UN resolution and document Saddam agreed to.

But in the eyes of menewa and the rest of the Dhimmicrats that doesn't matter. They have an excuse for every fact you point out to them. If they had some kind of logic to their arguements, you could debate them without losing your mind

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by JIHADTHIS
But in the eyes of menewa and the rest of the Dhimmicrats that doesn't matter. They have an excuse for every fact you point out to them. If they had some kind of logic to their arguements, you could debate them without losing your mind

Yup, been very fearful the past 12 hours of losing my mind. LOL :

 

[Politicalmaniac]

This is crazy. We send troops over into Iraq of course becuase of all the trouble they have put us through. But hello come on people you know that we could blow Iraq of the face of this Earth. No it was not a mistake sending troops into Iraq they beheaded two innocent men from the US. We have to get moving. We need to show Iraq we are willing to fight but we need to try the peace stuff all over again. You know because we have lost so many people because of Saddam saying he was going to use nuclear bomb. WE NEED PEACE!

 

[dilloduck]

Originally posted by Politicalmaniac
This is crazy. We send troops over into Iraq of course becuase of all the trouble they have put us through. But hello come on people you know that we could blow Iraq of the face of this Earth. No it was not a mistake sending troops into Iraq they beheaded two innocent men from the US. We have to get moving. We need to show Iraq we are willing to fight but we need to try the peace stuff all over again. You know because we have lost so many people because of Saddam saying he was going to use nuclear bomb. WE NEED PEACE!

What do you suggest we do to get peace?

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by Politicalmaniac
This is crazy. We send troops over into Iraq of course becuase of all the trouble they have put us through. But hello come on people you know that we could blow Iraq of the face of this Earth. No it was not a mistake sending troops into Iraq they beheaded two innocent men from the US. We have to get moving. We need to show Iraq we are willing to fight but we need to try the peace stuff all over again. You know because we have lost so many people because of Saddam saying he was going to use nuclear bomb. WE NEED PEACE!

Welcome politicalmaniac. You might want to work on the punctuation if you are going to write in colloquial terms.

The handoff is in a few days, what 'peace stuff'? You mean the UN who wouldn't even stick around for humanitarian reasons? Don't think so.