WMDs Only ONE Reason for War

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by jimnyc, Nov 17, 2003.

  1. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    By Rush Limbaugh

    My friends, on Monday we decided to do the job the mainstream press used to do once again by going back in time to find all the reasons given for doing this Iraq operation.

    There were many of them - and liberals like Maureen Dowd and the folks at Amnesty International echoed them all.

    Critics ignore uncomfortable facts such as this from President Bush's speech to the United Nations on September 12, 2002.

    Bush mentions weapons of mass destruction briefly, and then cites Iraq's support for terrorism, its persecution of civilians, its failure to obey Security Council resolutions, "release or account for all Gulf War personnel," return the remains and return stolen property, "accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions."

    Bush cited the Oil for Food program, which turned out to be Kofi Annan's private Enron.

    You want more? We got it: "If the Iraqi regime wishes peace it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept UN administration of funds from that program to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people. If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq, and it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis." On March 17 of 2003, Bush delivered his final ultimatum to Saddam Hussein.

    The president talked a lot about weapons of mass destruction in that speech, but he also addressed all these other concerns from supporting terrorism (Has the left also forgotten the Salmon Pak terrorist training facility?) to repressing the Iraqi people.

    When the president addressed the Iraqi people, he didn't mention a word about WMD.

    Those focusing exclusively on the WMDs are simply desperate, out-of-power people seeking to inflict any damage they can on Bush.

    What's shocking is that they're the same people who always honored themselves by speaking out in favor of human rights, yet they would've left the Iraqi people to the tender mercies of Saddam's thugs rather than see them liberated by this president.
     
  2. DKSuddeth
    Offline

    DKSuddeth Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,175
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Texas
    Ratings:
    +62
    when president bush addressed the iraqi people WMD's were not used as a reason, however, when Bush addressed the US citizens and held a press conference days before he issued his ultimatum to hussein there were at least a dozen references to WMD's.

    Personally, I have issue with being told that Hussein is building up his arsenal and hearing that the administration knows exactly where they are but when we're there.......none to be found. I've said it since the 'pre-emptive strategy' was made public is that the first time we use it we'll get blasted unless we can prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt with hard evidence of the WMD's.

    Well, here we are, none to be found and guess what.....we're getting blasted.
     
  3. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    I agree, the WMD declaration is starting to look like bad intelligence.

    However, that was NOT the "only" reason specified for invasion. He outlined all the other atrocities, the very same he outlined to the UN.

    The pre-emptive part based on WMD comes from international intelligence, not the Bush administration - although he did emphasize that when speaking to the public. The democrats as well as republicans have representatives present at national security intelligence meetings, and they "all" agreed on war (majority).

    The invasion needed to happen anyway, as the other atrocities have been proven time and time again.

    The blame for the intelligence falls on many levels, including the international community.
     
  4. dijetlo
    Online

    dijetlo Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    The WMDs' are key to the argument that Iraq presented a danger to the US and therefor had to be dealt with militarily via the doctrine of pre-emption. Without WMDs', they were no threat and the doctrine cannot be stretched to cover military action for humanitarian reasons.
     
  5. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    Well, then we go back to the previous debate about the prior resolutions and cease fire agreements! LOL (been debated enough)

    My only point to this thread was not the imminent threat, but that people make it sound as if that was the ONLY reason stated for invasion. I agree it was pushed out as the main reason, but it was far from the only reason.
     
  6. dijetlo
    Online

    dijetlo Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    We have no right to act unilateraly over a UN agreement, but I'll tell you what, rather than beating that further into the ground, next time I'm up in NY I'll buy you a beer and we can talk football instead.:D
     
  7. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    That's a deal! Hope you like hearing about nonstop Steeler talk! :D

    Can I assume you are a Ravens fan?
     
  8. dijetlo
    Online

    dijetlo Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Grudgingly, I was here when the Colts drifted out of town so I don't over invest in our current celebrities but I do enjoy a good footbal game, whoever is playing.
    Steelers!!!!! Them and the packers are the only two other teams I try to follow.
     

Share This Page