Open Challenge to Freepers - What is the case for Iraq?

[cthrumatrix]

I cannot understand the logic for this charade after the revelations made in Paul O'Neil's book.

O'Neill's documents clearly lay out that the initial Presidential NSC meeting 10 days into Bush's presidency that Iraq was a goal. Furthermore, Rumsfeld is referenced as to looking for a "trigger to start" the war -- like a plane shot down. Even more damaging is at the next NSC meeting, Rumsfeld is complete with Iraq Oil maps and companies that will be "divvying up the oil"


Shrubs case to the people and the UN:
------------------------------------
* SH is a threat with WMD's
* SH has nuclear capability "soon"...and the mushroom cloud quotes
* SH is a threat to the stability of the region
* Rumsfeld quotes of $1-$2b in rebuilding


In hindsight
--------------
* No wmd's discovered
* to this day - zero connection to 911
* No imminent threat
* zero traces of nuclear programs with one year away
* 500 dead American's , 1000's injured and over 10,000+ dead Iraq people
* Iraqi people still attacking our soldiers on weekly basis.
* Initial price tag of $87B paid by US taxpayers
* We were never told about the oil or plans made 8 months before 911.
* Doesn't leaving Afghanistan (since OBL was to have attacked us) remove our goal of going after terror?


What was Bush's cover once war started and no wmd's
---------------------------------------------------
* freedom for the people of Iraq
* we got SH (which is good)


The world is not safer, Cheney message this morning in the SF Chronicle is he envisions decades of war. Go read it. SO please tell me what is the case?


Please be factual and share why you support this president's case.

Thank you.

[wtmusic]

1. Freepers aren't welcome here

but there are quite a few pro-war DUers who would be happy to take it up with you.

I sure won't.

onedit correction: more like 35,000 dead Iraqis, including military deaths. The numbers have been hashed out quite a bit already.

[never cry wolf]

7. Another correction

$87 Bil was the supplemental, in addition to the initial $75 Bil.

[fernandovaz]

2. ask Wes Clark, he made the case before congress

http://www.drudgereport.com/mattwc.htm

[Leados]

3. already been debunked

Besides, Clark is for the most part intelligent and pragmatic, and so at the time he saw no reason to invade Iraq, preferring to wait and see what Saddam actually had before taking further action.

[Cooley Hurd]

4. No offense, but that's a Drudge hatchet job...

...several quotes taken out of context (and out of chronological sequence).

[Webster Green]

5. Drudge?

Please!

[Cannikin]

6. We arent asking Clark..we're asking FReepers....

Drudge is a sad closet case who has severe social disorders because of it. I dont understand these log cabin republicans thinking that the GOP cares about them.

[fernandovaz]

11. like I said, ask Wes Clark...

I have seen now that he is playing a game with Democrats. He is trying to take the party away from the people. :(

He only talks this way now to fool us. It's not who he was a year ago.

[Cannikin]

13. And like I said...we arent asking Wes Clark.

Do you have an opinion or will you say the same thing each time?

[DS1]

8. 20 to 1 kill ratio, hell, keep it up boys!

:eyes:

[terryg11]

9. it depends on when you ask them

since it appears they really can't think for themselves and jst repeat what they are told it goes as follows.

Before the war, weapons of mass destruction and Saddam had a hand in 911

after victory is declared but before Saddam's capture, to overthrow Saddam and bring stability to the region

during the occupation it was to keep the region safe and help rebuild while we also got their new govrnment up and running

after Saddam's capture, to remove and capture Saddam, (duh!) yet still have a lot of work to do

those are the highlights of their talking points when asked. did I frget anything? besides the real reasons we are there?

[Cannikin]

10. hehehe

"Uh....I dont know how I feel! Rove hasent issued a press release telling me yet!"

[Kukla]

12. Iraq funded terrorists for years

They weren't AlQueda, but Hamas and the Intifada is just as bad. Iraq was a logical progression in the war on terror and Syria should be next. A majority of the congress, many Democratic Representatives and Senators included, voted to give authority to force Syria to change its support for terrorism, too!

Monetary support of terrorist organizations by nations must be seen as a direct act of war against our nation. We cannot afford to wait around and let the terrorists supported by these nations attack us on our own soil. If these nations do not relent in their state sponsorship of terrorism, the only alternative is to attack.

I am not the only Democrat who feels this way. Four of the current eight Democratic candidates voted in favor of the Iraq War Resolution. They clearly saw the threat of allowing state sponsorship of terrorist groups continue. The problem is, the war was not executed properly and no exit strategy was devised before going in. It was poor leadership all around in the Bush administration and it needs to be corrected soon!

If you look at America in the broad sense, the majority supports this as well. We must be proactive when it comes to terrorism. By cutting out the funding from nations like Iraq, Iran, and Syria, we remove the ability of these organizatiions to attack this nation.

[Cannikin]

14. LOGICAL progression of war?

Consider those words for a while....

So if you cant kill the target, distract the people with someone you CAN catch.

[arcane1]

15. "Monetary support of terrorist organizations by nations "

nations like the Saudis? You know they are being sued by families of 9/11 victims for their funding of al Qaeda, and that GEORGE BUSH'S LAWYER is representing the SAUDIS????

why no 'regime change' there? :shrug:

Good ol' James Baker... :puke:

[Cannikin]

17. Exactly....we're still buddy-buddy with the terrorists.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

18. Uh huh

and we funded Iraq for years. So what does that make us?

click on this link to see the man in charge of taking out Saddam Hussein shaking hands with Saddam Hussein.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

on edit, it appears somebody has been so kind to post the image i was going to.

[dennis4868]

20. Every Arab...

country funds Hamas and others. Therefore, the U.S should begin bombing every Arab country? Bush and his thugs did not say we are going to war because Sadaam is a threat to Israel (actually, Sharon before the war said that Sadaam was not a threat to his country). Bush and his cronies told us that Sadaam was a threat to OUR country!

a big fat lie!q

[Sparkle]

16. Shouldn't you post this on other boards?

You won't find any repukes here. Or will you?

[Cannikin]

19. If Reagan and friends hadnt built Saddam, we wouldnt have to take him down

[Moderator]

21. Locking

1. This is a message board for Democrats and other progressives.
2. Treat people with respect. Don't be rude or bigoted. Discuss the message, not the messenger.
3. Don't post entire articles. Instead, post short excerpts (not exceeding 4 paragraphs) with links.
4. Respect the wishes of the moderators and administrators.