Iraqi WMD questions i want answered by Liberals

[Cathedral]

Ok, this whole WMD issue has become such a huge political issue I have some questions i would like the Liberals to answer as i make up my mind on Bush.

1) Ok, Clinton had intelligence, the same intlligence from George Tenent that Bush Sr. and Jr. both had as well. How can you say that there never were WMD in Iraq at this point?

2) If Saddam didn't have WMD then how do you explain his defiance of UN Resolutions and what is your reason for allowing him to stand in constant violation of same UN Resolutions without penalty?

3) If Saddam didn't have WMD yet refused to prove this fact to the UN and the world, why didn't you require this proof before speaking out against your own country?

4) Why do you constantly say that we went in unilaterally when we have a larger coalition than Clinton did when he bombed Iraq?

These questions have been asked repeatedly by damn near everyone on the right and not once have i heard a direct answer to them.
But, here is your chance to convince me why i shouldn't vote for George W. Bush to have a second term.
Using facts verifiable, convince me that Bush should be sent back to Crawford Tx.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Cathedral
Ok, this whole WMD issue has become such a huge political issue I have some questions i would like the Liberals to answer as i make up my mind on Bush.

1) Ok, Clinton had intelligence, the same intlligence from George Tenent that Bush Sr. and Jr. both had as well. How can you say that there never were WMD in Iraq at this point?

The "intelligence" in the late 90's came from PNAC, and the PNAC'ers now admit that they got it from a lying thief named Ahmed Chalabi, who wanted to overthrow the Hussein dictatorship only so he could become the dictator himself. Which he will probably become, with PNAC's help.

Clinton made the honest mistake of trusting information that came from a bunch of ex-Defense Dept bigwigs like Cheney, Rummy, Wolfoshit and Perle. Since he probably didn't read their agenda for global fascism, he assumed their evidence was sincere. And his own CIA chief, James Woolsey, was also in on it.

2) If Saddam didn't have WMD then how do you explain his defiance of UN Resolutions and what is your reason for allowing him to stand in constant violation of same UN Resolutions without penalty?

Saddam was a secular dictator, surrounded by Muslim fundamentalists. Iraq's former large military kept him secure. Keeping the illusion of that military power alive kept his neighbors away, not to mention the warring factions within his own country. Saddam was to Iraq what the USSR was to Yugoslavia. You might not like them, but it was a hell of a lot worse after they were gone.

3) If Saddam didn't have WMD yet refused to prove this fact to the UN and the world, why didn't you require this proof before speaking out against your own country?

You can't prove a negative. The burden of proof was on the BCE/PNAC and they could not prove the weapons existed. And the UN inspections confirmed the fact that they did NOT exist. And George Fucking Bush Junior and his criminal friends are NOT "my country"

4) Why do you constantly say that we went in unilaterally when we have a larger coalition than Clinton did when he bombed Iraq?

The "large coalition" is bullshit. The troops that were involved in combat were overwhelmingly US and Brits. A couple Aussies here and there. A handful of Polacks. That's about it.

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by Cathedral
Ok, this whole WMD issue has become such a huge political issue I have some questions i would like the Liberals to answer as i make up my mind on Bush.

1) Ok, Clinton had intelligence, the same intlligence from George Tenent that Bush Sr. and Jr. both had as well. How can you say that there never were WMD in Iraq at this point?

not the point. clinton did not invade iraq. whether or not clinton's bombing was justified is a seperate issue.

2) If Saddam didn't have WMD then how do you explain his defiance of UN Resolutions and what is your reason for allowing him to stand in constant violation of same UN Resolutions without penalty?

there are several explanations: 1) he was trying to bluff that he might've still had them to keep his enemies at bay. 2) (what the knuckleboner always said) he might've been keeping the ability to produce them quickly, even if he didn't keep current stocks.

again, though, not quite the point. if they're UN resolutions, why should the U.S. be enforcing them? if the UN decides for whatever reason not to enforce its own resolutions, then i don't think that "definance of UN resolutions" should be a rationale for a 3rd party to use in an attack.

3) If Saddam didn't have WMD yet refused to prove this fact to the UN and the world, why didn't you require this proof before speaking out against your own country?

personally, i never spoke out against my country. i did say i didn't agree with the decision to go to invade iraq. whether or not saddam conclusively had WMD was not the sole factor in my personal opinion on whether we should have gone to war. if it was a pre-emptive strike, then i personally, felt that the imminence of the threat was the important factor. theoretically, saddam could've had WMD and yet not been an imminent threat to the U.S., or he could have had no WMD and yet been an imminent threat. but the evidence the administration showed prior to the war did not convince me of the threat's imminence.

4) Why do you constantly say that we went in unilaterally when we have a larger coalition than Clinton did when he bombed Iraq?

did we go in unilaterally? technically, no. but persian gulf I, we had approval of U.N., NATO, and many more countries.

i'm not saying we need those groups/countries' approval to defend our national security. far from it. we need no one's approval to defend our national security. but i think that was the case here. bush made it completely clear that america would do what it takes to take out terrorism regardless of whether we had to do it alone. we made the decision to go to war with iraq. that other countries decided to agree with us did not influence our decision. i'd say our decision was unilateral.

i don't have a problem with a unilateral decision based on national security. however, rather difficult to defend enforcement of the UN's resolutions when we made the unilateral decision to enforce them.

again, for me, it turns on the necessity of attacking for national security.

i firmly believe we went in there out of national security concerns. we felt it would be safer if the region was more stable, and we also felt that saddam posed some level of threat to us. what level of threat depended on how much and what intel you were viewing.



ultimately, we attacked a sovereign nation pre-emptively. while i will not rule out all pre-emptive strikes, and while i will agree that saddam was an awful leader for his people and for the world, i have not been convinced that THIS pre-emptive strike was necessary.

the actual presence of WMD is not as important to my opinion. though, the allegations that WMD were there were rationales that the administration used to support the war.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by FORD
The "intelligence" in the late 90's came from PNAC................


Clinton made the honest mistake....................


You can't prove a negative.................

Your argument is dead in the water on the first remark, laughable on the second, and downright wrong on the third.

For the third, the burden of proof was on Saddam to prove he had the WMD stocks he had destroyed.

Hans Blix says now they knew Saddam didn't have any WMD after '94. What in the sam hell were they looking for then? Why did Clinton bomb the Iraqi's for WMD non-compliance in '98, other than to throw the heat off his penile embarrassment named Monica Lewinsky? Hmmm?

[Cathedral]

I am absorbing the answers here, and there are some valid points so far. I want more points of view still though.
I am very confused on this whole issue right now even though i was never interested in the WMD issue.
I have wanted us to go back to Iraq since Gulf War I to liberate the citizens of Iraq because i think Bush Sr. screwed them all by leaving Hussein in power then.

It is also the reason i voted for Perot.

I find myself in a similar situation now though. I like Bush, but some things going on do make me raise an eyebrow and wonder what is really going on.
Getting the 100% truth from either side is an impossible request, so i'll do as i did back then and take this time from now till election day and learn the truth as much as possible.

I won't vote for a Democrat based on fundamental differences of opinion. So i'll either vote Bush with a clear conscience or write my own name in the ballot...
Nader will not see my support over his view of abortion, period. this is a huge issue for me personally because i think if abortion is to be allowed it needs a serious revision or amendment.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Cathedral

Nader will not see my support over his view of abortion, period. this is a huge issue for me personally because i think if abortion is to be allowed it needs a serious revision or amendment.

If abortion is your "single issue", then you can't vote for Junior either. His grandaddy Prescott (the same guy who funded Hitler) was a major promoter of Eugenics, which basically means the emergence of a "master race" by systematic destruction (through abortion among other means) of the "inferior" races. Planned Parenthood actually originated from Eugenics supporters who were associated with Grandpa Bush.

George Bush Sr, a mass murderer in his own right, ran his own campaign in 1980 as a "pro choice Republican" and only adopted the "pro life" position when he hijacked the Reagan campaign and molded it into his own vehicle.

Junior himself paid for an abortion in the early 70's when it was still illegal in most states - definitely in Texas. Which makes Junior not only a baby-killer, but (again) a criminal.

Guess the BCE doesn't get your vote either

[Seshmeister]

You can't vote for someone because of what their grandfather did?

That's insane shit FORD...

Right enough you could argue that Bush paying for an abortion was driven by eugenics too...

Cheers!

[ELVIS]

Thank you Sesh...

[Cathedral]

I paid for an abortion, but i had no idea that's what the bill was for until a few months later. I was fed the line that it was a tubular pregnancy but no medical records backed that up and since i wasn't married at the time i had zero access to the Dr.
I even courted the idea that it probably wasn't mine, i'll never know for sure and it doesn't make that year any easier to think about.

Pro Choice, yeah right......I had no choice.

I guess i shouldn't vote at all, period...