Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree with you to a point. The facts of the matter are that the administration with the CIA, FBI, etc. at their beck and call are in a much better position to make their case. Bush and Rumsfeld were the ring leaders in the invasion of Iraq. The day the Pentagon was struck by the hijacked plane Rumsfeld asked his staff to prepare a plan to invade Iraq before he ever left the site. That's a fact. Before anybody in the world except the terrorists knew how it was done and by whom...he was ready to invade Iraq.
Get down to the gnitty gritty. 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudia Arabia. Bin Laden is from Saudia Arabia. Why in the name of goodness did we run and invade Iraq?
On January 26, 1998, a letter was sent to President Bill Clinton requesting that he authorize the invasion of Iraq:
The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC
Dear Mr. President:
We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.
The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.
Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.
Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.
We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.
Sincerely
Elliott Abrams
Richard L. Armitage
William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner
John Bolton
Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama
Robert Kagan
Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol
Richard Perle
Peter W. Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld
William Schneider, Jr.
Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz
R. James Woolsey
Robert B. Zoellick
Last edited by Melvin.George; 08-09-2010 at 04:48 PM..
Yeah and the C student arsehole started that war to get even with Saddam Hussein for trying to assasinate his daddy in 1993...nothing else. You know about that old Texas vengence don't you? Think a minute...4000+ young Americans for some WMD's which never existed. His administration methodically concocted a pack of lies which included Colin Powell narrating some edited film to the UN Security council of a (supposed) conversation between two Iraqis which implied that they were relocating some strategic cylinders. What a load of it!!
Amazing how $500 BILLION sent the Left into a tizzy, but $9 TRILLION does not.
Hey listen. It's obious you have no idea what you're talking about. The $500 billion is the annual interest that remained after the blind unfunded spending spree which Reagan and the Bushes went on. What part of quadrupling the national debt and then doubling it again is it that you don't understand?
You don't understand because if you did you would be so ashamed that you would never admit voting for the Spend and Borrow crowd.
I havea better solution. Lets kill off the fed stop paying the 700b interest and eliminate our entire debt in 2 years. and we eliminate our debt based society, control our economy to protect against inflation and deflation and we create a place where people can work and save. It is possible and I think the entire country needs to make it the priority of all parties. After watching what reps have done I don't remotely understand how anyone can justify the support. I get it if you are anti abortion, but financially no plan put forth by the reps has worked. They simply make their closest friends mega wealthy at everyone elses expense. How does that get justified?
I know no one in this forum is profiting from as one of the main party favorites. So why is such bad performance supported? Is there that much cognitive dissonance?
Hey listen. It's obious you have no idea what you're talking about. The $500 billion is the annual interest that remained after the blind unfunded spending spree which Reagan and the Bushes went on. What part of quadrupling the national debt and then doubling it again is it that you don't understand?
You don't understand because if you did you would be so ashamed that you would never admit voting for the Spend and Borrow crowd.
Democrats took over congress AND budgets in 2007. Since then, they have increased the debt by 40% and increased spending by 30%.
Democrats took over congress AND budgets in 2007. Since then, they have increased the debt by 40% and increased spending by 30%.
What don't you understand about that?
There wouldn't be massive debt if Bush and the Republican congress had not used reconciliation to prevent a Democratic filibuster to cut taxes in 2001 and again in 2003. You do not have an argument so why don't you just go off somewhere, like maybe the studios at Faux News where you can console one another. They might even let you join them in their lying.
The government made money during the year that Bush took over. The debt was scheduled to be completely paid off by 2012. Bush had two tax cuts for his rich buddies and VOILA!!! Doubled the national debt. Now the tax cuts are scheduled to expire and set tax rates back to where they were in 2001 and guess what? While continuing to b iitch about the deficit your party is saying the tax cuts should not be allowed to expire. What a bunch of fools. Do you run your household business that way?
That is analagous to a man being maxed out on three credit cards while working two jobs and resigning from one of his jobs.
Last edited by Melvin.George; 08-10-2010 at 04:37 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
