BF2S Forums Democrat Hypocrisy

Pug wrote:

GATOR591957 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Lol.. that's what you gathered from all of that. I can see how you guys get so swayed off topic. You are looking for little whole to poke into but the point alludes you. For the hell of it lets just say Kuwait and the Kurds. The latter being carried out with WMD's. (This will carry us back off topic)

I'm just asking where your analogy was going.  I'm looking for the reason we attacked Iraq.  If it was because Sadaam attacked Kuwait, we already took care of that.  Remember the first gulf war.  If it was his attacking the Kurds, then why aren't we in Africa.  Far more attrocities going on there.

I think specifically why Africa hasn't been a priority has to do with the impact Iraq has proven to have on the region.  Note that I do not agree with NOT being as involved in Africa as we should be.  But arguably (and unfortunately it's selfish) what happens in Africa has less of an impact then what happens in the Middle East, and therefore has a higher priority.

Of course I wish it didn't involve troops everytime...

I can agree with your logic on Africa.  What I'm saying is if we are using the excuse Sadaam was a bad man and that's why we attacked, that logic fails in other areas as bad or worse, ergo the logic fails and we need to come up with a better reason.

If Saddam had WMDs he's most likely use them against Iran, not US.

Iraq was never an "imminent threat" like the NeoCons painted.

Clinton was 8 years at the office indeed, but the statements in the video are from 1998 and Bush invaded Iraq in 2003, he had 5 additional years of CIA reports.
You can't invade a country coz you think they could have WMD's, you must be sure they have them.  If you go there coz of WMD's and then you find there is no WMD's how do you explain this to the people.

The statements in 1998 are two years before Bush took office.  It would have been incumbent upon Clinton's people to provide that information to Bush's people.  You don't really expect the new administration to re-evaluate all intelligence data for two years prior to their taking office?

We all know the tired old lines from the 2004 Democratic election strategy.  They forgot what their very own Bill Clinton said. 
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/ … nton.iraq/

I have taken the liberty of posting the segments below which come from the above link of Clinton's speech on Iraq as an imminent threat in 1998.  Enjoy.  This will take some reading, so strap on your big boy pants everyone.  I even put * signs by some of the best ones in case any of you don't feel like read all of them. 
------------------------------------------
  . . So first, let's just take a step back and consider why meeting the threat posed by Saddam Hussein is important to our security in the new era we are entering. . . .

And they will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen.

***There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us.***

. . . Saddam had built up a terrible arsenal, and he had used it not once, but many times, in a decade-long war with Iran, he used chemical weapons, against combatants, against civilians, against a foreign adversary, and even against his own people.

And during the Gulf War, Saddam launched Scuds against Saudi Arabia, Israel and Bahrain. . . .

For example, Iraq revised its nuclear declarations four times within just 14 months and it has submitted six different biological warfare declarations, each of which has been rejected by UNSCOM.

***In 1995, Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law, and the chief organizer of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more.***

Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities and weapon stocks. Previously, it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth. Now listen to this, what did it admit?

It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. . . .

***Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have undermined and undercut UNSCOM. They've harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of suspect facilities as inspectors walked through the front door. And our people were there observing it and had the pictures to prove it. . . . ***

Over the past few months, as they have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions. . . .

***It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. ***

***The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons. . . . ***

Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.

***And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who's really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too. . . . ***

Now, let me say to all of you here as all of you know the weightiest decision any president ever has to make is to send our troops into harm's way. And force can never be the first answer. But sometimes, it's the only answer. . . .

No military action, however, is risk-free. I know that the people we may call upon in uniform are ready. The American people have to be ready as well.
-------------------------

Hmm, apparently there was intelligence back then that pointed to Saddam as a threat. Ooooooh, but that was different, he's a Democrat.   You guys gotta try harder.  No wonder your side lost 2 in a row at the ballot box.

I wouldn't be surprised if Al Qaeda is funding the Democrats...I mean who else is helping them in Washington?  Not Bush.

Stingray24 wrote:

Hmm, apparently there was intelligence back then that pointed to Saddam as a threat. Ooooooh, but that was different, he's a Democrat.

I agree that Clinton is a fool, but...

"Hussein's record of chemical weapons use is deplorable, but none of his victims had a similar arsenal and thus could not threaten to respond in kind. Iraq's calculations would be entirely different when facing the US because Washington could retaliate with WMD if Iraq ever decided to use these weapons first. Hussein thus has no incentive to use chemical or nuclear weapons against the US and its allies unless his survival is threatened. This simple logic explains why he did not use WMD against US forces during the Gulf War and has not fired chemical or biological warheads at Israel.

Furthermore, if Hussein cannot be deterred, what is stopping him from using WMD against US forces in the Persian Gulf, which have bombed Iraq repeatedly over the past decade? The bottom line: Deterrence has worked well against Hussein in the past, and there is no reason to think it cannot work equally well in the future."

- Summed up pretty nicely

MorbidFetus wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Hmm, apparently there was intelligence back then that pointed to Saddam as a threat. Ooooooh, but that was different, he's a Democrat.

I agree that Clinton is a fool, but...

"Hussein's record of chemical weapons use is deplorable, but none of his victims had a similar arsenal and thus could not threaten to respond in kind. Iraq's calculations would be entirely different when facing the US because Washington could retaliate with WMD if Iraq ever decided to use these weapons first. Hussein thus has no incentive to use chemical or nuclear weapons against the US and its allies unless his survival is threatened. This simple logic explains why he did not use WMD against US forces during the Gulf War and has not fired chemical or biological warheads at Israel.

Furthermore, if Hussein cannot be deterred, what is stopping him from using WMD against US forces in the Persian Gulf, which have bombed Iraq repeatedly over the past decade? The bottom line: Deterrence has worked well against Hussein in the past, and there is no reason to think it cannot work equally well in the future."

- Summed up pretty nicely

why a war in iraq is necessary


hussein signed a surrender treaty, failed to abide by it, ignored bureacratic attempts to resolve the situation for over a decade, and to allow him to continue to do so ( and this is the most important part) would have made all future surrender treaties impotent

sums it up pretty nicely

kr@cker wrote:

why a war in iraq is necessary


hussein signed a surrender treaty, failed to abide by it, ignored bureacratic attempts to resolve the situation for over a decade, and to allow him to continue to do so (and this is the most important part) would have made all future surrender treaties impotent

sums it up pretty nicely

Except that's not why we went to war with Iraq. Saddam was "involved" with 9/11, remember?  The American public didn't give a shit about what UN Resolutions Iraq violated and would have never given their support for the war solely based on that (shit, how many UN Resolutions has Israel disregarded?). The Cons knew this and that's why they stacked a bunch of shit on top of the 12 year old stalemate sandwhich.

Last edited by MorbidFetus (2006-09-30 23:13:50)

kr@cker wrote:

I don't remember anything about Saddam being "involved" with 9/11, i remember this

http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle … le_id=2686

Do you actually believe the American people keep in touch with "real time" issues in Congress? No. They wait a few years until something's fucked up and then go back and look at the documentation. Bush and his buddies are not the only ones to blame. There's crooks in every corner of Congress. The people had fear and lies about Iraq's involvement in 9/11 beat down their throats until the patriotic circle jerk bandwagon took off on full speed. The govt. did not need legislation to attack Iraq, they needed the popular opinion and they got it thanks to the Toby Keiths and Tom Ridges and Dick Chenies.

"Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq; Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;"

This claim ties Saddam (Iraq) in cahoots with Bin Ladin (Al Qaeda).

kr@cker wrote:

...in fact they were at odds due to saddams secular rule, and were seeking to oust him just as we were

A fact that was not shown light until the uproar against the war in Iraq a few years ago.

"and nobody has suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack"


The key word is "ordered".

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/21/bush-on-911/

No, that link proves Bush is dancing around the Saddam-Laden link he claimed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1241327,00.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dy … ge=printer

MorbidFetus wrote:

No, that link proves Bush is dancing around the Saddam-Laden link he claimed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1241327,00.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dy … ge=printer

so you've got the guardian, who has a habit of "accidentally omitting" portions of quotes, yet still manages to reference al-Zarqawhi (granted he took action after the removal of saddam) and still references al-Quaeda's requesting cooperation with Hussein, and a WP article that has quotes like:
"You can say Bush should be faulted for not correcting every single misapprehension, but that's something different than saying they set out deliberately to deceive," said Duke University political scientist Peter D. Feaver. "Since the facts are all over the place, Americans revert to a judgment: Hussein is a bad guy who would do stuff to us if he could."


thanks again for proving my point