Wolfowitz:"We just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil."

[flavio]

Good thing people fought for our freedom so that we are entitled to our own opinions.

Yes it is, too bad many of us don't give any respect to people in other countries and think of them as little children who need us to tell them what they want.

 

[PT]

Yeah, and there were also accounts of civilians, or at least military in civilian clothes that did the same thing, wave white flags, then open fire.

 

[flavio]

So the answer is to shoot ALL Iraqis. That'll liberate 'em.

 

[Squiggy]

Ugly as it is, Saddam has us doing his bidding....

 

[PT]

Yes, in a very real way that is exactly what we are doing. However those troops are also just doing what they have to in order to survive. I'm sure there have been some innocents killed in this war, that I have no doubt, there are in any war. The thing you guys have to remember is changing times. Do you think the General Public heard about every friendly fire or civilian casualty that occurred in WW2? Nope, we didn't. Basically for two reasons, One, the media couldn't zap a story halfway across the globe with full color photos and video in a matter of seconds, and two because the public trusted our government in doing what was right. That trust is gone now. Even in Vietnam, we still didn't hear about everything minutes or hours after they happened. We heard about them days after, and still only heard about them when they were really bad, involving alot of casualties.

Now, I'm not going to sit here and say that we should trust our goverment to do whatever they please whenever they want do it, no. We should question our government, but we should also realize they are in a position to know things that we don't know, and that we shouldn't know. Sad but true. There is such a thing as national security, and that does have to come first in situations like this. The right to know comes second to the security of our nation.

 

[Squiggy]

Unfortunately, just as you blame the Iraqis for destroying the sanctity of the white flag, its our government who has destroyed the sanctity of "for reasons of national security". They have used it far too often to hide their lies and deceptions. Now, it is more of a "red flag" than a reason to trust...

 

[PT]

True enough. But where do we cross that line at? Surely there are some things that are "In the interest of National Security" The way I see it, if it's not, it will be found out. Granted, sometimes that will be 50 years from now, but not necessarily. If there is a big enough lie being kept secret, there is also a good chance of someone blowing the whistle on it.

 

[Squiggy]

There in lies the frustration...Have you ever pondered why one of Bush's first tasks was to extend the time limit of confidentiality of a former President's records? Wonder what we were about to learn about Iran/Contra....

 

[PT]

No, I didn't know that. Seems fishy on one hand, yet totally ridiculous on the other. Wasn't it already at 50 years? He's what, 45 or so? I guess maybe he's just pretty optimistic on his own lifespan.

 

[Squiggy]

I think it was more to do with his father's records. The time limit was about to expire for Reagen and then Bush Sr. I think it was about 15 years for Presidential records not deemed top secret.

 

[PT]

Well, quite simply it would have to be something pretty bad about Iran-Contra to surprise me. I know we fucked up bad on that one. I mean, how much worse could it have been? Nevermind that, I probably don't want to know.

As for hiding stuff his Dad did, I could see that. I've always thought the only reason he is president is because of his father. His father has a pretty good reputation. I guess if Dad's reputation gets tarnished, so does the sons, huh?

 

[Squiggy]

I think W can manage that all on his own...My train of thought leans toward Reagens records showing dubious actions by Bush Sr. during Iran/Contra...We already know he had his son Jeb appointed director of the CIA airfield in Fla. that was used for drug smuggling...

 

[Squiggy]

Hmmm...And then there is the Noriega thing....

 

[PT]

It could very well be that. I don't know.

 

[flavio]

There is such a thing as national security, and that does have to come first in situations like this. The right to know comes second to the security of our nation.

When national security is used as a ruse to get the public behind questionable actions it's not going to be an acceptable excuse when it's really needed.

 

[Gonz]

the deficit is setting records, and public schools are broke.

A)it's nothing new. It goes up with EVERY president

&

B)There is no correlation between school funding & federal government. That's the states job.

Did they invade Iraq while I wasn't looking? If not then no.

December 16, 1998 Web posted at: 8:51 p.m. EST (0151 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq.

The president said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.

"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.

Feb 17, 1998
Text Of Clinton Statement On Iraq
Text of President Clinton's address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff:[/b]

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.

We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century. They feed on the free flow of information and technology. They actually take advantage of the freer movement of people, information and ideas.

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.

I want the American people to understand first the past how did this crisis come about?

And I want them to understand what we must do to protect the national interest, and indeed the interest of all freedom-loving people in the world.

Remember, as a condition of the cease-fire after the Gulf War, the United Nations demanded not the United States the United Nations demanded, and Saddam Hussein agreed to declare within 15 days this is way back in 1991 within 15 days his nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them, to make a total declaration. That's what he promised to do.

We had every good reason to insist that Iraq disarm. 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.

Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left in its possession after the Gulf War. When UNSCOM would then uncover evidence that gave lie to those declarations, Iraq would simply amend the reports.

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.

And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.

As if we needed further confirmation, you all know what happened to his son-in-law when he made the untimely decision to go back to Iraq.

Full Text


Now, for some easy reading CIA Report on Iraqs WMDS.

 

[flavio]

A)it's nothing new. It goes up with EVERY president

&

B)There is no correlation between school funding & federal government. That's the states job.

Point is there is much better ways to spend 100's of billions than a bogus war.

Text Of Clinton Statement On Iraq

1. Clinton is not our president, hasn't been for years.

2. he did not order the invasion and occupation of Iraq that we are now dealing with.

3. There is no doubt that there has been an ongoing situation in Iraq that needed out attention. The way the current administration has chosen to handle it is the problem.

 

[outside looking in]

Yes it is, too bad many of us don't give any respect to people in other countries and think of them as little children who need us to tell them what they want.

Yeah, that's terrible. Good thing I don't think like that.

 

[outside looking in]

Point is there is much better ways to spend 100's of billions than a bogus war.

And better ways to spend it than on dysfunctional social programs as well.

 

[Gonz]

1. Clinton is not our president, hasn't been for years.

2. he did not order the invasion and occupation of Iraq that we are now dealing with.

3. There is no doubt that there has been an ongoing situation in Iraq that needed out attention. The way the current administration has chosen to handle it is the problem.

At least Bush was leader enough to handle this situation. Clinton didn't have the cajones.