Teddy is a fool

[Gonz]

Sen Kennedy wants a war. His war involves fewer bodybags & more bloodynoses than Dubya's, but it's war nonetheless. Most of it is petty political wrangling which is to be expected & consumed for the amusement of the masses.

One critical mistake though, if Iraq didn't pose an imminent threat to America, then why did Chapaquitic man support Bosnia? Talk about a non-threat to our safety. He needs to sit his drunken ass down & watch from the sidelines before he gets hurt.

"There was no imminent threat. This was made up in Texas, announced in January to the Republican leadership that war was going to take place and was going to be good politically," Kennedy said. "This whole thing was a fraud."

Story with the correct quote

 

[freako104]

he needs to get out of politics. im a democrat and I dont like him or his attitude. its like him to do this kind of crap to get attention.

 

[Mirlyn]

A Kennedy get out of politics? I don't think so.....I'm sure there's a law somewhere against it.

 

[Squiggy]

Sen Kennedy wants a war. His war involves fewer bodybags & more bloodynoses than Dubya's, but it's war nonetheless. Most of it is petty political wrangling which is to be expected & consumed for the amusement of the masses.

One critical mistake though, if Iraq didn't pose an imminent threat to America, then why did Chapaquitic man support Bosnia? Talk about a non-threat to our safety. He needs to sit his drunken ass down & watch from the sidelines before he gets hurt.

WTF??? We didn't go into bosnia because they were going to attack us. Bush said Iraq was going to attack us and labled them an 'imminent threat' with regards to that. You're trying to paint a barn blue with pink paint there, Gonz...

 

[Gonz]

So, it's okay to attack Europeans when they aren't a threat but it's bad to attack those who are or may be?

 

[ris]

to start with the use of military force in bosnia was un sanctioned and part of a un mandate to break up two already warring sides in a massively unstable region.

the situations are not directly comparable, one was a multilateral, un sanctioned setup; the other a unilateral 'ignore the un until we want some more guns and money' affair.

 

[Squiggy]

So, it's okay to attack Europeans when they aren't a threat but it's bad to attack those who are or may be?

Gonz, the 'imminent threat' was a LIE used as a REASON to attack Iraq. I can't believe you don't see the fault in that...

 

[A.B.Normal]

The Bosnian situation was escalating and it was decided on an international level that action was needed.The Iraqi situation hadn't changed in the 10yrs since the first gulf war and the attack was carried out by two nations against international agreement.

 

[Gonz]

the attack was carried out by two nations against international agreement.

bzzzzttttttt, wrong answer. There were 13(?) resolutions against Iraq. Including one just months before.

You're all missing the point. He is slamming Bush because he isn't a Dem. He says there was no imminent threat from Iraq. Assuming he's right (I don't), why did he back Bosnia? Again, no imminent threat.

 

[Squiggy]

Because THAT wasn't the reason for the action in Bosnia....Hes attacking Bush's LIES which were used as THE REASON to attack Iraq...How hard is that to understand?

 

[Gonz]

saddam was cleansing ethnics. Feel better?

 

[Squiggy]

Long before the war I stated that I hated Sadam as much as everyone else. But I wasn't convinced that Bush's reasons for attacking were legitimate. Now, its obvious that they weren't and all those who jumped behind him and joined in the cheer are slamming the rest of us for being right. He duped you. Get over it. I'll be damned if I'm going to apologize for being right.

 

[flavio]

Bush lied and told everyone that Iraq was an imminent threat and used it as the reason to invade.

Nobody told us Bosnia was an imminent threat.

Kennedy is therefore correct. The only waythat you're not going to be able to see the difference is if you're in total denial at this stage.

 

[Gonz]

But I wasn't convinced that Bush's reasons for attacking were legitimate.

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.

Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights found that Iraq continues to commit extremely grave violations of human rights, and that the regime's repression is all pervasive. Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating and burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands, children in the presence of their parents -- and all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state.

I want you, and I want the American people, to hear directly from me what is at stake for America in the Persian Gulf, what we are doing to protect the peace, the security, the freedom we cherish, why we have taken the position we have taken.

our principles and our security are challenged today by outlaw groups and regimes that accept no law of morality and have no limit to their violent ambitions.

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.

But for all our promise, all our opportunity, people in this room know very well that this is not a time free from peril, especially as a result of reckless acts of outlaw nations and an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals.

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.

And in 1995, after four years of deception, Iraq finally admitted it had a crash nuclear weapons program prior to the Gulf War. We know now, were it not for that war, the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993.

Now, instead of playing by the very rules he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War, Saddam has spent the better part of the past decade trying to cheat on this solemn commitment. Consider just some of the facts:

We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in his country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left? The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence.

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.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.

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.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions.

a sampling of the illegitimate claims, from 2 consecutive Presidents of which, one had the courage to take decisive action.

 

[AnomalousEntity]

I think the action in Iraq was Legitimate, even if the reasons given for doing so have been controversial.

There were countless reasons FOR DOING SO, that Bush isnt credited for listing...but good reasons nontheless.

It is still apparant that we did a good thing by getting rid of Hussain, WMDs or no WMDs.

Now I think we need to set them up and pull out as fast as possible.

I also think that Powell had a good point when he said "we cant pull out too fast because setting them up for failure would be the worst possible thing we could do"

 

[flavio]

a sampling of the illegitimate claims, from 2 consecutive Presidents of which, one had the courage to take decisive action.

One handled the situation without too much trouble and then one fool lied to the public, spent hundreds of billions, and killed thousands of people and made a big gigantic mess that he still has no idea how to clean up.

Your attempts to justify Bush's mistakes through Clinton are getting increasingly sad.