IRAQ: PAYING THE PRICE...

IS THE COST OF 911...

Published on October 3, 2004 By hitparade In Politics

THE WAR IN IRAQ, ACCORDING TO KERRY WAS THE WRONG WAR, AT THE WRONG TIME, IN THE WRONG PLACE.

HOW & WHY?

NOT TOO LONG AGO KERRY said the opposite; that the removal of Saddam was essential to success in the war on terror; adding that any one who believed otherwise was not qualified to be President. How does one observing Kerry contradictions reconcile them? Why the change? Votes, opportunism. He’s a compulsive obsessive, liar, who sill self-implode as direct result of his clinical condition.

The price we pay in Iraq is what? The world now hates us. Like we enjoyed a love fest with world prior to Iraq. the 3000 dead on 911 are testimony too that. The war on terror is real .Real bad guys are plotting and planning to kill Americans. And it' because W went into Iraq. Ask the 911three thousand ( 3,000 ).

It is a fundamental difference in worldview that dictates my vote.

Kerry takes a narrow view that promises to treat the war on terror as a police action. Bush, on the other hand, views the war in more sweeping terms. It is fight for civilization-- against the nihilism of Islamic terrorism.

The war in terror necessarily included the heart of Arabia, especially Saddam; inarguably, a despicable tyrant, bent on America's destruction; were he in power today, I'm sure would be having tea with the Queen of England.

Dems., are you sure Saddam would have remained neutral during a war on terror? Even though his news media daily praised the 911 hijacking, mass murderers as martyrs.

Grow up Dems. Put aside your petty politics which threatens the very essence of the civilization that you take for granted: freedom.

Remember 911! The fight could not be more just. Stay the course. Hold the line. No retreat. Bush

Comments (Page 1)

Furry Canary

on Oct 04, 2004

'The war in terror necessarily included the heart of Arabia, especially Saddam; inarguably, a despicable tyrant, bent on America's destruction; were he in power today, I'm sure would be having tea with the Queen of England.'

Not quite sure what you're driving at here, hitparade - what exactly do you mean?

hitparade

on Oct 04, 2004

The truth. A head on collision with it. Who believes that Saddam would have remained a neutral agent in the war on terror?
Would he be helping Osama and company? Or would he conduct his perennial war on America alone?

Some common sense, please.

Furry Canary

on Oct 04, 2004

Steady on, it was a civil question. I still have no idea what 'the Queen of England' has to do with it.

Solitair

on Oct 05, 2004

Hitparade,
to quote Donald Rumsfeld, "To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two,"

Now if the secretary of defence has seen no strong evidence of links then those links do not exist. Arguing that in the future Saddam may have formed those links is condemning someone for actions not taken (or even known to be thinking of). There were many reasons to remove Saddam, links to terrorists was not one of thekm. Thankfully the administration is beginning to accept that.

So no WMD and no Al Qaida links.

Paul.

hitparade

on Oct 05, 2004

No "evidence" of a "strong" link. Inside scoop. A paper trail of fund transfers shows monies that originated out of Baghdad made way to the 19 hijackers.

Lawyers are good at paper trails. A United State district court judge found a credible link between Saddamm and Osama and a law suit has been permitted to proceed on that basis.

Bush "I will not allow threats to gather." That is the 911 lesson.

The 911 commission attributed lack of prescience as the reason for 911. A blind man could see Saddamm and Osama, strange bed-fellows, in bed from a mile away..

What is your plan to protect America from another 911? Like Kerry I'm sure you don't have one. It's easy to criticize. You don't get it. There is no secular and religious difference; that’s American politics, not the Arab street. Good luck on fantasy Island, Say hello to Tattoo.

Solitair

on Oct 05, 2004

hitparade,
as you are no doubt aware the level of proof required for a personal law suit is well below that required for a criminal case. You failed to answer the question as to why the people who have been actively 'protecting' the US by invading Iraq now say there was no terrorist link? Forget about what I'm saying, it doesn't matter to the arguement. Answer why Rumsfeld and hence thee Bush administration is saying this? Oh, and law suit lawyers are not good at paper trails. They're good at creating cases for them to make money from irrespective of the truth.

Paul.

PS. Don't waste your breath with personal attacks. They make you look foolish. If you bothered to check you would find I'm not even American therefore not a Kerry supporter and that I support the war in iraq

hitparade

on Oct 05, 2004

A war on terror is not a "criminal" matter; that statement speaks volumes. It's war.

The 911 commission indicated lack of prescience as the cause of 911. The left pounds, blames Bush for 911; for lack of prescience. How doesn't the commssion's finding pertain to Iraq?

You pose a philosophical question about the morality of preemptive action in a vacuum. How about Hitler? If you could have stopped him beforehand? That's a no brainer, now. I live in the post 911 world. Saddam was a no brainer.

Russian intelligence, inter alia, informed Bush that Iraq was actively planning attacks against the U.S. in the the U.S. Kerry knew of this intelligence and voted accordingly. Sadam, inter alia, sent a hit squad after the first Bush. After 911, his eyes gleamed with opportunity. Sadam was a criminal with an eye to harm America. Period. His media praised the hijackers. He promised America would receive worse. Thank God, the beast is gone.

WASHINGTON (Oct. 5) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Tuesday he was misunderstood when he stated hours earlier that he knew of no "strong, hard evidence" linking Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al-Qaida.
"I have acknowledged since September 2002 that there were ties between al-Qaida and Iraq," Rumsfeld said in a Web site statement issued following remarks he made to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York Monday

"Today at the Council, I even noted that 'when I'm in Washington, I pull out a piece of paper and say "I don't know, because I'm not in that business, but I'll tell you what the CIA thinks" and I read it'."
In the new statement, issued on the Pentagon Web site, Rumsfeld listed what he said were arguments for suggesting links between al-Qaida and Iraq under Saddam, including what the CIA regarded as "credible evidence" that al-Qaida leaders had sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire weapons of mass destruction.

Paul,

While you disparage and are dismissive of the American legal system, you fail to understand that the federal rules of civil procedure contemplate sever sanctions for pleading a cause of action based on frivolous allegations. While the tort system is by no means perfect, I note that trial lawyers (Kerry Edwards) overwhelming support dems.

While I welcome evaluative and interpretative disagreement, I don't engage in personal attacks. Nor would I "waste" one of the few precious breaths allotted to me for this short stint on earth; 911 taught me the folly of that.

I do condemn, even disparage, the transparent political opportunism of the left. So should you, Paul from wherever you are from!

COL Gene

on Oct 05, 2004

Saddam would never have attacked America dispite the fact he did not have the means of attacking us. The reason is simple, as soon as he attacked the United States or any other major power Saddam's world would have come to an END. The real danger to us is from the radical terrorists that are willing to give up their lives in order to achieve their goals. The risks that face America and covered in a new book, "Four More For George W?" Look at what readers are saying about this book by going to www.amazon.com and enter the title.

Solitair

on Oct 06, 2004

Good luck on fantasy Island, Say hello to Tattoo.

Sorry hitparade, but that statement IS a personal attack on the state of my mentality. Don't even try to justify it as anything other. To return to the article,

Rumsfeld has indeed retracted or clarified his statement. He's staying out of the debate, acknowledging 'credible' links since 2002 which the CIA now say are not credible. Interesting how Chechney and Rumsfeld are both willing to trust CIA evidence as credible links which the CIA itself has now rubbished. Do you think Bush will still believe in WMD despite the Iraq survey team today stating that they did not exist in 2003? Lets face facts, NO credible links exist between Saddam and Terrorists. The CIA may have believed such links existed in 2002, jsut as they belived WMD existed. Doesn't change the fact that the links didn't exist and the government got it wrong.

I therefore disagree with your assertation that the war in terror included Saddam. No links. No proof.

There were plenty of good reasons to remove Saddam. I'm fairly happy with the assumption that at some later stage he made have caused trouble. I'm happy with the assumption that he was evil. I'm fairly happy with the assumption that the iraqi people deserved better. I'm fairly happy with the assumption that he was a threat to oil price stability. I'm fairly happy with the assumption that he was breaking sanctions. None of these reasons though link 9/11 to Saddam though. So remember 9/11, don't loose your cognative reasoning ability because of it though. Don't start trying to justify invading Iraq because of 9/11.

Paul.

Bahu Virupaksha

on Oct 06, 2004

The goodwill and sympathy created by 911 was frittered away by George II and his merry men when they made tall, and as it turned out false claims the Saddam has WMD. He had none. There is no evidence to link Iraq with Al Qeda. In fact, applying the logic of guilt by association will make for a hilarious scenario, one in which the Texan Oil, Bandits and certain Saudi families have common names on their Board of Directors. Let us admit it, Bush thought that sofening up Iraq wiuld help the OIL interests and other US allies in the region. He did not expect that the Iraqis will fight back. Let us remember thart even Ghngis Khan and Taimur could not subdue Iraq, and if they failed where is Bush going to succeed.

drmiler

on Oct 06, 2004

Reply #9 By: Solitair - 10/6/2004 3:17:16 AM
Good luck on fantasy Island, Say hello to Tattoo.

Rumsfeld has indeed retracted or clarified his statement. He's staying out of the debate, acknowledging 'credible' links since 2002 which the CIA now say are not credible. Interesting how Chechney and Rumsfeld are both willing to trust CIA evidence as credible links which the CIA itself has now rubbished. Do you think Bush will still believe in WMD despite the Iraq survey team today stating that they did not exist in 2003? Lets face facts, NO credible links exist between Saddam and Terrorists. The CIA may have believed such links existed in 2002, jsut as they belived WMD existed. Doesn't change the fact that the links didn't exist and the government got it wrong.

They believed what they were told by the CIA. And BTW *at the time* the CIA believed it too it can't be help that *now* they have changed their mind. Just what were they supposed to do, ignore the intel reports entirely??

drmiler

on Oct 06, 2004

Reply #10 By: Bahu Virupaksha - 10/6/2004 3:37:34 AM
The goodwill and sympathy created by 911 was frittered away by George II and his merry men when they made tall, and as it turned out false claims the Saddam has WMD. He had none. There is no evidence to link Iraq with Al Qeda. In fact, applying the logic of guilt by association will make for a hilarious scenario, one in which the Texan Oil, Bandits and certain Saudi families have common names on their Board of Directors. Let us admit it, Bush thought that sofening up Iraq wiuld help the OIL interests and other US allies in the region. He did not expect that the Iraqis will fight back. Let us remember thart even Ghngis Khan and Taimur could not subdue Iraq, and if they failed where is Bush going to succeed

This is just so much tripe that it's NOT funny anymore. The oil bit has been thourghly hashed out in another thread. It was concluded (at least to my satisaction) that we didn't go in for the oil like your trying to assume. Know what happens when you assume? You make an ass out of U.

Solitair

on Oct 06, 2004

drmiler,
they believed the CIA on both WMD and Al Qaida links to Saddam. The CIA now admits both were wrong. Maybe it's time for the government, as in Bush and Cheney to do likewise? They went to war for the wrong reasons, or at least they used reasons that were later proven to be false in arguing the case to the american public. Just remember the huge furour at the time when France refused to accept the evidence that Saddam had WMD and when so many Americans believed Saddam was linked to 9/11. The government used those false beliefs to get public support for then war. This is a big issue that can't just be ignored or swept under a carpet. Someone needs to stand up, take responsibility for the decision to go to war, and apologise for the way the government misled people (whether knowingly or not). I'd just like to see a bit of responsibility, decency and truth return to politics.

I personally am still happy that the war was needed. Lets start being honest about why it was needed though. WMD and 9/11 have both been shown to be false reasons.

Paul.

drmiler

on Oct 06, 2004

Reply #13 By: Solitair - 10/6/2004 8:36:29 AM
drmiler,
they believed the CIA on both WMD and Al Qaida links to Saddam. The CIA now admits both were wrong. Maybe it's time for the government, as in Bush and Cheney to do likewise? They went to war for the wrong reasons, or at least they used reasons that were later proven to be false

And this is Bushs fault? How's that? If anyone should apoligize it should be the CIA *not* Bush. He acted in good faith on the intel he was given. If you care to think on this for a while, he did the only thing he could do given the intel he was handed. 9/11 was a tragedy and should never have occured. But to my knowledge (limited as it might be) Bush has never used 9/11 as a reason to go into Iraq. He has mentioned ties between Iraq and Al-quieda which most people say is BS. Personally I think it's right on. There is *no* proving there was any connection, just a gut feeling. No, he went into Iraq based on the WMD threat intel he was given by his people (CIA). Oh and lets not forget the British intel said the same thing.

CrispE

on Oct 06, 2004

Hitparade:

I understand what you're saying. But let me ask this, if 9/11 had not occured, wouldn't the terrorist threat be just as great as now? Where was Mr. Bush prior to 9/11? You fault Mr. Kerry for what you do not know because he has not had the chance to show what he might do. But we do know what Mr. Bush was doing prior to 9/11. He was on vacation, playing a little golf, and when memo's from his National Security Advisor saying "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Mainland U.S. Targets" were sent to him he just, sort of, well, ignored them.

So saying Mr. Bush has a steadfast resolve is a bit like saying a farmer is tough on foxes after the chickens are gone from the barn.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!