Originally posted by 01WhiteCobra
a. The American public was lead to believe that Iraq was a part of 9/11. This was shown in polls leading up to the war, during the war and after the war. The fact remains, until proven otherwise, that Iraq had no part of 9/11.
The Bush administration never said that Iraq was responsible for, or in any way involved with, 9/11. Did the administration capitalize on the public’s misperception? Certainly.
“Democrats point to polls showing that large numbers of Americans believe there was a link between Saddam and the attacks on 9/11. Now, how could people come to that belief? Perhaps because they’ve heard the uncontradicted reports that Saddam did have ties with Al Qaeda. Or perhaps they were thinking of the fact that he permitted Baghdad to become a haven for terrorists like Abu Nidal and others who lived out a comfortable retirement on his generosity. Or perhaps they were considering that Saddam Hussein paid the family of each suicide bomber who killed innocent Israelis the handsome sum of $25,000. Or maybe they had heard about the 707 Saddam maintained at Salman Pak for terrorists to practice hijackings on?”
Iraq was a terrorist sate… and as such was a suitable target for the war on terrorism.
1. A senior al Qaida terrorist, now detained, who had been responsible for al Qaida training camps in Afghanistan, reports that al Qaida was intent on obtaining WMD assistance from Iraq. According to a credible, high-level al Qaida source, Usama Bin Laden and deceased al Qaida leader Muhammad Atif did not believe that al Qaida labs in Afghanistan were capable of manufacturing chemical and biological weapons, so they turned to Iraq for assistance. Iraq agreed to provide chemical and biological weapons training for two al Qaida associates starting in December 2000.
2. Senior al Qaida associate Abu Musab al-Zarqawi came to Baghdad in May 2002 for medical treatment along with approximately two dozen al Qaida terrorist associates. This group stayed in Baghdad and other parts of Iraq and plotted terrorist attacks around the world.
3. A safe haven in Iraq belonging to Ansar al-Islam -- a terrorist group closely associated with Zarqawi and al Qaida -- was destroyed during Operation Iraqi Freedom. In March 2003, during a raid on the compound controlled by the terrorists in northeastern Iraq, a cache of documents was discovered, including computer discs and foreign passports belonging to fighters from various Middle East nationalities.
4. Abu Musa Zarqawi, the al Qaida associate with direct links to Iraq, oversaw those responsible for the assassination of USAID officer Laurence Foley in Amman, Jordan last October.
5. Saddam Hussein's Iraq provided material assistance to Palestinian terrorist groups, including the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, HAMAS, and the Palestine Islamic Jihad, according to a State Department report. This included paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, according to testimonials from Palestinians and cancelled checks. Also, according to State Department reports, terrorist groups the Iranian Mujahedin-e-Khalq and the Abu Nidal organization were protected by the Iraqi regime protected by the Iraqi regime.
b. The American public was lead to believe that Iraq would use their WMDs against the US or Iraq's neighbors. He didn't in the first war, he wouldn't have done it in the second one. He wouldn't have done it regardless of if we attack Iraq. If you have evidence of this, lay it out.
The American people were told that it was a possibility that Iraq might use chemical weapons. How real was that possibility? We don’t know… yet.
c. We were told it was also because he wouldn't let inspectors in there. The fact remains that Scott Ritter, a US Citizen and part of UNSCOM stated that all Iraq's WMD were dismantled or fundementally destroyed as early as 1996. Something everyone else (except for the US and Britian) have agreed upon.
Scott Ritter??? One of two things is showing here… your ignorance or your bias.
Scott Ritter said this in 1998:
RITTER: To me it is just glaringly obvious. What I will say is this. It's not my job to dictate national policy to any country. But I can be diagnostic. What we have in Iraq is a situation that sanctions aren't working, Iraq is getting away literally with murder, they're going to keep these weapons and they're going to get sanctions lifted eventually. Sooner than anybody believes. The Security Council is fractured and there is no unanimity for decisive action against Iraq. The resolution was created under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. This means that Iraq has foregone aspects of its sovereignty; Iraq presents a clear and present danger to international peace and security. Iraq must disarm in order to stop presenting this capability and if they don't disarm they can be compelled. This means the Security Council has the authorization to either act as a council and do military action or have a member nation on its own undertake military action. The United States is the country behind all of this. We built the coalition that went to war to liberate Kuwait, we pushed for the creation for this resolution at the end of the war to disarm Iraq and the United States pushed the special commission to carryout these very difficult inspections which resulted in guns being pointed at the heads of inspectors."
Then two short years later he’s saying this:
RITTER: One serious obstacle to the reformulation of Iraq's disarmament obligation by the Security Council is the current U.S. policy of removing Saddam Hussein from power, codified in the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998. That law has so far failed to threaten Saddam Hussein in any meaningful way, but it has succeeded in precluding any significant diplomatic initiative by locking the United States into a unilateral policy that makes cooperation with Iraq impossible. If the United States is serious about disarming Iraq, it should repeal the Iraqi Liberation Act and work within the framework of the Security Council to formulate a policy that results in the rapid reintroduction of meaningful, monitoring-based weapons inspections into Iraq.
That will require the lifting, not simply the suspension, of sanctions. While it is true that the sanctions have retarded Iraq's ability to acquire technology that could aid any WMD reconstitution effort, Resolution 687 stated that a finding of compliance would trigger the lifting of sanctions. Sanctions are thus not an open-ended option. At some point, they will need to be lifted, and if a finding of qualitative disarmament, backed with the implementation of viable monitoring-based inspections, can be achieved, then there is no reason to keep sanctions in place.
The Security Council must also follow through on the promise it made in paragraph 14 of Resolution 687, which speaks of regional disarmament. While monitoring-based inspections in Iraq must be expected to last indefinitely, they cannot be expected to last in a vacuum. Unless arrangements are made to address WMD programs in Iran and Israel, as well as the regional proliferation of advanced conventional weaponry, Iraq will never accept perpetual disarmament.
Quite a switch… from calling for military action to remove a “clear and present danger” - to arguing for the repeal of the Iraqi Liberation Act, the lifting of sanctions and the nuclear disarmament of Israel.
What could have facilitated such a radical change in Mr. Ritter’s view? Maybe it was money?
ASMAN: That's why people, when they see you in Iraq with these Iraqi government officials, they wonder what the heck is going on.
RITTER: I went to Iraq on my own initiative. I made the decision to approach and say I think it is time for me to deliver a message to the Iraqi government that if they don't allow ...
ASMAN: Paid for out of your own pocket?
RITTER: Hell, yes. Or by an anti-sanctions group in the case of South Africa, they didn't spend a single damn penny. I wouldn't accept their money, it is against the law.
ASMAN: Some people say that some of this money has come from Iraqi-Americans, there's one Iraqi-American in particular, who is perhaps not pro-Saddam but at least people say he's against the U.S. position towards Iraq, that that in itself kind ... of [proves that] Iraq is giving people money to do their bidding.
RITTER: ... He's a Detroit-based American businessman. An American citizen. He has family in Iraq. People have to put this in perspective. They are looking death and destruction in the face. You can't blame a guy that is trying to prevent a war.
ASMAN: He has no contact whatsoever with anybody in the Iraqi government?
RITTER: I didn't say that. How do you think I got the government with him? He can get me the audience. I take advantage. ... I am waging peace in the same way other people wage war -- I am trying to stop a war that doesn't need to be fought. This is not anti-American.
[Unintelligible] ... put my life on the line for my country. And I would do so again if the cause is just, if the cause is founded. If there is a threat worth dying for, make the case, Mr. Bush. And I will support your war with Iraq to the hilt. But until you make that case, all we have is speculative rhetoric and that is not justification.
ASMAN: We have clear rhetoric coming from Iraq. Arabs have the duty to attack and kill Americans even on U.S. soil. They are saying that. The vice president said it this week. Don't you think they are the enemy?
RITTER: The situation that's evolving there's definitely an atmosphere of conflict between us and -- United States and Iraq. I'm not going to defend a damn word they say.
ASMAN: You're taking money from a guy affiliated from the foreign minister/deputy prime minister.
RITTER: I'm not taking any money. It's not going into my pocket.
ASMAN: They paid for the trip to Iraq.
RITTER: It was paid for by the Public Institute of Accuracy.
Ritter accepted $400,000 (that we know about) to film a pro-Saddam documentary. Anything for a buck. But I understand… it’s hard for a pedophilic piece of shit to earn an honest dollar.
“More details are emerging on the arrest of former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter. The Delmar resident was arrested by Colonie police in June of 2001 on a misdemeanor charge. And Channel 6 News has learned that Ritter had been issued a warning after being caught by police once before. Colonie police will not confirm any of this, but Channel 6 News learned that Ritter was caught in a sex sting early in 2001. He was issued a warning then, but eventually arrested for the same thing three months later. Ritter, who has made national headlines for speaking out against going to war with Iraq is keeping silent on this issue. He has been unavailable for comment since details of his arrest were made public. In June of 2001, Ritter was accused of engaging in a sexual discussion, on the Internet with a person who he thought, was a 14 year old girl. It was actually an undercover investigator who agreed to meet with Ritter. When Ritter arrived at the location, expecting to meet the girl, police warned him that he had been set up. Three months later Ritter allegedly fell into the same trap, only this time he was arrested.”
Maybe Ritter is a qualified weapons inspector – when he’s not beating off to kiddie porn or taking money from Saddam loyalists?
d. Saddam gassed his own people. Yep, he sure did. Ever hear of Waco? Attacking Saddam for the same is hypocritcal at best. Yea, he was a dumb fuck, no questioning that. But there are a shitload of other dumbfucks running countries out there as well.
This is my favorite argument.
[hillbilly] “I reckon I can’t say nuthin cuz I done it too.” [/hillbilly]
Not that there is any semblance of logic with comparing Janet Reno’s Waco to the extermination of 400,000+ people.
e. We were told we had a "plan" for reconstruction. Bullshit.
I’m not sure what people expected to happen in the months immediately following the war. Are the liberals disappointed that there is no Disneyland in Baghdad yet? The occupation of Germany lasted 5 years – Japan 7 years. It’s far too early to make blanket assessments of the reconstruction effort. I would think that given the condition of Iraq – dilapidated infrastructure and the forced suppression of the Shiite majority – that we are fortunate that the country has not devolved into total anarchy. Indeed we have accomplished a great deal… but the liberal media has chosen to ignore the positives.
The first battalion of the new Iraqi Army has graduated and is on active duty… over 60,000 Iraqis now provide security to their fellow citizens.
The Iraqi judiciary is fully independent… with nearly all of Iraq’s 400 courts functioning.
On Monday, October 6, power generation hit 4,518 megawatts—exceeding the pre-war average.
All 22 universities and 43 technical institutes and colleges are open, as are nearly all primary and secondary schools. By October 1, Coalition forces had rehabbed over 1,500 schools - 500 more than their target. Teachers earn from 12 to 25 times their former salaries.
All 240 hospitals and more than 1200 clinics are open. Doctors’ salaries are at least eight times what they were under Saddam. Today we have increased public health spending to over 26 times what it was under Saddam. Pharmaceutical distribution has gone from essentially nothing to 700 tons in May to a current total of 12,000 tons. The Coalition has helped administer over 22 million vaccination doses to Iraq’s children.
We have restored over two-thirds of the potable water production. A Coalition program has cleared over 14,000 kilometers of Iraq's 27,000 kilometers of weed-choked canals. They now irrigate tens of thousands of farms. This project has created jobs for more than 100,000 Iraqi men and women.
We have restored over three-quarters of pre-war telephone services. There are 4,900 full-service internet connections. We expect 50,000 by January first.
95 percent of all pre-war bank customers have service and first-time customers are opening accounts daily. Iraqi banks are making loans to finance businesses. The central bank is fully independent. Iraq has a single, unified currency for the first time in 15 years.
There is no Ministry of Information. Foreign journalists aren't on 10-day visas paying mandatory and extortionate fees to the Ministry of Information for “minders” and other government spies. There are more than 170 newspapers. Satellite dishes are legal.
Shia religious festivals that were all but banned, aren't. For the first time in 35 years, in Karbala thousands of Shiites celebrate the pilgrimage of the 12th Imam.
A nation that had not one single element—legislative, judicial or executive-- of a representative government, does. Today in Iraq - chambers of commerce, business, school and professional organizations are electing their leaders all over the country. 25 ministers, selected by the most representative governing body in Iraq’s history, run the day-to-day business of government. In Baghdad alone residents have selected 88 advisory councils. Baghdad’s first democratic transfer of power in 35 years happened when the city council elected its new chairman.
The Iraqi government now regularly participates in international events. Since July the Iraqi government has been represented in over two dozen international meetings, including those of the UN General Assembly, the Arab League, the World Bank and IMF and, today, the Islamic Conference Summit. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced that it is reopening over 30 Iraqi embassies around the world.
The Coalition has completed over 13,000 reconstruction projects, large and small, as part of a strategic plan for the reconstruction of Iraq.
To put the cost of the Iraqi war and reconstruction into perspective consider that:
During World War I the United States paid a total (in modern dollars) of $577 billion for only 18 months of conflict in Europe. And during our four years of involvement in the Second World War, the United States government (again, in terms of modern dollars) spent nearly $5 trillion in the fight against the Axis powers.
An $87 billion supplemental appropriations request has recently been submitted to Congress by President Bush. Critics feel that we've spent too much money and accomplished too little during our first eight months in Iraq. We have to consider, though, whether there is any cost too great in the pursuit of a world free from terror and despotism.
f. Forgetting the bullshit Blair laid out with his "45 minutes until the end of the world", we heard about the unmanned drones from Iraq that were going to fly over the Atlantic ocean to drop WMD all over the US.
Forget about the fact that the Justice Deparment, for over 2 years now, has yet to convict ONE person of charges of domestic terrorism they have brought to trial.
If you want to believe the war was about terrorism, sobeit. There was much, much more to it. The 9/11 incident just gave them something to hang their hat on.
I assume that you are referring to this…
"Revealed: the Iraqi colonel who told MI6 that Saddam could launch WMD within 45 minutes"
Who knows? I never heard any stories about drones flying across the Atlantic.
The root cause of international terrorism is the totalitarian forms of governments prevalent in the Middle East - that oppress their people, robs their freedoms, and corrupts their minds with a distorted form of Islam that incites them, from cradle to grave, to hate Jews, to hate America, and to hate the West. These terrorist states use the schools, mosques and the state controlled media to perpetuate this hatred.
As I wrote in an earlier post:
"Ultimately many Americans, tired of living in a world that accepts the inevitability of terrorism, are ready to try a new tack. One that recognizes that the evil that emanates from the Mid-East is not predicated on religion but government. If the (forcible) introduction of new institutions and methodologies provides an opportunity, however slim, to fundamentally change the culture of intolerance that is so pervasive to Arab orthodoxy; then that is a risk worth taking. To do otherwise is to consign an entire region to a continuation of totalitarianism - and introduce to the world a new generation of hate."
But why war in Iraq? Because it strategically borders the three biggest state sponsors of international terrorism in the world – Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran, and because the war on terrorism cannot be won unless all three are forced to clean up their acts. Let the remainder of the world believe what they want to believe, we have a war to win.