I provided the answer to that question in the second paragraph of my last post. All four of the arguments to which I made reference from the War Resolution, presented to Congress by the Bush Administration, were true; and all were verified by the 9/11 Commission.

Please read the War Resolution that was passed by Congress, the document that authorized the war in Iraq. After doing so, please read it to those Democratic members of Congress (and their aides and staffers) who apparently signed it without reading it.

That document defined the arguments for the war against the Saddam regime, and I cannot find any mention of WMD in that declaration. I DO find that details of 1) human rights violations, 2) attacks on our planes in the “no-fly” zone, 3) safe haven for terrorists (later confirmed by the 9/11 Commission), and 4) financing of terrorists’ activities were among the many arguments given to justify military actions to remove the Saddam regime.

In my perusal of the document, perhaps I simply overlooked the sole reason (WMDs) many of you conveniently “remember” as Bush’s justification. Someone please help me - point out where the War Resolution used the WMD argument as a primary justification for Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Let’s see … we killed about 1,500 of those non-existent targets in Fallujah while losing 18 of our own. Most of our 18 were killed by “exploding dead bodies,” rigged by those “fearless” Islamo fascists.

1. The burden of proof was on Saddam to prove that he did NOT have WMDs. This he repeatedly refused to do. What was seen by weapons inspectors was deliberately manipulated by Saddam and could not be varified. This defiance, in the face of 14 UN resolutions, continued until he was removed from power, proving among other things how obstelete the UN is. Bush decided the United States would enforce those resolutions because the UN is a useless paper tiger.
The Republicrat’s WMD argument was simple:
Saddam shouldn’t have them.
Saddam won’t prove he doesn’t have them.
Thus there is a risk that he has them - greater than the risks associated with liberating his country from his tyrannical rule.

2. There is a difference between a direct lie and stating your belief and later finding out it is wrong.

Reguardless, my argument is also simple:
The islamo-facists are evil.
The islamo-facists seem to be really angry that we have liberated iraq.
We are still here reguardless.
Thus we must be doing the right things to fight the islamo-facists.

I wouldn’t send close members of the First Family into combat if I were President of the United States for obvious security reasons. What powerful terror videos the islamo-facists could produce with high-profile people like that!

What even greater evils could they purpotrate if we didn’t have people in the world like the Republicans who on some level at least are determined to do what they think is right whether it’s popular or not!

Wait, I take it back. I’d send them to attack France if the need arose. After all, that is one campeign with NO chance of injury or capture whatsoever, unless you’re allergic to flowers.

“What people would not fight an invader in their country?”
Certain Republicans, including unfortunately the President. These foriegn invaders have now been termed “guest workers.” Welcome to the United States of Mexico, amegos.

Why is the resistance growing in popular support among both Shiite and Sunni Muslims everywhere? Because of the stupid policies of George W. Bush, that’s why. Can anyone think of a way to make more enemies? Short of attacking additional innocent countries, we can’t.

The oil is not flowing because there was no plan to quell any insurgency that might arise due to the invasion. Bushies were expecting flowers and kisses not blood and death.
What people would not fight an invader in their country?

The more damage to the infrastructure we cause means more money for bushies. halliburton and co. are happy to contract to rebuild.

Hey, Republicans! If you voted for this war, go fight in it.
By Donald Trader

I’d like to put out an urgent call to Republicans to make sure their sons and daughters volunteer for active military service. Uncle Sam needs you. National Guard and Army Reserve recruitment is falling short by some 50%, and it’s getting tougher and tougher for the Marines, the Army and the other services to get the kind of recruit they want. Wait a minute – the Marines and the Army ought to be flooded with volunteers!

I know that George Bush ran as a war president, and his main declaration was that he would stay the course in Iraq and Afghanistan, and wherever he felt military intervention was required. He held one crowded and cheering rally after another on this theme all across the United States, including Tennessee. I saw all those good people on TV waving their American flags and doing high fives. I read many letters in this very newspaper supporting the war, including some from students of fighting age.

Some 59,000,000 Americans voted for George Bush and the Republicans. That includes the majority of the people in Tennessee. So why are we short of recruits to fight in Iraq? We ought to be inundated with enthusiastic volunteers. Tomorrow morning, I’d like to see 59,000,000 SUV’s pulling up in front of Marine Corps and Army enlistment offices. I see Tax Cut Hummers full of happy families, including healthy looking young people, whizzing by U.S. recruitment offices, and I wonder what the problem is: brake failure every time you get close to signing up to fight in a war you supported for a President you elected?

Now if you’re a young Republican who hates taxes and supports the war in Iraq, you can’t get away any longer with a ridiculous yellow ribbon on the back of your car. You’re going to have to pay for the war, and you’re going to have to fight in it. Who did you think was going to do that, if not you? Democrats?

I’ll volunteer to drive busloads of young Republican volunteers to their first military basic training session after they enlist. And there should be a huge number of volunteers; I don’t think Republicans are cowardly blowhards like most Democrats. Otherwise, I’m sorry to say, I’m going to tell my Congressman Lincoln Davis that we need a military draft in this country. The reason is simple: we need to hold people accountable for what they do, and it’s time for Republicans to go face combat and support their Commander in Chief. You voted for it. Now go get in it.

Comment by chimpy — January 10, 2005 @ 2:47 pm

——————————————————————————–

“Afghanistan was retalitory, they harbored Al queda,saddam did not.”
I’ve heard that the 9-11 Commission Report said that Saddam did have links to Al queda, but not in connection with 9-11.
Not that it particularly matters, because the fact that terrorists are flocking to iraq from around the world shows that they CLEARLY DON’T LIKE OUR BEING THERE, which seems to me a plenty good reason to stay.

“The Islamo fascists do not appear to be at all scared. They have many targets while we have none.”
I wouldn’t be scared of the French strategy either.

What an ass we have for president. He alone should be able to clear Iraq of a handful of insurgents.

You are right. I dont give a crap about saddam and what he did to his people in his country. They have been killing each other since time began and will continue to do so w/wo US being in Iraq.

“It IS irrational to believe that “the enemy is not in Iraq, he is in the white house”
GWB and his policies put US in Iraq.
We will soon have more Americans killed in Iraq then were killed on 9/11.

“Who is encouraging the enemy? Who was it said “Bring ‘Em On?” ”
GWB on July 2,2003
“Anybody who wants to harm American troops will be found and brought to justice,” Bush said. “There are some that feel like if they attack us that we may decide to leave prematurely. They don’t understand what they are talking about if that is the case. Let me finish. There are some who feel like the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is, bring ‘em on.”
What an arrogant ASS!

“This is a war about TERRORISM. The winner will be whoever is able to terrify their enemies the most without being terrified themselves”
This war has nothing to do with terrorism. There were no terrorists in Iraq til we invaded.They are now flocking to Iraq from around the world because it is easier to kill Americans now that we are in their neck of the woods. Afghanistan was retalitory, they harbored Al queda,saddam did not. The Islamo fascists do not appear to be at all scared. They have many targets while we have none.

“Was Iraq responsible for 9-11?
Does Iraq have WMD?
Do you feel safer now that Saddam is behind bars?
Did you feel he was a threat to the American way of life?
How many Americans had Saddam killed before the war?”
Maybe.
Maybe.
Yes.
Yes.
I’m not sure, but look who’s inferring that Americans are more important that other people now!

“It is not irrational for me to feel the way I do about this administration. My country is being led in the wrong direction on many issues.”
It is not irrational to feel that your country is being led in the wrong direction on many issues. That is legitemate disagreement. It is the foundation of democracy that good and honest men will sometimes disagree.
It IS irrational to believe that “the enemy is not in Iraq, he is in the white house.”

“Who is encouraging the enemy? Who was it said “Bring ‘Em On?” ”
John Flip-flop Kerry. Don’t you remember him saying “Bring it on!” ?
If that had been directed at the enemy, with the intent of demoralizing him, perhaps that would have scored Mr. Kerry some points with me. Just the opposite was the case throughout the campeign.

This is a war about TERRORISM. The winner will be whoever is able to terrify their enemies the most without being terrified themselves.

It was the enemy who started this war on this terrain. (terrorism) Bush’s claim that the war in afghanistan was pre-emptive was crap - this is a retalitory war. The reason Reagan was able to win the Cold War without a shot fired was because he was able to terrify the whole world into thinking he was about to authorize a nuclear apocolypse if he spills his drink on the Button. This terrified the commies, and PREVENTED a nuclear apocolypse. The warhawk strategy this time is to use this same strategy of psychological warfare to SCARE the islamo-facists into realizing that Nobody Messes with the US.

Was Iraq responsible for 9-11?
Does Iraq have WMD?
Do you feel safer now that Saddam is behind bars?
Did you feel he was a threat to the American way of life?
How many Americans had Saddam killed before the war?

Who is encouraging the enemy? Who was it said “Bring ‘Em On?”

Comment by BikeWriter — December 22, 2004 @ 3:48 am