Welcome to Gaia! :: View User's Journal | Gaia Journals

Just recently I had an "Argument" on why so many people hated President Bush. The consensus was because we sent troops to Iraq and it was "UNNECESSARY".-.- Unnecessary??? Although I didn't do such a great job debating the issue or should I say
fending off the outnumbered verbal attacks (considering it was 2:00 in the morning) this is my delayed but collected rebuttal.

This shouldn't require one but a short history lesson/reminder is needed to take this one on. In 1991 Sadam invaded and conquered neighboring Kuwait and was feared to have his sights on Saudi Arabia next. Yes this was a war for oil but unlike Sadam we don't steal it we buy it on the open market. There were countless mandates by the U.N. for Iraq to pull out but in the end President George H. Bush ordered a coalition of Nations, led by the U.S., to right this wrong. After almost a year of troop buildups we spent months pulverizing Iraqi positions from the air. In response Iraq fired SCUDS (which are rockets
designed to and are capable of carrying WMD's) into Saudi Arabia and Israel. When the ground campaign finally kicked off everyone was expecting the worse, mass casualties from WMD's, because Sadam had used such weapons before; oil wells were set ablaze, pumping stations dumped millions of gallons of oil into the sea and previously Israel had to destroy a nuclear reactor being built by the French. The war came to an end after the carnage we inflicted was witnessed on TV and America lost its will to conduct this thing called war. President Bush ordered an end to hostilities which were contingent on numerous conditions, the most important were the destruction of all WMD's and verification inspections to be allowed in the future by the U.N. In addition there were no-fly zones to protect the Kurds and neighboring countries. Almost immediately these terms were violated as Iraqi air defense systems regularly engaged our patrolling aircraft. It wasn't long before Sadam began to mess with the UN inspectors then denied them access to anything at all. All these actions were provocation enough to justify finishing the job but President Clinton failed to take decisive action. The only thing decisive President Clinton did was embolden Usama Bin Laden into thinking America was just a paper tiger (lacked the will to fight) by pulling troops out of Somalia after images of dead Americans were shown on TV being dragged naked trough the streets of Mogadishu then hacked to pieces and set ablaze. Is it any wonder that the enemy thinks they can make us lose the will to fight again? And when I say us I mean the citizens, not our service members. It is overlooked that in the face of overwhelming odds our military, consisting of men and women who understand what freedom really is, have triumphed whenever they are allowed to.

This brings us to 911 after which President Bush took action against the government of Afghanistan (The Taliban) for being state sponsors of terrorism. Specifically the terrorist organization founded and funded by Osama Bin Laden, Al-Qaeda, who was operating from Afghanistan. As we all know, this organization upped the ante by attacking our Headquarters of Government, the Military and our Economy (the stock market). Thus the targets of The White House (we suspect), The Pentagon, and The World Trade Center were attacked. Their intent was to cause another 'Great Depression' followed by detonating 10 nuclear devices in a manner that would contaminate the 'bread basket' of the world. Between the U.S. and Canada we feed about 2/3 of the worlds population but in the eyes of these fanatics this would leave America as a nothing and trigger world Chaos. This chaos is known as Armageddon and they believe, along with the fanatics where this Theology originated from (Iran) that this would pave the way for the 12th, and last, eman to come out of hiding and rule the planet in the name of Allah. They believe that they would be the only country with any true power since they would be in control of the only thing with tangible value, OIL! BTW, Iran also states the desire to nuke Israel off the face of the map and openly debates that the Holocaust never happened. Their puppet leader recently prayed for the deliverance of the final eman during the opening of his speech to a session of the UN, yes, right here on our own soil! This is a war declared against us since the 1970’s and we know who the enemy is. Even though they have switched tactics from overt military conflict to covert proxy conflict through terrorism they are still attacking us abroad that is until 911 and we know who they are! Now, in light of what occurred on 911 and knowing that the enemy will use all means at their disposal to destroy us, the Western Free World, and knowing that they have a willing accomplice with a dictator who has risked all in order to obtain WMD's (to destroy Israel and thus be revered as the leader of the Middle East) would anyone really suggest trying to deal this guy. First, lets hear what our friends on the left have said in the past.

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction." -- Madeleine Albright, Clinton's secretary of state, February 1st, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." -- President Bill Clinton, February 17th, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security advisor, February 18th, 1998

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." That from a letter to President Clinton signed by Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, October 9th, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16th, 1998

"Hussein has chosen to spend his money (from oil) on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeleine Albright, Clinton's secretary of state, November 10th, 1999

"We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, September 23rd, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, September 23rd, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of '98. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons." -- Robert Byrd (D-WV) October 3rd, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the president of the US the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Senator John Kerry, October 9th, 2002

"There was unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. We also should remember that we have always underestimated the progress Saddam
has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Senator Jay Rockefeller, October 10th, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including Al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Senator Hillary Clinton, October 10th of 2002

"Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he's miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction." John Kerry, January 23rd, 2003

PRESIDENT BUSH: The only way to make sure our country is secure in the long run is to advance the cause of freedom. We have seen freedom conquer evil and secure the peace before. World War II, free nations came together to fight the ideology of fascism, and freedom prevailed -- and today Germany and Japan are allies in securing the peace. Today in the Middle East, freedom is once again contending with an ideology that seeks to sow anger and hatred and despair -- and like fascism and communism before, the hateful ideologies that use terror will be defeated by the unstoppable power of freedom and democracy...It's what is really at stake and it is why this is going to take awhile and it's what the objective is and that is to establish in that part of the world where there's nothing but a 14th Century mind-set, establish a 21st Century mind-set based on freedom, because we trust free people to act in their own self-interest, we trust free people that they won't become terrorists and murderers and wackos and thugs, dictators, and the like. Much rather trust basic human freedom, and that's what the policy in Iraq is really all about.

Shortly after 9/11 happened, the United States Congress gave the president a resolution that in effect was a blank check; he could launch military action at any time, at any place, on any basis that he found necessary to protect this country. We went in with the democrats and media spouting that we don't have enough forces, comparing to troop levels from Desert Storm, and went in expecting to get hit with WMD's. This means the troops had to wear full protective gear but still managed to achieve a decisive victory and taking more ground faster than any Army had ever done before, to include Patton in WWII. Casualties were even lower than anyone could have dreamed with vast majority having occurred after achieving victory and now confronting insurgents from Iran and Syria. It's down to a guerilla war and they are betting we don't have the stomach to see this through. Just as Vietnam employed, where we never lost a major battle but pulled out from lack of resolve. Just as we did after taking casualties in Somalia but overlooking that those troops overcame unimaginable numbers against them. Our military can prevail but it is our Government and/or citizens that don't seem to be able to see these things through that is disturbing. Even today I hear people complain that we shouldn't be there, we're losing troops. Daah, there is a cost of war and it's not like we want it. I too have a cousin shipping out in May and I fear for his safety but why dishonor men like him and those who have lost their lives because we can't face the harsh realities of war. Why is there so much hatred for one man, our President, that we allow this to polarize us to the point that politics prevent us from destroying those who are so open about destroying us. Why now claim things like Bush lied or stole the election(s)?

Robert Kagan did a piece and he went back and looked at all the media coverage from the same years that Democrats were talking, '98, '99, 2000, 2001, 2002; the media was saying the same things these people are saying. So if Bush lied, Clinton had to lie. If Clinton was lying, the media had to know it was lies. If only Bush was lying, nobody else was lying before him but everybody was saying the same thing. How do you explain your consistency on this issue for five years prior to Bush, three years prior to him even assuming office? Lets just suppose Bush lied about everything. Suppose that there was no intelligence suggesting Iraq and Saddam were looking for weapons of mass destruction or ever had them. What then? Has anybody heard a plan from the Democrats as to what to do next? If we get the world to admit, "Okay, Bush lied," then what? Well, you impeach Bush, but then what? Well, there's nothing, because they have no plan. They don't dare have a plan. They don't even know what their plan is. Their plan is one thing: getting rid of Bush and getting back in power. They don't have any other plan, they don't have any leadership ideas. They don't have any substance. They don't dare debate on substance. It's just get rid of Bush. It's get their government back. They had it for 40 years. "It's not right. It's not fair. It was stolen from us! They cheated us out of the election in 2000 and 2004 with voting machines, and people who are mean!" They're probably even mad that their illegally registered voters don't get to vote anymore. They're mad the dead in Chicago don't get to count anymore. The deck is stacked against them. They used to run this. It was theirs by birthright. It was theirs by entitlement, and it's been stolen! It's been taken away and the last thing they're going to do is look at themselves and say, "Maybe we're not appealing to the people on the basis of who we are, what we believe. "No, can't possibly be their fault. They're too arrogant, and they're living in their false reality.

You think Bush lied? Chew on this.

-ABC News: "New Documents from Saddam Hussein's Archives Discuss Bin Laden, WMDs. Following are the ABC News Investigative

Unit's summaries of four of the nine Iraqi documents from Saddam Hussein's government, which were released by the U.S. government Wednesday. The documents discuss Osama bin Laden, weapons of mass destruction, al Qaeda and more. The full
documents can be found on the U.S. Army Foreign Military Studies Office Web site," and they give that web address." They say, "The document titles for the purpose of this story were added by ABC News."


-Lieutenant General Thomas McInerney said this: "[M]y personal opinion is, I think the fact is that the Russians moved large stocks of weapons of mass destruction out of Baghdad and Iraq in the fall of 2002. We've all heard what General Sada, the Iraqi defector said. He said that they went into three locations in Syria and one location in the Bekaa Valley, and if you get in there and if you found those weapons and found the precursors, the fingerprints would go back to Russia, China and France." Those are the three countries that had the most conventional weapon sales to Saddam Hussein. We've done an inventory on that, so that's public, and I believe they were complicit, so I don't think the administration wants to trash three of the five members of this Security Council." Let me translate. What McInerney is saying is what a number of people think. Those weapons were there and they were moved out by the Russians and by the French, by the Chinese, primarily the Russians providing most of the actual manpower and equipment to do it. They were moved to Syria, Bekaa Valley and three other locations. China and France and Russia -- we all know this from the oil-for-food program, by the way -- were all engaged in selling large stockpiles of conventional weapons to Saddam and in some cases some people think maybe weapons that could be converted to the so-called biological or chemical weapons of mass destruction. But McInerney says I just don't think this administration is going to force the issue because he doesn't want to accuse three of our allies on the Security Council of being complicit here.


-WORLD TRIBUNE.COM:
Friday, June 11, 2004
The United Nations has determined that Saddam Hussein shipped weapons of mass destruction components as well as medium-range ballistic missiles before, during and after the U.S.-led war against Iraq in 2003.

-WALL STREET JOURNAL.COM:
Roadside Sarin The WMD we haven't found is still a threat.
Tuesday, May 18, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT
Yesterday's report that a roadside bomb containing sarin nerve agent exploded recently near a U.S. convoy in Baghdad isn't impressing most of the press corps. They're dismissing it as no big deal--though we'd guess it was a rather large event for
the two U.S. explosives experts lucky enough to escape with only minor exposure. Along with VX nerve gas, sarin is among the deadliest chemical toxins around. That it has now been used by our enemies in one of their improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, is at least notable as a reminder that we still don't know what happened to Saddam's WMD. We should want to solve this mystery before it turns up in other weapons targeting Americans, whether in Iraq or elsewhere. The media all but closed the books on the WMD story once it wasn't found in "stockpiles" quickly enough to vindicate the Bush
Administration's case before the U.N. But even former U.N. inspector Hans Blix concedes that Saddam had large amounts of chemical and biological toxin in the 1990s. Their whereabouts today isn't just a who-got-it-wrong political issue but is, more urgently, a military problem. Mr. Blix seems ready to believe that Saddam destroyed them all himself--which is hardly reassuring given the former dictator's record. We'd put more stock in Gazi George, a former Iraqi nuclear scientist under Saddam, who told Fox News that he believes the weapons were either buried underground or transported to Syria. Saddam and his henchmen buried tanks, and even fighter aircraft, so it's easy to believe they were willing to hide barrels of gas or liquid under the sand. Keep in mind that, before the Iraq War began, U.S. commanders feared Iraqi use of chemical and biological toxins so much that they required chemical suits for their invading troops. To our knowledge, none were ever used. But given that U.S. strategists suspect that the regime and the Special Republican Guard deliberately melted away without a fight in order to re-form as an insurgency, it is certainly possible that they will use WMD munitions now. "I'm sure they're going to find more once time passes," Mr. George says. U.S. forces also confirmed yesterday that two weeks ago WMD hunters discovered Iraqi insurgents with a shell that contained mustard gas. Tests found the gas inert. But U.S.
officials believe it was one of 550 such shells that Saddam possessed without disclosing before the war, notwithstanding Mr. Blix's pleading then and his assertions now.

-Reading from unclassified portions of a document developed by the U.S. intelligence community, Santorum said, 'Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent.
"Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist.' According to Santorum, 'That means in addition to the 500, there are filled and unfilled munitions still believed to exist within the country.' Reading from the document, Santorum added, 'Pre-Gulf War Iraqi chemical weapons could be sold on the Black Market. Use of these weapons by terrorist or insurgent groups would have implications for coalition forces in Iraq. The possibility of use outside of Iraq cannot be ruled out."

-The UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission briefed the Security Council on new findings that could help trace the whereabouts of Saddam's missile and WMD program. The briefing contained satellite photographs that demonstrated the speed
with which Saddam dismantled his missile and WMD sites before and during the war. Council members were shown photographs of a ballistic missile site outside Baghdad in May 2003, and then saw a satellite image of the same location in February 2004, in which facilities had disappeared.

-Though it gets little attention, the Iraq Survey Group that is searching for WMD has also found warehouses full of commercial and agricultural chemicals. Mixed and packaged properly, those could quickly become chemical weapons, and Saddam had no legitimate need for so much pesticide. Survey Group head Charles Duelfer has testified to Congress that Saddam had built new facilities and stockpiled the raw materials that would have allowed him to produce such weapons on a moment's notice once the international pressure was off. Insight magazine also reported this month that, in Karbala in central Iraq, U.S. forces found 55-gallon drums of pesticide, some of which were stored in a "camouflaged bunker complex." The alleged agricultural site just happened to be located alongside a military ammunition dump.

Rush Limbaugh: "The attack on 9/11 was not an attack on America, and the attack on London is not an attack on London. This is an attack on Western Civilization, and they are going to continue until everybody that's opposed these kinds of attacks unites and gets together and fights this as it should be fought. We've got too much dissension in the ranks. We've got too much political partisanship going on -- not just in this country but around the world -- and there are too many people taking too many actions that encourage the kind of thing that happened in London." "The reason the world hates us comes down to economics. The nations of the earth that have been around for thousands of years are simply jealous of the United States because it has only been around about 225 years, and yet it's so far ahead in any way you want to measure it - economically,
culturally, and spiritually. There is a deep resentment as a result of this success.” Yes, liberals dread and despise American power. Never less, it is American power that will save them. God bless America." sweatdrop stare