elindholm

Apparently now "we" are going to attack Syria, because of suspicion that they might support Saddam and/or hold chemical weapons. Never mind that the last country suspected of having chemical weapons -- that would be Iraq, for those of you who have already forgotten -- doesn't seem to have had any.

I think removing Saddam from power was a good thing, even though the reasons for it were based on gross distortions of the truth. I really hope Bush can quit while he's ahead, but so far he seems to be addicted to this whole "liberating" thing. I guess it makes him feel powerful. If he insists on trying to take over the entire Middle East, we are in serious trouble.

Brian in Mesa

What gross distortions of the truth? Saddam has not cooperated with 17 UN resolutions in 12 years. The most recent resolution calling for action against Iraq if they failed to comply. There's absolutely no distortion there.

As for Syria, we just pulled two of our carriers from the immediate area...not something we'd do if we were going after them. We'll try diplomacy first. What they've seen in Iraq should make other countries more open to diplomacy...

__________________
HONEY BADGER DON'T CARE

elindholm

What gross distortions of the truth?

The U.S. asserted that Saddam was connected to Al-Qaeda, and implied that Saddam was involved in the September 11 attacks. No concrete evidence to support these assertions has surfaced.

The U.S. also insisted that Saddam was developing chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destruction. Now that the U.S. is free to look wherever it wants in the country, the near total lack of evidence for such a charge is almost comical. The news keeps reporting things like, "a single cannister was found somewhere, and it might have had some potential application as a banned weapon, but gosh, actually we're not really sure." There has been, so far, no "smoking gun" whatsoever.

The administration's propaganda campaign achieved its desired goal, which was to get the U.S. public whipped up into a frenzy over Saddam. Our government did not trust the public to make the "right" decision based on what was actually known, such as the long history of human-rights abuses or the diversion of humanitarian aid from its intended recipients. So far, it looks as though Iraq was complying with the U.N. demand to abandon its WMD programs, so even that charge is looking unfounded.

As I said before, toppling Saddam was a good thing, but it's really too bad that our government lied to us in order to get us to go along. Even if the ends justify the means this time, will the same be true for the next country Bush decides to pick on?

PortlandCardFan

Where in the hell did you read that. I have heard reports of us chastising Syria for harboring Saddams regime. Plus we all know Syria harbors terrorists there as well. But to say we are going after Syria next sounds a bit premature.

Ryanwb

uhh...false The News media reported many times that the US intelligence did not have any evidence, nor did they believe Saddam and Osma Bin Ladin were in cohorts. Where are you getting this crap?

elindholm

But to say we are going after Syria next sounds a bit premature.

Okay, PortlandCardFan, you tell me.

This from CNN:

Secretary of State Colin Powell alluded to "possible measures of a diplomatic, economic or other nature" against Syria.

At the White House, Press Secretary Ari Fleischer declined to say what actions, if any, the United States might take against Syria if it does not "cooperate," but he refused to rule anything out.

...

On Monday, Fleischer quoted from a 2002 public CIA report that Syria "already held nerve gas... but is trying to develop more toxic and persistent nerve agents."

When asked why the White House is raising the issue of chemical weapons development at this point when the information is not new, Fleischer said the administration has for some time been telling Syria through diplomatic channels to "clean up their act."

This sure sounds a lot like the rhetoric that paved the way for the Iraq attack.

elindholm

false The News media reported many times that the US intelligence did not have any evidence, nor did they believe Saddam and Osma Bin Ladin were in cohorts.

Give me a break. White House operatives said over and over again that Iraq "harbors terrorists, such as those from Al-Qaeda who attacked our soil and murdered our people on 9/11." Or words extremely close to that. No, they didn't come right out and say that Saddam did it, because -- as we agree -- there is no evidence for that. But they deliberately created a spurious connection in the minds of the public. You can't possibly deny that.

Ryanwb

http://www.prisonplanet.com/news_ale..._general8.html

This article was written on the subject of misunderstanding of Al Qaeda and Saddam. Bush said Al Qaeda and Saddam are: "equally as bad, equally as evil and equally as destructive" — and that "you can't distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror"

Mike Olbinski

I guess the discovery of tons of chemical suits was just explained to protection against the wicked sand storms they have there?

Mike

__________________
Photography: http://www.mikeolbinski.com
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/mikeolbinski

PortlandCardFan

I mis-read your post. I was assuming you where talking military action. I figured diplomatic action was already written on the wall.

Sorry... my bad

Dback Jon

Bush and Rummy continually pointed to the Al-Queda/Saddam link.
Bush continually used 9/11 as a justification of his decision to attack Iraq.

Like elindholm said, there were many legitimate reasons to attack Iraq, and remove Saddam from power, just not the ones cited by Bush.

__________________



R.I.P Tim Minnick

The KING of Cards

Mike Olbinski

And maybe we're close to finding them now, considering the war has really only been pretty much over the past 4-5 days.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...abs/index.html

I'm sure in those days they've had time to search the ENTIRE country, lol.

Mike

__________________
Photography: http://www.mikeolbinski.com
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/mikeolbinski

Dback Jon

Maybe they will - I don't expect the entire country will be searched for months. But, as a senior Pentagon official said last week, assume any first report is false and has no validity. Any real confirmation will likely take weeks after they have been found.

I am really surprised any general would make any pronouncements anymore, given the false alarms.

__________________



R.I.P Tim Minnick

The KING of Cards

Ryanwb

One more time, they never made this comment publically. Show me a quote where they said this. They may have raised questions about this, but that would have been a natural progression due to Saddam and Al Qaeda having the same thing in common...hating the United States. Read the article I posted above......its speaks on this subject

Dback Jon

From your article:
As the Bush administration works to strengthen support for a war against Iraq, it is sowing a dangerous confusion about the relationship between Al Qaeda and the regime of Saddam Hussein. Arguing, as the president did last week, that the two are "equally as bad, equally as evil and equally as destructive" — and that "you can't distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror" — reinforces widely held misunderstandings about the extraordinary danger of the new religious terrorism.

Bush never did say that "Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 attacks", but the continual linking of Saddam and Al-Queda was deliberate. The White House knows that 9/11 is an issue to inflame Americans, and choose to link Iraq and Al-Queda in as many instances as possible, trying to make Americans think that Al-Queda and Iraq were one and the same.

And for a lot of Americans, it worked. Not the smart ones, but for a lot of Americans.

__________________



R.I.P Tim Minnick

The KING of Cards