When the whole thing started, we weren’t getting all the information. We were told “intelligence” this, “intelligence” that. At that time, I thought, they must know something we don’t or they wouldn’t be so determined to invade. I heard one theory (about why Iraq over someone else)thrown out, by Bush himself I think, that part of the reason was to destabilize this terrorist region of the world. Creating a hole in the regional consistency so to speak. Maybe, maybe not. As Kat said, for every bad some politicians do, there’s usually a good reason. But, With the information we have currently (can’t stress that enough)I agree with Kerry that Bush rushed us into this, and could have done a lot of things a lot better.

As far as the other quotes, I don’t know that they help the case for Bush much, since they were part of the buildup to the bombings that took place from December until May 1999 as part of Desert Fox. The situation to which they pertained no longer existed by 2002, assuming there ever was a real and immediate threat. It’s worth noting that Clinton faced many of the same accusations now leveled against Bush. But the quotes are interesting when you consider that a good portion of the intelligence for the 2002 war was in large part pre-Desert Fox.

The point is that by October 2002 not only had we destroyed our targets only four years earlier, but the weapons inspectors had been allowed back in and they were reporting that there were no weapons. Iraq had not made any move to make itself a threat and it did not appear to be a threat. Given that we KNEW at least two other “axis of evil” countries had WMD, why would we go back into Iraq?

I never said Iraq wasn’t a threat at all. But they were not a “mortal threat” or an “immediate threat” or even a “threat of unique urgency.” The question is, why did Bush et al take such pains to make us believe they were?

“We know that he (Saddam) has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” Al Gore, Sept 23, 2002

“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 Clinton, February 17, 1998

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.” Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” Sen. Ted Kennedy Sept. 27, 2002

“There is 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 we have always underestimated the
progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.” Sen. Jay Rockefeller October 10, 2002

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapon stock, his missile delivery capability, and 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.” Sen. Hillary Clinton Oct 10, 2002

“We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. 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.” Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle,John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

Point: WMD and Iraq, al Qaeda and Iraq, were not original to Bush. The irony that all of these statements were made by democrats is not lost on me either.

Kerry by the way, made excellent statements today in Ohio after the Allawi address. He appeared to legitimately believe what he was saying, and what he was saying was the truth. In contrast to Bush who I think does truly believe what he says, erroneous or not.

Have to address the rest of what you said later.

Which doesn’t mean re-electing the greater evil.

As of April 2001, Iran, Syria, Libya, Cuba, North Korea, and Sudan were all on record as state sponsors of international terrorism. Iran remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism in 2000. According to the Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism, the Iraq regime had not attempted an anti-Western terrorist attack since it failed to assassinate former President Bush in 1993. Iran does have proven WMDs and their missile technology has been largely supplied by Russia, China, and North Korea.

So why did one George W. Bush decide in 2002 to go after Iraq? No weapons had been found. Tales of automated bioweapon-dispensing drones and deals for yellowcake were false (as he was told before he incorporated them into his fear-mongering). There was no proven link between Iraq and al-Qaeda. We had plenty of other legitimate targets if we were really interested in fighting against terrorism or weapons.

We went to war because Bush wanted to go to war and he and his cronies manufactured evidence to get us there. They deliberately exaggerated, ignored evidence, and lied.

August 26, 2002: Dick Cheney: “There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.”

January 9, 2003: Ari Fleischer: “We know for a fact that there are weapons there.”

March 16, 2003: Bush: “He possesses the weapons of mass murder.”

March 18, 2003: Bush: “Intelligence…leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”

March 30, 2003: Donald Rumsfeld: “We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.”

May 29, 2003: Bush: “We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories.”

I agree about the environment being a big difference. I’ve been surprised at how blatantly Bush disregards this area. Be it Bush or Kerry come November, somebody needs to pay attention to this in a global realm considering recently we’ve learned that China is the biggest contributor to the mercury problem that has practically made all fish dangerous to eat. Or so we’ve been made to believe.

I’m very shocked that the environment is really the only difference you see between the candidates. There’s been so much debate on this website, and such vehemence against Bush, I was prepared for an onslaught of reasons to vote for Kerry. Maybe you were holding back

About the “lieing” administration. I’m assuming you’re referring to the WMD. This is just a question. Do you think Bush had information that said Iraq did not have WMD and he invaded anyway? Intelligence pre-invasion said that Iraq appeared to have WMD parts so to speak that were movable on a railway system that moved throughout the country. The feeling was that, the parts were moved in time for U.N. weapons inspections. Is is not feasible, or even remotely possible, that we just haven’t found what we’re looking for? Don’t get me wrong, I of course don’t know whether they’re there or not. We also have to look at the definition of WMD and wonder. When Bush throws that phrase around, I don’t know what he’s specifying (a giant bomb, a bit of plutonium). But, as an example, I think anthrax could produce mass destruction. Do we know if Iraq was working with anthrax? Yes. And consider how long it took us to find Saddam. He wasn’t very far away. We still haven’t found Osama and he’s not very far away either. And he most certainly exists.

I don’t think this can come down to the environment and principle. We all know that every politician lies.

Bush is not the first U.S. president to attack a country “unprovoked.” Kennedy, Bay of Pigs and Vietnam. Truman in Korea. Clinton in Bosnia. None of these countries had attacked us. I’m not saying these were good choices or bad ones. Just something to chew on.

That aside, the only big difference I can see coming from Kerry is better policies on the environment (which is probably more important than the rest combined in the long run, but I’m an admitted cancer-hater). At the moment, both candidates are so busy pandering to the extremes that neither one has bothered to outline an actual legitimate PLAN. Both continue to offer oodles of promises, but with no specifics.

That being so, it appears that who you chose is going to come down to a matter of principle. On one hand you’ve got a Democrat (who was once Republican) without any clear plan. On other, you have an administration that has been proven wrong on, well, everything going into Iraq, which appears more reality-blind every day, and which stands accused of deliberately lying to the world in order to begin an unprovoked, preemptive war on another sovereign nation. And which, incidentally, doesn’t have a clear plan. Given that, it seems to me that allowing an administration that has been so consistently wrong (and so stubborn about admitting it) to “have another shot” is a pretty big gamble. Not to mention morally questionable, assuming they really did lie.

All snide comments aside, I really do want to know the pointed details of how 2006 will look different with Kerry in office than Bush.

b) $119 billion (according to the OMB) is nothing to sneeze at. I can think of several other efforts on which $119 billion could have been better spent than a (contrived) war in Iraq.

c) The military is still getting screwed because we still can’t afford them. Not that anyone cared when we tossed them into Iraq without the proper equipment. After all, we had our tax cuts to keep us happy.