I listened to Bush's speech this morning. I think he made the case for renewed weapons inspections. I don't think he made a case for regime change. This is a big leap in international policy and he needed to be more persuasive in convincing the world that the threat is imminent, real and a the basis to overthrow a government.

What is this "he didn't make the case" crap? You guys act like we're talking about Marcia Clark at the OJ trial. Saying "Bush didn't make the case" is just a wussy-assed way of not actually taking a stand on the war, especially for Democrats up for election this year.

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
What is this "he didn't make the case" crap? You guys act like we're talking about Marcia Clark at the OJ trial. Saying "Bush didn't make the case" is just a wussy-assed way of not actually taking a stand on the war, especially for Democrats up for election this year.

---

Or perhaps its an honest difference of opinion.

[quote]Originally posted by RazorbackTX:


Or perhaps its an honest difference of opinion.

---

But there's no "opinion," Raze, that's the point. "Bush needs to make the case" is not taking a stand one way or the other. It's an evasion of an opinion, and an undefined standard that can be changed at any given moment to indicate a failure on Bush's part without putting oneself in the politically risky proposition of actually having an original thought. People who say "Bush needs to make the case" can then turn around and say Bush didn't make the case without actually saying what the case is, since I don't think anybody alleges Saddam is some sort of peacemonger. Do we need footage of him kicking puppies and knocking down old ladies? An actual demo of his nuclear weapons? Is there a quota of U.S. civilian casualties that must met before this mythical case is made? "The case" by its very nature is undefined, because Bush has to make it, and he will not have made it until the people who want him to make the case decide he has made the case, and they have a political stake in him not making the case.

I read the text of Bush's speech, and am convinced that Hussein is thumbing his nose at the UN, the US, and the rest of the world. He has not complied with one single UN resolution to end sanctions, or with one single term of the end of the Gulf War. We can't believe a single damn thing that comes from the Hussein government. A regime change is justified.

Edited to add -- To sum up the jist of Bush's speech as I understood it: Saddam Hussein himself has "made the case" for a regime change.

[ September 12, 2002: Message edited by: maxallen ]

Really, I think the only alternative to a full-fledged invasion of Iraq is to put Florida voters and election officials in charge of Saddam's nuclear arsenal. That way it will just stop working and the Iraqi threat will be limited.

Bush set himself up as the Prosecutor and the analogy is appropriate.

By the way, may I remind you that we are not talking about a legal case. We are about to put thousands of people in harms way, to embark on a commitment that could last quite a while, that will have serious implications for the US economy, and could destabilize a region that is profoundly anti-American.

Damn right we need BETTER EVIDENCE to support this. This is not a Democratic or Republican issue.

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
the only alternative to a full-fledged invasion of Iraq is to put Florida voters and election officials in charge of Saddam's nuclear arsenal.

---

LOL! but knowing how imcompetent they've been -- they're likely to push the wrong button -- and instead of voting for Buchanan instead of Gore, they'll blow the whole planet up!

I haven't read or heard the speech, so I have no comment on whether Bush did what was necessary or not. However, William1865, as far "It's an evasion of an opinion, and an undefined standard that can be changed at any given moment to indicate a failure on Bush's part without putting oneself in the politically risky proposition of actually having an original thought," welcome to the wonderful world of politics. As practiced in the modern world, it's the game of making the other guy look bad while not getting any of his egg on your face. But beyond that, Bush wasn't making a speech to Americans. He wasn't announcing policy. The purpose of this speech was to convince the world community that American policy in regard to Iraq was in their best interest and that following our lead would bring about a safer, saner world. Either he did that or he did not. i haven't seen the international response yet, but the success of the speech hinges entirely on that response.

To win over leftists, Bush should probably offer evidence that Saddam doesn't have child safety locks on his guns, missles, weapons of mass destruction, etc. Just imagine: a Million Mom March into Baghdad!

[quote]Originally posted by jqueer:
The purpose of this speech was to convince the world community that American policy in regard to Iraq was in their best interest and that following our lead would bring about a safer, saner world.

---

As though the "world community" has never heard of Saddam Hussein, or just can't comprehend the threat Iraq's weapons of mass destruction pose to a "safer, saner world." As I said, the point of all this is foot-dragging - whiny Euros and their ilk just want to delay any action by insisting that they'd just love to bomb Iraq, really they would, but some mythical, undefined case just hasn't been made. Maybe if a few thousand more Americans die Bush will be allowed to proceed to closing arguments.

Lest we forget...

The Politics and Religion forum, which was created with all the best intentions, seems to have become an forum for name calling and insult- hurling. Instead of intelligently discussing some very important issues, many (and by many, I mean most) of the posters to these topics choose to make fun of each others grammar and spelling, each others political affiliations and so on. Its one thing to let everyone know your feelings or beliefs. Its quite another to slam someone else for theirs, especially in the tenor it seems to be happening with more and more frequency.

Just because ignoring Saddam Hussien will inevitably lead to a cataclysm of violence and destruction, does not mean tha the Bush administrations chosen path is either wise, or will even prevent such a cataclysm. That's what Bush has to prove to world. Not that action is needed, but that his particular vision of action is the best path. Making it a choice between nothing and what Bush wants, as his toadies constantly do in the news, is a strawman argument of thw worst sort. On top of that we have the roiling underbelly of this administration that has made it clear that there is dissent even within the executive branch as to whether the current path is the best one. If Bush would simply acknowledge and respect legitimate dissent within his administration, much less among world leaders, he would be far better positioned to view the situation from the permanent seat he has taken on a very high moral horse.

Whose your daddy?
Another very interesting take on this whole situation...
http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/2002091...11/4437020s.htm

[ September 12, 2002: Message edited by: RazorbackTX ]

[quote]Originally posted by RazorbackTX:
Whose your daddy?
Another very interesting take on this whole situation...
http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/2002091...11/4437020s.htm

[ September 12, 2002: Message edited by: RazorbackTX ]

---

Thanks for posting this RazorbackTX. One of many telling quotes from it:

"''The decision-making process . . . bypassed much of the intelligence community and many people in the U.S. Central Command as well as the normal national security process,'' says Anthony Cordesman, a veteran Mideast military expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. 'As a result, it has never achieved any clear consensus within the administration, and there has been nothing approaching coherent public diplomacy to convince our allies.'"

This is an ill-conceived, ill-thought-out war that will do great damage to our coalition against Al-Qaeda and other Islamic terrorists. It's like that IDIOTIC missile shield fixation Bush and company had before 9/11. All the signs were there for a conventional attack by water (as in Yemen) or car bombs (WTC 93, Kenya, Tanzania) or even these airplain attacks. But no, Bush was fixated on missile shields. We couldn't even scramble fighter jets fast enough to protect the PENTAGON!!!

There is no justification for this war. Saddam has violated UN mandates, but who appointed the U.S. as the UN's enforcer? We have not even stabilized the situation in Afghanistan yet. North Korea, which is far more politically psychotic, has weapons of mass destruction (NUCLEAR weapons, very likely)--are we going to take them out too? Are we going to really create a Marshall plan for Iraq and the rest of the Middle East if there are revolts in Jordan, Syria and Egypt, or are we going to try to do this on the cheap and let things founder?

Bush's unpersuasive speech convinced me only that he is so fixated on this that he and his hawks are going to order it no matter what the international community does or says. If they say no, he's let them know he's going ahead with it. If they say yes, then all the better. Whether or not we have proof about weapons of mass destruction (which just keeps getting bandied about without any discussion or clarification, because if you say something enough quite a few people will start believing it) in Iraq, Bush is set to go.

This is really about the hawks, most of whom NEVER served this country in any military capacity, avenging Bush I, gaining access to Iraq's oil, taking the focus OFF the increasingly difficult hunt for Al-Qaeda (which supposedly has set up shop in southeast Asia, Iran, and some African countries, as well as in norther Iraq), and diverting American voters from thinking about the sorry state of the economy. I'm a strong supporter of Israel, but I have to say that I don't doubt Sharon has made some kind of deal with Bush about what he'll do in the event of a U.S. strike.

I just hope that if this does come to pass, Musharraf can hold on in Pakistan, which DOES have nuclear weapons--because if the Islamic fundamentalists get control there, unlike in Iran or Saudi Arabia or Egypt, they'll have the means to attack not only the U.S., but also launch mass destruction upon India, Israel, Bangladesh, and any other countries they want to subjugate--that is, as Pakistan is wiped off the face of the earth.

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
What is this "he didn't make the case" crap? You guys act like we're talking about Marcia Clark at the OJ trial. Saying "Bush didn't make the case" is just a wussy-assed way of not actually taking a stand on the war, especially for Democrats up for election this year.

---

Also, some prominent Republicans, including one with military credentials, Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, has come out against rushing into this. As someone said of that fanatic Richard Perle, let him be among the first troops to march into Iraq!

[quote]Originally posted by fantomas:


Also, some prominent Republicans, including one with military credentials, Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, has come out against rushing into this. As someone said of that fanatic Richard Perle, let him be among the first troops to march into Iraq!

---

First, just because you served in the military doesn't automatically make your opinions on foreign policy and national security beyond criticism. I mean, pilots know a lot more than I do about airplanes, but think about how many plane crashes have been caused by pilot error. Just because you're an expert or have experience in a particular field doesn't make you right all the time. (Plus, any media-hungry Republican knows the best way to get prime coverage on tv, in newspapers, etc. is to oppose President Bush on something.)

"Let Richard Perle be the first..." This sentimental idea that people who are actually going to fight - what? I'm not even sure I understand the point of that, besides making it possible for people completely lacking in anything resembling balls to call Mr. Perle a coward because as a man who I assume to be at least in his late forties, probably in his fifties, possibly even in his sixties, he has the gall to just map out strategy as opposed to actually fighting. At any rate, should soldiers decide where and when we attack, since they have to do the attacking? Are people not currently serving on active duty in the military disqualified from having a view on the war? By that logic, should only police officers be allowed to have an opinion on police brutality, etc.? I mean after all, none of us (except for Copman) are out there on the streets putting our lives in danger. Who are we to say when a suspect should be beaten and when he shouldn't? We're not going to die one way or the other, so who are we to judge?

But if it makes you feel any better, I would go and fight in Iraq if I had to. I wouldn't mention that I'm gay, of course, but I would definitely serve my country if need be.

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
What is this "he didn't make the case" crap? You guys act like we're talking about Marcia Clark at the OJ trial. Saying "Bush didn't make the case" is just a wussy-assed way of not actually taking a stand on the war, especially for Democrats up for election this year.

---

Shrub hasnt even made the case within his own party or his own administration. There are many republicans doubting him - Dick Armey, Chuck Hagel, not to mention many of his Poppy's advisors such as James Baker, Lawerence Eagleburger ect. Colin Powell isnt exactly onboard either.

Some questions posed by a U.S. Congressman. Pretty interesting, and W. should be asking and answering them, as should the American people and our elected representatives. We didn't elect many of the HAWKS (Perle, Wolfowitz, etc.) to do anything.

Questions That Won't Be Asked
About Iraq - Rep Ron Paul
Congressman Ron Paul U.S. House of Representatives
9-12-2

Soon we hope to have hearings on the pending war with Iraq. I am concerned there are some questions that won't be asked- and maybe will not even be
allowed to be asked. Here are some questions I would like answered by those who are urging us to start this war.

1. Is it not true that the reason we did not bomb the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War was because we knew they could retaliate?

2. Is it not also true that we are willing to bomb Iraq now because we know it cannot retaliate- which just confirms that there is no real threat?

3. Is it not true that those who argue that even with inspections we cannot be sure that Hussein might be hiding weapons, at the same time imply that we can be more sure that weapons exist in the absence of inspections?

4. Is it not true that the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency was able to complete its yearly verification mission to Iraq just this year with Iraqi cooperation?

5. Is it not true that the intelligence community has been unable to develop a case tying Iraq to global terrorism at all, much less the attacks on the United States last year? Does anyone remember that 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and that none came from Iraq?

6. Was former CIA counter-terrorism chief Vincent Cannistraro wrong when he recently said there is no confirmed evidence of Iraq's links to terrorism?

7. Is it not true that the CIA has concluded there is no evidence that a Prague meeting between 9/11 hijacker Atta and Iraqi intelligence took place?

8. Is it not true that northern Iraq, where the administration claimed al-Qaeda were hiding out, is in the control of our "allies," the Kurds?

9. Is it not true that the vast majority of al-Qaeda leaders who escaped appear to have safely made their way to Pakistan, another of our so-called allies?

10. Has anyone noticed that Afghanistan is rapidly sinking into total chaos, with bombings and assassinations becoming daily occurrences; and that according to a recent UN report the al-Qaeda "is, by all accounts, alive and well and poised to strike again, how, when, and where it chooses"

11. Why are we taking precious military and intelligence resources away from tracking down those who did attack the United States- and who may again attack the United States- and using them to invade countries that have not attacked the United States?

12. Would an attack on Iraq not just confirm the Arab world's worst suspicions about the US- and isn't this what bin Laden wanted?

13. How can Hussein be compared to Hitler when he has no navy or air force, and now has an army 1/5 the size of twelve years ago, which even then proved totally inept at defending the country?

14. Is it not true that the constitutional power to declare war is exclusively that of the Congress? Should presidents, contrary to the
Constitution, allow Congress to concur only when pressured by public opinion? Are presidents permitted to rely on the UN for permission to go to war?

15. Are you aware of a Pentagon report studying charges that thousands of Kurds in one village were gassed by the Iraqis, which found no conclusive evidence that Iraq was responsible, that Iran occupied the very city involved, and that evidence indicated the type of gas used was more likely controlled by Iran not Iraq?

16. Is it not true that anywhere between 100,000 and 300,000 US soldiers have suffered from Persian Gulf War syndrome from the first Gulf War, and that thousands may have died?

17. Are we prepared for possibly thousands of American casualties in a war against a country that does not have the capacity to attack the United States?

18. Are we willing to bear the economic burden of a $100 billion dollar war against Iraq, with oil prices expected to skyrocket and further rattle an
already shaky American economy? How about an estimated 30 years occupation of Iraq that some have deemed necessary to "build democracy" there?

19. Iraq's alleged violations of UN resolutions are given as reason to initiate an attack, yet is it not true that hundreds of UN Resolutions have
been ignored by various countries without penalty?

20. Did former President Bush not cite the UN Resolution of 1990 as the reason he could not march into Baghdad, while supporters of a new attack assert that it is the very reason we can march into Baghdad?

21. Is it not true that, contrary to current claims, the no-fly zones were set up by Britain and the United States without specific approval from the United Nations?

22. If we claim membership in the international community and conform to its rules only when it pleases us, does this not serve to undermine our position, directing animosity toward us by both friend and foe?

23. How can our declared goal of bringing democracy to Iraq be believable when we prop up dictators throughout the Middle East and support military tyrants like Musharraf in Pakistan, who overthrew a democratically-elected president?

24. Are you familiar with the 1994 Senate Hearings that revealed the U.S. knowingly supplied chemical and biological materials to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war and as late as 1992- including after the alleged Iraqi gas attack on a Kurdish village?

25. Did we not assist Saddam Hussein's rise to power by supporting and encouraging his invasion of Iran? Is it honest to criticize Saddam now for his invasion of Iran, which at the time we actively supported?

26. Is it not true that preventive war is synonymous with an act of aggression, and has never been considered a moral or legitimate US policy?

27. Why do the oil company executives strongly support this war if oil is not the real reason we plan to take over Iraq?

28. Why is it that those who never wore a uniform and are confident that they won't have to personally fight this war are more anxious for this war than our generals?

29. What is the moral argument for attacking a nation that has not
initiated
aggression against us, and could not if it wanted?

30. Where does the Constitution grant us permission to wage war for any reason other thanself-defense?

31. Is it not true that a war against Iraq rejects the sentiments of the time-honored Treaty of Westphalia, nearly 400 years ago, that countries
should never go into another for the purpose of regime change?

32. Is it not true that the more civilized a society is, the less likely disagreements will be settled by war?

33. Is it not true that since World War II Congress has not declared war and- not coincidentally- we have not since then had a clear-cut victory?

34. Is it not true that Pakistan, especially through its intelligence services, was an active supporter and key organizer of the Taliban?

35. Why don't those who want war bring a formal declaration of war resolution to the floor of Congress?

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2...02/cr091002.htm

[quote]Originally posted by RazorbackTX:


Shrub hasnt even made the case within his own party or his own administration. There are many republicans doubting him - Dick Armey, Chuck Hagel, not to mention many of his Poppy's advisors such as James Baker, Lawerence Eagleburger ect. Colin Powell isnt exactly onboard either.

---

Here is a look at the "divisions" among Republican ranks. Raze, I had no idea you were such a Dick Armey fan.

Fictional Rift

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:


Here is a look at the "divisions" among Republican ranks. Raze, I had no idea you were such a Dick Armey fan.

Fictional Rift

---

Have you been hitting the bottle with the Tequila Twins this morning??!! What makes you think Im a fan of Dick Armey?

Just because I mention someones name does not make me "a fan" of them.

[quote]Originally posted by maxallen:
We can't believe a single damn thing that comes from the Hussein government.

---

If that were the criterion for an INVASION (drop the r.c. euphemism), someone should invade Washington soon... Finland, can you help us?

After taking all I could stomach of the W speech (5 minutes on The Daily Show and C-SPAN), I am adding him to the long list of presidents (and nominees) who say "nucular."

Otherwise, keep enjoying the Administration's fall "product" (as Andrew Card put it with such hubris below) til the door-to-door fighting starts our bloodiest conflict since Vietnam:

Bush Iraq Evidence Lies (Bush Watch)

[quote]Originally posted by RazorbackTX:


Have you been hitting the bottle with the Tequila Twins this morning??!!

---

I wish.

BTW, Ron Paul, of "35 Questions" fame, is a libertarian Republican from the 14th district in Texas. He's also an Air Force veteran.

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." So what's the UN saying here, "What the heck, wanna try for 17 in a row?" How many UN Security Council resolutions has Saddam Hussein violated? Sixteen. And what has the UN done to hold Hussein accountable? For all intents and purposes, nothing ... nothing with teeth anyway.

Hussein has a proven history of using weapons of mass destruction. There is a growing body of evidence that Saddam Hussein is psychologically deranged and extremely dangerous. So Bush basically told the UN to deal with Saddam, or else the US will. I agree with Bush's approach because it's ridiculous that UN weapons inspectors have been barred from Iraq since 1998. The question is whether or not Bush will actually give the UN the time and space necessary to deal with the situation.

Scott Ritter is an interesting character, and I really don't know what to make of him. On one hand, I can't think of what motivation the man would have to lie. Still, even though I want to believe him, after seeing his interviews on CNN and on O'Reilly, I was left with the gnawing feeling that something's not right here. He is so adamant in his claims that Iraq does not possess weapons of mass destruction. Yet how can he be so sure when he hasn't been inside Iraq for four years? Granted, the infrastructure for these weapons was destroyed and it takes a long time to rebuild the necessary infrastructure, but four years is a looooooooooong time. But Ritter's absolute certainty isn't the only thing that troubles me. I can't put my finger on it, but there's just something about this guy that's not right.