Originally posted by geeogree

---

Wurl: but did he actually lie? have any of you had the chance to look at the intelligence reports that were used to decide on this war? probably not. and if Bush was lying about WMD's in Iraq then Clinton did too.

---

Originally posted by geeogree

---

okay, maybe this will get my point across better....

[edit] check this out too http://www.commentarymagazine.com/Production/files/podhoretz1205advance.html [/edit]




Iraq - The Politics of Pulling Out

Reprinted with permission from Doug Edelman

With polls showing support for the war in Iraq declining, and President Bush's personal popularity in a tailspin - it has suddenly become fashionable to be anti-war. (At least for those whose politics are blown by the winds of "fashion".)

Much has been made of the call by Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania for withdrawal of our troops, as though the Administration had lost some sort of Democratic ally... but Murtha's been opposed to Iraq for years... it's not news. The "no WMD" argument is weakening, in the light of finding 1.77 tons of enriched Uranium, 1700 gallons of chemical agents, Sarin-filled artillery shells etc. (Ok, we haven't found a nuke, or bio-weapon ready to launch… but if I may borrow a point from my favorite radio personality, Randy Tobler… Those same Liberals that defend evolution against Intelligent Design stating the the "missing links" just haven't been found yet; these are the very same Liberals that accept a PRESUMPTION that WMD never existed just because there has been little success unearthing them.) So the Dems needed a new banner to wave.

---

---

The usual Leftist suspects have added a "cut and run" call for immediate withdrawal to their incessant drone of "Bush Lied, yada yada". They're all acting as if our going to Iraq was not only an evil conspiracy - but that they were dragged into it against their wills - kicking and screaming with their heals leaving deep divots! Convenient amnesia has taken hold in the House and Senate. These prominent Democrats, who have hitched their wagon to the Sheehan express, seem to have forgotten their own words. Thank goodness for videotape, audiotape, and electronic storage media!!

---

---

"Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons; there is no question about that." Nancy Pelosi

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Ted Kennedy

"I will be voting to give the president of the U.S. 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... Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein... These weapons represent an unacceptable threat." John Kerry

"Saddam has thumbed his nose at the world community and I think the President is approaching this in the right fashion." Harry Reid

And there are many others. The hypocrisy is staggering, though not surprising. The question is, were they insincere and playing politics when they made the statements, or are they insincere and playing politics now in their flip-flopping – now that public support of the War Effort is waning? There is no soul - no character - no depth of conviction in these liberals. To adapt a line from the late JFK, they will tell any lie, espouse any position, reverse any statement, assail any nominee, spend any amount, cowtow to any billionaire, to attain and maintain political power.

---

---

So, as it appears the current winds of sentiment are blowing from a war-weary direction; the Sheehanites, aided by the Mainstream Media, and energized by the 2000th death in Iraq, geared up the "Withdraw Now" campaign... and the Dems are buying into it. But while they're advocating Iraqus Interruptus (pulling out too soon); let's give some thought to the real issues involved.

We talk about "supporting the troops", but the most demoralizing thing to those troops deployed in harm's way today is the very prospect that they may be withdrawn with the job left undone. The TROOPS believe in what they're there doing! Despite the media's touting of military recruitment being down... RE-ENLISTMENT among those troops DEPLOYED in harm's way has never been higher! How can we "support the troops" without supporting their mission??

---

---

When it comes to world peace, security and stability issues - the words "middle east" are always at the center of any discussion. Iraq MUST be stabilized. The insurgency MUST be quelled. To pull out before Iraq is ready to provide for their own security is to simply hand over the region to civil war, and ultimately to Iran! Imagine the confederacy of Iraq/Iran/Syria in a post-withdrawal scenario.

---

---

Look at the positive effects on the world scene that our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq have wrought:

Afghanistan has been liberated and the Taliban routed. Another fledgling democracy is taking flight in the Middle East - a region desperately needing more beachheads of freedom. Saddam is deposed. A man who himself was a weapon of mass destruction is neutralized. Iraq has held elections, passed a constitution, and is moving toward self-sufficiency... but it's not there yet.

Libya has abandoned its nuclear aspirations. Khadafi has been tamed without firing a shot south of Iraq. North Korea has been contained through the 6-way talks... and they didn't get the one-on-one that Kim Jong Il (and John Kerry) wanted. Pakistan has gone from antagonist to ally. Relations between India and Pakistan have warmed and they may actually work out the Kashmir situation. All these are corollary effects of the actions in Iraq. Additionally, the world is finally beginning to understand the true scope and nature of the Islamo-extremist Global War OF Terror.

---

---

But all we hear about is the 2000 bodies. (Let's remember the 3000 lost on 9/11!)

---

---

Of course, we don't want to maintain high troop levels in Iraq longer than necessary – and as the Iraqi Army gains the ability to take the responsibilities for their own security, we CAN begin phased withdrawals. But we must do so responsibly – in a situationally responsive manner and not by some artificial timetable. We will draw down our forces, but we must not leave a vacuum. Remember what happened when we scurried out of Southeast Asia under Nixon. We must maintain a certain level of presence in Iraq long term, and should establish permanent bases in the region. Rapid deployability must remain a priority as the region will always be a contentious place.

Copyright © 2005 by Doug Edelman

---

Originally posted by geeogree

---

[edit] for all those that think Bush lied about why he wanted to go to war with Iraq [/edit]

try searching for:

Clinton Iraq 1998


and see what you get

---

Originally posted by geeogree

---

abscence of proof is not proof of abscence

---

Originally posted by Randy53215

---

Not to mention that MSNBC just showed Kerry and another democrat about a year ago saying they believe we should be at war. Way to go! With that said, my friends brother has seen radioactive cassings in Iraq with all the tools to make WMD's.

---

Originally posted by Skreename

---

Occam's Razor. 2 possibilities: Saddam had the weapons and decided not to use them on the forces who went in specifically to depose them with some bizarre motivation... Or he simply didn't use them because he didn't have them. Which is easier to believe?

---