Originally posted by caltour:
Originally posted by JaTo:
This country . . . went to war with Iraq due to the OVERWHELMING reason of missing WMD from the official UN tallies (which came from Hussein and his staff), this going on for a decade and finally the HUGE security concern it presented in light of 9/11.


THIS IS ABSOLUTE NONSENSE!!! You cannot seriously believe that Bush and his cronies went to war with Saddam because they genuinely thought he might unleash WMDs on us. There was NO evidence whatsoever that Saddam was capable of striking us with WMDs (or any other kind of weapons, for that matter). There is not one shred of evidence that Saddam could ever have inflicted harm on the U.S. with WMDs. Even the most paranoid accounts indicated he had nothing more than the ability to spray poison gas within his own borders, and the vain hopes of having nuclear weapons someday. Just like every other tinpot dictator on the planet.



He may not have been able to hit the US with his weapons but he could have aimed them at US interests in the region.
Quote:


If the Bushmen didn't have any genuine reason to fear attack by Saddam, then why did they go to all the trouble of starting a war? Four reasons:

1. Re-election. This is by far the most important reason. Bush only narrowly won election in 2000 (some say he actually lost). The messy and suspicious vote counting in Florida pissed off Democrats nationwide. As a result, Bush was very unpopular, with approval ratings well below what he needed to be assured re-election in 2004. He and his handlers anticipated an uprising of frustrated and angry Democrats in 2004. What to do? Enter Karl Rove. "The only thing that will save you is running as a wartime president," Karl says. So Karl & Co. cook up a war to save an unpopular president's ass, and hang it on the peg of 9/11.



Hey, in case you forgot, the Election of 2000 is over.

Quote:


2. Bush's corporate pals want some war profits! The economy wasn't looking so hot after Bush took office. Economists were predicting months or years of slow or no growth. Bush and Cheney's corporate pals use their unprecedented access to the first "MBA president" (and to all the Republican and Democrat corporate shills in congress) to lobby for more military spending. "Hey, George, listen to those brilliant neo-conservative thinkers in your administration, especially Perle, Wolfowitz, and Rice," they say. "A war would be good. We could sell you everything from missiles to saltine crackers if you would just start a splendid little war."


3. Revenge on Saddam for attack on Bush's father. Don't even think of downplaying this one. The Bushes are known for a bizarre family allegiance and a ruthless streak of vengeance. They are like a combination of the Appalachian Hatfields and the New Jersey Gambinos. When Saddam launched his unsuccessful hit on Bush Sr., it was only a matter of time before the Bushes launched a counterattack. On our nickel.


4. Future access to oil. Cheney, Bush and their cronies come from the oil business, and they owe a lot of favors there for all those generous campaign contributions. They rode to wealth on cheap oil, and they want that to continue as long as possible. They know as well as anyone that cheap oil is coming to an end. They are all about grabbing what they can, while they can. That means that oil reserves that are locked up under tinpot dictators must be "liberated." No they aren't trying to steal Iraq's oil. No one is that stupid. But they are trying to get those oil contracts on the market, so the Bush dynasty (and hundreds of others in that business) can keep on getting richer.



You just keep hurling that [censored] in hopes it will stick to somthing, huh?

Quote:


Originally posted by JaTo:
Secondly, the invasion of Iraq was put to a vote in the House and Senate and PASSED. Many of your left-wing pals apparently made an independent judgement call on the evidence presented by the intelligence community themselves in favor of ousting Hussein, or have you convienently forgot that?


I don't follow your logic here. You think that because some Democrats voted to authorize war, Bush is not responsible for his decision? That's the same argument people use when they are pulled over for speeding ("Hey, you can't write me up for speeding! Everyone else is speeding, too!)

Secondly, the fact that Democrats and many others voted to authorize war would make no legal difference in impeachment hearings. Bush pulled the trigger, and he would have to answer for his decision. There is no "I-was-just-going-with-the-flow-of-traffic" defense for chief executives in impeachment hearings.

And don't assume that the Democrat lapdogs in congress are my pals. I am not a member of their party, and I don't agree with their decision to authorize the war.

Originally posted by JaTo:
First, Bush and his staff kept pushing a peaceful UN route all the way up to the invasion. They kept offering Husssein outs; Hell, they even offered an ultimatum that put forth exile as an option that would stave off invasion.


I don't follow your logic here, either. What difference does it make that Bush didn't start the war for a while before he started it? If someone is charged with murder, since when is it a defense to say "But I didn't kill anyone for many years before I killed that guy." Man, you are really grasping at straws here.



The only straw grasper is you.