Politics > Politics-USA > Why did Bush send our troops to die and be crippled in Iraq? Was this war necessary?
| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Harry Hope" |
| Date: |
22 Feb 2004 04:52:56 PM |
| Object: |
Why did Bush send our troops to die and be crippled in Iraq? Was this war necessary? |
From The Boston Globe, 2/22/04:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2004/02/22/where_are_iraqs_pentagon_papers/
Where are Iraq's Pentagon papers?
By Daniel Ellsberg, 2/22/2004
AS MORE and more of our young men and women come home from Iraq
crippled or in body bags this election season, Americans ask, with
increasing urgency, "Why did we send our children to die in Iraq? Was
this war necessary?"
Indeed, Tim Russert asked the president precisely that on "Meet the
Press" a few weeks ago:
"In light of not finding the weapons of mass destruction, do you
believe the war in Iraq is a war of choice or a war of necessity?"
President Bush replied "It's a war of necessity. . . . the man was a
threat. . . . the evidence we have uncovered so far says we had no
choice."
To the contrary.
The evidence uncovered so far says that Saddam was not a threat, to us
or his neighbors.
Nor -- lacking any evidence of complicity in 9/11 or links to Al Qaeda
-- was there a persuasive case that he would have been a significant
threat even if he had possessed WMDs.
In order to bolster their arguments and gain congressional, public,
and international support, high officials chose to conceal the fact
that their belief in the existence of Iraqi WMDs was entirely
inferential, reflecting flimsy evidence and testimony from sources
whose reliability was highly controversial.
This actual state of inadequate information, well known to the US and
British intelligence community, was deliberately denied by the highest
officials in repeated phrases such as, "we know . . . ," "bulletproof
evidence," "beyond any doubt," "Saddam possesses. . . ," "British
intelligence has learned," and "these are not assertions, these are
facts."
The euphemism for such descriptions of the strength of evidence
favoring the need to go to war is "exaggeration."
A more accurate term is "lies."
__________________________________________________________
546 American troops are dead in Iraq of 2/22.
Harry
While Americans were dying in Vietnam Bush went AWOL
http://www.memphisflyer.com/content.asp?ID=2834&onthefly=1
.
|
|
| User: "Roedy Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Why did Bush send our troops to die and be crippled in Iraq? Was this war necessary? |
22 Feb 2004 09:06:17 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 22:52:56 GMT, Harry Hope <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com>
wrote or quoted :
The evidence uncovered so far says that Saddam was not a threat, to us
or his neighbors.
so we now know the war was not to find and destroy nukes.
The war was not the stop an invasion of the USA.
The war might have been for regime change, a petty vendetta against
the man who "tried to kill my Daddy", after his Daddy betrayed Saddam.
But I don't think so. Regime changes are routine affairs, arranged
with little bloodshed.
The war was most obviously to occupy Iraq's oil fields. This is what
the rest of the world believes. Only Americans can't face this truth
about themselves. They are pirates.
"The Defense Department claims 12 nations with nuclear weapons
programs, 13 with biological weapons, 16 with chemical weapons, and 28
with ballistic missiles as existing and emerging threats to the United
States. But only one of those countries sits atop the second largest
oil reserves in the world. [Iraq]"
~ Charles Peña, Senior Defense Policy Fellow of the Cato Institute,
for The Chicago Tribune
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming.
See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jgloss.html for The Java Glossary.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Marcel" |
|
| Title: Re: Why did Bush send our troops to die and be crippled in Iraq? Was this war necessary? |
22 Feb 2004 04:59:17 PM |
|
|
Perhaps GW took the US to Iraq on orders from a higher authority.
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:klci30laikpcqcepmdtpu9q44iuunc23t2@4ax.com...
From The Boston Globe, 2/22/04:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2004/02/22/where_are_iraqs_pentagon_papers/
Where are Iraq's Pentagon papers?
By Daniel Ellsberg, 2/22/2004
AS MORE and more of our young men and women come home from Iraq
crippled or in body bags this election season, Americans ask, with
increasing urgency, "Why did we send our children to die in Iraq? Was
this war necessary?"
Indeed, Tim Russert asked the president precisely that on "Meet the
Press" a few weeks ago:
"In light of not finding the weapons of mass destruction, do you
believe the war in Iraq is a war of choice or a war of necessity?"
President Bush replied "It's a war of necessity. . . . the man was a
threat. . . . the evidence we have uncovered so far says we had no
choice."
To the contrary.
The evidence uncovered so far says that Saddam was not a threat, to us
or his neighbors.
Nor -- lacking any evidence of complicity in 9/11 or links to Al Qaeda
-- was there a persuasive case that he would have been a significant
threat even if he had possessed WMDs.
In order to bolster their arguments and gain congressional, public,
and international support, high officials chose to conceal the fact
that their belief in the existence of Iraqi WMDs was entirely
inferential, reflecting flimsy evidence and testimony from sources
whose reliability was highly controversial.
This actual state of inadequate information, well known to the US and
British intelligence community, was deliberately denied by the highest
officials in repeated phrases such as, "we know . . . ," "bulletproof
evidence," "beyond any doubt," "Saddam possesses. . . ," "British
intelligence has learned," and "these are not assertions, these are
facts."
The euphemism for such descriptions of the strength of evidence
favoring the need to go to war is "exaggeration."
A more accurate term is "lies."
__________________________________________________________
546 American troops are dead in Iraq of 2/22.
Harry
While Americans were dying in Vietnam Bush went AWOL
http://www.memphisflyer.com/content.asp?ID=2834&onthefly=1
.
|
|
|
| User: "HappyHippo" |
|
| Title: Re: Why did Bush send our troops to die and be crippled in Iraq? Was this war necessary? |
22 Feb 2004 06:08:02 PM |
|
|
Marcel" wrote:
Perhaps GW took the US to Iraq on orders from a > higher authority.
The NACP?
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:klci30laikpcqcepmdtpu9q44iuunc23t2@4ax.com...
From The Boston Globe, 2/22/04:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2004/
02/22/where_are_iraqs_pentagon_papers/
Where are Iraq's Pentagon papers?
By Daniel Ellsberg, 2/22/2004
AS MORE and more of our young men and women come home from Iraq
crippled or in body bags this election season, Americans ask, with
increasing urgency, "Why did we send our children to die in Iraq? Was
this war necessary?"
Indeed, Tim Russert asked the president precisely that on "Meet the
Press" a few weeks ago:
"In light of not finding the weapons of mass destruction, do you
believe the war in Iraq is a war of choice or a war of necessity?"
President Bush replied "It's a war of necessity. . . . the man was a
threat. . . . the evidence we have uncovered so far says we had no
choice."
To the contrary.
The evidence uncovered so far says that Saddam was not a threat, to us
or his neighbors.
Nor -- lacking any evidence of complicity in 9/11 or links to Al Qaeda
-- was there a persuasive case that he would have been a significant
threat even if he had possessed WMDs.
In order to bolster their arguments and gain congressional, public,
and international support, high officials chose to conceal the fact
that their belief in the existence of Iraqi WMDs was entirely
inferential, reflecting flimsy evidence and testimony from sources
whose reliability was highly controversial.
This actual state of inadequate information, well known to the US and
British intelligence community, was deliberately denied by the highest
officials in repeated phrases such as, "we know . . . ," "bulletproof
evidence," "beyond any doubt," "Saddam possesses. . . ," "British
intelligence has learned," and "these are not assertions, these are
facts."
The euphemism for such descriptions of the strength of evidence
favoring the need to go to war is "exaggeration."
A more accurate term is "lies."
__________________________________________________________
546 American troops are dead in Iraq of 2/22.
Harry
While Americans were dying in Vietnam Bush went AWOL
http://www.memphisflyer.com/content.asp?ID=2834&onthefly=1
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "SHRED©" |
|
| Title: A speech about all this |
22 Feb 2004 05:06:06 PM |
|
|
http://www.lovedocs.com/audio/president_speech.mp3
Harry Hope wrote:
From The Boston Globe, 2/22/04:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2004/02/22/where_are_iraqs_pentagon_papers/
Where are Iraq's Pentagon papers?
By Daniel Ellsberg, 2/22/2004
AS MORE and more of our young men and women come home from Iraq
crippled or in body bags this election season, Americans ask, with
increasing urgency, "Why did we send our children to die in Iraq? Was
this war necessary?"
Indeed, Tim Russert asked the president precisely that on "Meet the
Press" a few weeks ago:
"In light of not finding the weapons of mass destruction, do you
believe the war in Iraq is a war of choice or a war of necessity?"
President Bush replied "It's a war of necessity. . . . the man was a
threat. . . . the evidence we have uncovered so far says we had no
choice."
To the contrary.
The evidence uncovered so far says that Saddam was not a threat, to us
or his neighbors.
Nor -- lacking any evidence of complicity in 9/11 or links to Al Qaeda
-- was there a persuasive case that he would have been a significant
threat even if he had possessed WMDs.
In order to bolster their arguments and gain congressional, public,
and international support, high officials chose to conceal the fact
that their belief in the existence of Iraqi WMDs was entirely
inferential, reflecting flimsy evidence and testimony from sources
whose reliability was highly controversial.
This actual state of inadequate information, well known to the US and
British intelligence community, was deliberately denied by the highest
officials in repeated phrases such as, "we know . . . ," "bulletproof
evidence," "beyond any doubt," "Saddam possesses. . . ," "British
intelligence has learned," and "these are not assertions, these are
facts."
The euphemism for such descriptions of the strength of evidence
favoring the need to go to war is "exaggeration."
A more accurate term is "lies."
__________________________________________________________
546 American troops are dead in Iraq of 2/22.
Harry
While Americans were dying in Vietnam Bush went AWOL
http://www.memphisflyer.com/content.asp?ID=2834&onthefly=1
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
