A Conservative Who Cares About WMD

[Spence]

It has seemed to me that no conservatives care about whether not we were lied to about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction [or lack thereof]. I'm pleased to report that at least one conservative does care and he wrote about his concerns in today's edition of the Christian Science Monitor. The words were written by Doug Bandow, a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute and a special assistant to President Reagan. What follows below is an edited transcript of his commentary. To read it in its entirety, go here (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0708/p09s01-coop.html)

Conservatives' core duty on WMD

By Doug Bandow

WASHINGTON -- There was a time when conservatives fought passionately to preserve America as a limited constitutional republic. That was, in fact, the essence of conservatism.
...
But many conservative activists seem to have lost that philosophical commitment. They now advocate autocratic executive rule, largely unconstrained by constitutional procedures or popular opinions.

This curious attitude is evident in the conservative response to the gnawing question: Where are Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction? A surprising number of conservatives respond: So what? He must have had them; maybe he gave them away. And, anyway, Hussein was a bad guy. In their view, even to ask the question is to mount a partisan attack on President Bush, and that's downright unpatriotic.It always seemed likely that Baghdad possessed WMD. Not only did Iraq once maintain a WMD program, but how else to explain the regime's obstructionist behavior during the inspections process?
...
But the longer we go without any discoveries, the more questionable the prewar claims appear to have been. The allies have checked all of the sites originally targeted for inspection, arrested leading Baath Party members, and offered substantial rewards for information. Even in Hussein's centralized regime, more than a few people must have known where any WMD stocks were hidden or transferred and would be able to help now.

Which means it is entirely fair to ask the administration, where are the WMD? The answer matters for the simplest practical reasons. Possible intelligence failures need to be corrected. Washington's loss of credibility should be addressed; saying "trust me" will be much harder for this president in the future or a future president.
...
Pointing to substitute justifications for the war just won't do. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz notes that the alleged Al Qaeda connection divided the administration internally, and humanitarian concerns did not warrant risking American lives. Only fear over Iraqi possession of WMD unified the administration, won the support of allies, particularly Britain, and served as the centerpiece of the administration's case. If the WMD didn't exist, or were ineffective, Washington's professed case for war collapses.

Conservatives' lack of interest in the WMD question takes an even more ominous turn when combined with general support for presidential warmaking. Republicans - think President Eisenhower, for instance - once took seriously the requirement that Congress declare war. These days, however, Republican presidents and legislators, backed by conservative intellectuals, routinely argue that the chief executive can unilaterally take America into war.

Thus, in their view, once someone is elected president, he or she faces no legal or political constraint. The president doesn't need congressional authority; Washington doesn't need UN authority. Allied support is irrelevant. The president needn't offer the public a justification for going to war that holds up after the conflict ends. The president may not even be questioned about the legitimacy of his professed justification. Accept his word and let him do whatever he wants, irrespective of circumstances.

This is not the government created by the Founders. This is not the government that any believer in liberty should favor.

It is foolish to turn the Iraq war, a prudential political question, into a philosophical test for conservatism. It is even worse to demand unthinking support for Bush. He should be pressed on the issue of WMD - by conservatives. Fidelity to the Constitution and republican government demands no less.

[BigCountry]

There's another answer for those who said "support the war or you're not an American just because" Where I come from, if it smells like a rat, don't make no differance if it's a president. I'd send this guy a check if I could.

[Skins57]

Great find Spence. thanks. Seems Bush is hoping we all forget about WMD

[RODDY]

You guys are truly sad. A madman who has killed over one and a half million people, many of which were brutally tortured, and all you can do is rag on Bush because they havent found wmd yet. Its a shame the left is always so petty and shortsighted.
Bush had the guts to stop this sick regime from continuosly killing, filling mass graves, harboring and supporting terrorism, and developing and using wmd - and all the left does is whine and look and hope for any holes to attack this great man. Truth be told Im not sure we will see any one with this mans conviction for quite some time. Its very rare - especially for a politician. He took a major risk by going to war but he did it because it was the right thing to do. His sincerity shines through, the majority of people see it, and the left cant stand it. Too bad!
As far as your claim about wmds, I sometimes wonder whos side you are on. Something tells me you would be glad if none were found - I guess it would be some sort of sick way of trying to prove youre point. Well hate to burst your bubble but he had wmfs and its not just Bush who said it, the whole world claimed it. How many resolutions did the U.N.(not Bush) pass against Iraq because of his wmd program? All the intelegence gathered from just about every country in the world acknowledged the fact that he had wmds and that he violated all of the UN resolutions. The debate was over what to do about it not whether or not it was true. In fact your man Clinton bombed Iraq for 4 straight days in 1998 based on this very info regarding wmd. what a suprise not a peep from the left about that one.
Once again the lefts true colors show.

[Seebs]

IMO the point was to say : "we are going to attack Saddam because he is a madman and he killed his own citizens and we feel that we can use Irak's natural ressources maybe to get rid of the dictatorial regim we support in Saudi Arabia but we can't do anything now because we depend on their oil (but not sure they really went to this point) and because we need to boost our economy and because we need to justify military budget and not because we think he has WMD. That's why we don't attack North Korea because they really have those weapons and could use it (it's called nuclear disuasion) and they don't have natural resources."


Sincerelly,

SuperFrenchLiberal:D

[TexSkin]

All I can say is the world is a better place now that Saddam is gone. Thats good enough for me. I was there when we liberated Kuwait. The horrors of what I saw would get me banned here if I described them. So in the end a madman lost his country...booo fricking hooo.

[Seebs]

Originally posted by TexSkin
All I can say is the world is a better place now that Saddam is gone. Thats good enough for me. I was there when we liberated Kuwait. The horrors of what I saw would get me banned here if I described them. So in the end a madman lost his country...booo fricking hooo.

They should have it done at this time...

[TexSkin]

Actually we could not....we were a UN force back then and one of the reason we had strong support from the arab community was because we agreed that we would only liberate Kuwait and not invade Iraq itself. That is why they agreed to let us use their bases in Saudi and other arab nations.

[Skinzaholic]

Im torn here.... I aree with the artice on one side. I do hope wmd are found and destroyed for may apparent reasons. It does look bad that we raised the wmd flag as ou banner, and now cannot find any. It does make Bush look like a tyrant and not like a crusader.


BUT... I do not believe for a second that Saddam didnt have ANY weapons. Even if none are found... that just means they were dealt with before hand (after all, we gave him ample time). I wouldn't trust Saddam as far as I could throw him.


I also agree with the distaste for the left winged agenda in this. True Americans support our leaders. It takes a man to do what George Bush did... and it takes a weasal to search high and low for evidence to discredit those actions simply for the need to make one party look better.


Saddam deserved to be put out of action... and no other country had the balls to do it.


Maybe this will give us all a reason for revoking the liberals citizenship.:banhim:

[BigCountry]

If only it was simple as that. It's a good thing that he's gone but Bush the father had a similar remorse on the Iraqi people he killed. We didn't go in there only to "liberate" the Iraqi people and it's naive to think that. There's just as many politics involved in this that don't justify bombing the crap out of a country.

[Spence]

Originally posted by RODDY
You guys are truly sad. A madman who has killed over one and a half million people, many of which were brutally tortured, and all you can do is rag on Bush because they havent found wmd yet. Its a shame the left is always so petty and shortsighted.

The article I posted was written by a conservative. He was a special assistant to Ronald Reagan and is a Senior Fellow at the right-wing Cato Institute.

[RODDY]

Simply not the case. Its clear why we went over there. To remove a brutal regime that was a danger to the whole civilized world. Those who say it was for economic reasons and oil show their ignorance. The USA has the largest oil reserves in the world. The need just is not there. Plus if we really wanted oil all we would have had to do lift the sanctions, quite simple. Its funny how France, Russia and Germany hold the vast majority of iraqi oil contracts and continually argued for lifting sanctions before the war did not want them lifted immediately after the war. They didnt care that Iraqi people needed to feed themselves. They only cared about their oil contracts.

Newsflash fellas - Where the good guys. The USA has done far more to help various countries throughout the world than any other nation. 50 fold!

Lets watch the lefties run to support France, Russia and Germany now.

[Spence]

The point of the article is that we were deceived by the administration about the reasons for the Iraq War. Anyone who does not care about that does not care about liberty, as the author notes. Once you give the government permission to lie to you about a matter such as war, you've pretty much given it permission to do anything.

I used to be astonished at the way conservatives howled with rage when President Clinton lied about a private sexual affair with a consenting adult, but are completely unconcerned about lies that took the nation to war. In fact, they regard concern about the latter as evidence of a lack of patriotism. I'm not astonished by this any more, though. I guess that's the state of conservatism in America these days.

If we went to war with Iraq because of the government's lousy human rights policies, I'd like to know why so many conservatives opposed our interventions in Haiti and Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s. And I'd like to know why the Bush admin hasn't invaded countries like North Korea [which is far more dangerous than Iraq ever was] and Sudan. After all, the human rights records of those countries is as bad or worse than Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

American servicemen are dying just about every day in Iraq. If they were sent there because of a lie, I'd sure has hell like to know about it. After all, Mr Bush is cutting veterans benefits and combat death compensation for the families of our soldiers. The least Mr Bush owes them is the truth.

[Spence]

Originally posted by RODDY
Simply not the case. Its clear why we went over there. To remove a brutal regime that was a danger to the whole civilized world. Those who say it was for economic reasons and oil show their ignorance. The USA has the largest oil reserves in the world. The need just is not there. Plus if we really wanted oil all we would have had to do lift the sanctions, quite simple. Its funny how France, Russia and Germany hold the vast majority of iraqi oil contracts and continually argued for lifting sanctions before the war did not want them lifted immediately after the war. They didnt care that Iraqi people needed to feed themselves. They only cared about their oil contracts.

Newsflash fellas - Where the good guys. The USA has done far more to help various countries throughout the world than any other nation. 50 fold!

Lets watch the lefties run to support France, Russia and Germany now.

We've got several mistakes here. I'll go over them one by one. First, according to Mr Bush himself, the United States invaded Iraq first and foremost because of Saddam Hussein's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction. That's what Mr Bush said in his 2003 State of the Union address. In that speech, Mr Bush also asserted Iraq was trying to acquire nuclear material from Africa, an assertion the Bush administration now admits was false.

Secondly, the United States does not have the largest oil reserves in the world. Not even close. Saudi Arabia possesses, by far, the largest proven oil reserves on the planet. Fully 25% of the world's proven oil reserves are located within the borders of Saudi Arabia. Iraq has the second-largest amount of proven oil reserves, at 8% of the world total.

Thirdly, lifting sanctions against Iraq would not give the United States control over Iraq's oil supplies. It is a major and stated goal of the Bush administration to secure a large reserve of oil supplies outside of Saudi Arabia, which the administration no longer considers a safe or reliable ally.

Fourthly, many countries and companies did or tried to do business with Saddam Hussein's Iraq. For example, when Dick Cheney was CEO of Halliburton, he tried to break into the Iraq market at the same time the country was under U.N. sanctions. Interesting, don't you think?

Fifthly, measuring how much a country has done to help other countries in the world is difficult to do. There are a variety of ways to measure such contributions. One measurement is calculating how much foreign aid a country gives to poorer countries. On that score, the United States rates dead last among all rich nations in foreign aid spending as a percentage of gross domestic product. In any case, this has no bearing on whether or not Mr Bush lied repeatedly in order to convince the public to support the Iraq War.

[Spence]

Originally posted by Skinzaholic
I also agree with the distaste for the left winged agenda in this. True Americans support our leaders. It takes a man to do what George Bush did... and it takes a weasal to search high and low for evidence to discredit those actions simply for the need to make one party look better.

Skinz, I don't support any leader who lies to me about taking this country to war. No exceptions. Ever.

This isn't about making one party look better. As the author of the column indicated, this is an issue conservatives should care about. President Johnson deceived the entire country to get Congress to pass the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1964, authorizing full-scale war with Vietnam. No war is legitimate if the government must lie to convince the people to support it. If fathers and mothers are to give up their children to die in war, the least the government owes them is the truth about why it must be done.

[RODDY]

We have all been told the truth, just that you on the left cant accept it. Once again you guys were wrong. History shows a pattern. The lefts credibility is shot. I guess this is why you remain silent about you your man Bill hurling missiles into Baghdad on the eve of the Monica Lewinsky scandle.

Read your own post. You talk about lies as if they were proven. You are transparent. You would acctuaily like it if Bush was lying. Your hate for Bush shines through any logical argument your tring to make.

As for N Korea, They have Nuclear capabilities, thanks to the bumbling of the Clinton administration. They are a very difficult problem now for the world (Thank you Bill). The idea was not to let Iraq's WMD program grow as to pose a similar if not worse threat (Thank you George).

Lets see comparing a known and proven purgerer who was impeached for that reason with this current dignified president who handles himself with class just dosent seem right. If anyone deserves the benefit of the doubt its the current administration.
Again the whole world (not just the USA or Bush) agreed he had WMDs. The debate was what to do about it.

[TexSkin]

Hey I love ole Slick Willy..
















about as much as I love the Cowboys!! :smash: :twak:

[Spence]

Roddy, since you didn't reply to a single point I made, I'm going to presume you agree with all of them, but just hate the fact that I made them. I understand. Anger is a natural reaction when all the facts are against you.

[Spence]

No doubt there are huge differences between Clinton and Dubya. One created more than 20 million jobs and turned the biggest budget deficits in the history of human life on this planet into the biggest budget surpluses in the history of human life on this planet.

The other guy has destroyed three million jobs and turned the biggest budget surpluses in the history of human life on this planet into the biggest budget deficits in the history of human life on this planet--in record time!

Guess which one is which. :D

[Skins57]

Spence, glad I am on your side, I could never go one on one with you.

Just one question doesn't it seem odd that once we threw Saddam out that the oil deals was given to Cheneys old company Halliburton, without any one else getting a shot at it.



No doubt there are huge differences between Clinton and Dubya. One created more than 20 million jobs and turned the biggest budget deficits in the history of human life on this planet into the biggest budget surpluses in the history of human life on this planet.


The other guy has destroyed three million jobs and turned the biggest budget surpluses in the history of human life on this planet into the biggest budget deficits in the history of human life on this planet--in record time!

Nuff said

[Spence]

Originally posted by Skins57
Spence, glad I am on your side, I could never go one on one with you.

Just one question doesn't it seem odd that once we threw Saddam out that the oil deals was given to Cheneys old company Halliburton, without any one else getting a shot at it.

Thanks, 57. I appreciate it.

Yeah, it is very suspicious that Halliburton got a couple of sweet deals right away. What's worse is that some of the deals were not competitive. That is, they were not put up for bids to see which company could offer the American taxpayer the best deal. It wasn't just Halliburton, though. Several other Texas companies involved in petroleum and related infrastructure got deals handed to them quickly and without competitive bidding. Every single one of those companies has been a significant donor to Mr Bush's political career.

Big surprise, huh?

[rskinsfan10]

Originally posted by Spence
Roddy, since you didn't reply to a single point I made, I'm going to presume you agree with all of them, but just hate the fact that I made them. I understand. Anger is a natural reaction when all the facts are against you.

Never mind him or his opinion Spence. He needs to get over himself......

[Skinzaholic]

I have to agree with Skins 57 here... Spence does indeed make it fun to discuss this stuff. It is very rare to find an intelligent liberal in todays America. Thanks man!


Spence, your points are well put, and valid. I agree with your statement that you cant trust a leader who lies to you. Yet, liberals have no problem with Bill's lies... why? Because the moral values mean little to them? Isnt it true that they are using the same short-sighted judgement they accuse others of?


The difference between the liberal vs conservative position is the use of "Mr. Bush" in your replies. Despite the stupidity of almost everything he did... and the total insult he demonstrated in the honorable office he held, I still called Bill Clinton by his title... The President. Not because I agree with the man himself... but because I agree with my country. The love for that country makes me respect the office (insert drum and fife music here).


It isnt the fact that liberals question the decisions of their leaders that motivates the rest of the country to call them non-patriotic... it is their lack of support in our nation once their own personal views are questioned. (This attitude is also reflected int he liberal media who refuse to listen to any other opinion but their own).


Although Spence, I respect your thoughts and your opinion... I also feel you are basing your choices not on what you know... but instead what you are being fed.


With that said, I repeat that I agree with your feelings toward the President and the lack of wmd being located. I surely hope we find some or it will look bad indeed. The article you shared at the start of this post was a good one...

[Spence]

Well written, Skinz. I don't mind any fair-minded and polite person, whether he/she is liberal, conservative or something else.

I didn't worry about Clinton lying about his affair with Monica Lewinsky because I don't care about such things. Enormous numbers of public officials have affairs. As long as they don't campaign as exemplars of "family values" I don't care about it. That goes for Dems or Repubs or anyone else. [FDR, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, George H.W. Bush all had affairs. Never bothered me in the least. That's between them and their wives. I vote for public officials, not saints and I certainly don't look to public officials to guide me in my private life.] People didn't lose jobs or health care coverage because of Clinton's tawdry and pathetic affair with Lewinsky. People have died in Iraq--lots of them--and there is plenty more dying to be done, unfortunately. I don't even want to think about how much money this is going to cost the American taxpayers. You can bet that if Clinton or any other Democrat ever lied to the country to get us into war, I'd want his skull on my bookshelf. Presidents have more than enough power to take us to war without the consent of Congress. If we don't even demand that they tell us the truth about it, what becomes of our democracy?

There are plenty of areas where I'm happy to discuss my partisan differences with the Bush administration. [Taxes, spending, environmental regulation, campaign finance, etc--you get the idea.] This is not one of those areas. The subject of a president lying to get his country to war is a lot more important to me than the Democratic party or any other political association. It was wrong when Johnson did it in 1964 and it is just as wrong now.

[RODDY]

Spence, sorry I did not address your half truths earlier but honestly spending all day on line debating you does not really do it for me. Have a life ya know. However, exposing your semi- clever deceptions is amusing.

Omission of facts is a classic tactic by the left, and your no exception. Did you listen to the President's State of the Union address? If you did, in addition to Saddam possessing WMDs you would have heard the President speak in detail about Saddams atrocities. In fact he specifically talked about the liberation of the Iraqi people.(Selective hearing after the fact I guess) The President mentioned how thousands of Iraqis were killed, blinded, disfigured etc. by this regime. The President mentioned how Saddam forced confessions, tortured children while their parents were forced to watch. The President mentioned how international human rights groups noted and condemned his various methods of torturing and killing people. I guess stories mutilation and cutting out peoples tongue's just dosent get your attention. Of course if it was up to the likes of you on the left these things would still be going on today.(Scary)

On the topic of Iraq acquiring nuclear material from Africa you so conveniently leave out that it was British Intelligence not American, not to mention that forged documents from Niger were tought good at the time. By the way the British Gov. still stands behind their claim. You also left out that both the chairmen of the Senate Armed Services Comitte and the Senate Intelligence Committe stated that there is no evidence that the Bush administration munipulated intelligence to justify war.

As for our oil reserves what I ment to type was that we have among the largest reserves in the world.(Especially outside of the Middle East) But again the point stands that the realities of the global oil market indicate that your war for oil theory just does not stand up to the facts. Oil production increases after the war- world supply goes up- demand stays the same- price of oil goes down along with big oil profits. Simple economics. Plus just about all economists agree that the cost of war and occupation far outweighs any benifit from Iraqi oil.

As for doing buisness with Iraq you address Halliburton but again ignore how dirty the French, Russian and Germans are. You try to steer away from the fact that these governments resisted lifting the sanctions after the war ended, when Iraq was no longer a threat! Yes economics played a major part in this crises but not for the U.S.A..

Halliburton did buisness through foreign subsidiaries and joint venures with French Affiliates after UN sanctions were eased in 98 but this could never be used by the left because Clintons boy John Deutsch (Yes the very same guy President Clinton pardoned for mishandling 100's of classified documents) did the same thing with his co., Schlumberger- the 2nd largest U.S. oil services co.. Funny how the left never brings up the democrats relationship with big oil.

Lets now focus on how you dispute what America has done other countries. Without getting going history and what we have done with our political, economic and military influence, there has simply not been a better friend to the world than the U.S.A.. It makes me wonder why when discussing foriegn aid you pick the one mesurement that rates us last to make your point. Well the truth is you fail to disclose that in raw dollars the U.S.A. is THE TOP donor of economic aid in the world.(Oh- just to give you all the facts humanitarian and development aid was steadily cut during the Clinton yrs.)

And Finally- Its a well established and known fact that Presedent Clinton lead us into a recession before leaving office. Rates of corporate profits had already started to decrease measurably by the end of his last term. Not to mention corporate failures- Enron, World Com, Global Crossing and Im Clone all built up their inflated depts and expectations during Clintons watch.

Well it was fun clouding your deceptions with the truth.

P.S.- Your agenda is quite transparent. Its cute the way you refer to Clinton as Presedent Clinton and Bush as Mr. Bush. Keep hitting all those talking points. (Its just kind of sad how you use this forum to try and spread your propaganda).

[Seebs]

just a couple of things because i won't argue hours on this :

Saddam killed a lot of people with weapons he bought from France, USSR and chemichal products from ... the USA...

His regime was backed by the US in the early 80's when he was fighting Iran's Mollahs, and Bush Sr's administration even told him it was legitime to invade Kuwait... (I don't remember the name of the guy but it was said by a member of this admin)

Otherwise, i agree with what Spence said but it's normal we share the same 2nd screen name (SFL)


Spence, your line about anger is superb.

[Spence]

Originally posted by RODDY
Omission of facts is a classic tactic by the left, and your no exception. Did you listen to the President's State of the Union address? If you did, in addition to Saddam possessing WMDs you would have heard the President speak in detail about Saddams atrocities. In fact he specifically talked about the liberation of the Iraqi people.(Selective hearing after the fact I guess) The President mentioned how thousands of Iraqis were killed, blinded, disfigured etc. by this regime. The President mentioned how Saddam forced confessions, tortured children while their parents were forced to watch. The President mentioned how international human rights groups noted and condemned his various methods of torturing and killing people. I guess stories mutilation and cutting out peoples tongue's just dosent get your attention. Of course if it was up to the likes of you on the left these things would still be going on today.(Scary)

Of course I'm appalled by such human rights abuses. I'm not sure why you think the Bush admin is so appalled by this, however. Consider, for example, that Mr Bush welcomed the dictator of Uzbekistan to the White House and promised him more than $500 million in aid. According to Mr Bush's own State Department, the dictator of Uzbekistan is a man who kidnaps, tortures, and murders his political opponents. The State Dept also confirms that at least two of his political opponents were executed by being lowered into a vat of boiling oil. If Mr Bush is so appalled by human rights abuses, I presume we'll be invading Uzbekistan any moment now. Funny, I haven't heard anything about that.

The Bush administration is filled with men who cozied up to Saddam Hussein during the Reagan admin in the 1980s, when the same atrocities were being committed in Iraq. It seems that when some regimes torture and murder their political opponents, Mr Bush is outraged. When other regimes do it, Mr Bush gives them a special welcome to the White House and a fat wad of cash. Hmm. I wonder why.

Originally posted by RODDY
On the topic of Iraq acquiring nuclear material from Africa you so conveniently leave out that it was British Intelligence not American, not to mention that forged documents from Niger were tought good at the time. By the way the British Gov. still stands behind their claim. You also left out that both the chairmen of the Senate Armed Services Comitte and the Senate Intelligence Committe stated that there is no evidence that the Bush administration munipulated intelligence to justify war.

Whether the "intelligence" was from the U.S. or the UK is not relevant. The fact is, Mr Bush cited this "intelligence" in his 2003 State of the Union address and other members of his administration [Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney] also cited it as justification for invading Iraq. According to U.S. Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, who was sent by the CIA in 2002 to check out the report, he informed the Bush administration at least THREE TIMES that the "intelligence" was phoney.

[To read Ambassador Wilson's op-ed piece in The New York Times, go here (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/opinion/06WILS.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20O p%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd). To read Ambassador Wilson's interview on Meet the Press last Sunday, go here (http://www.msnbc.com/news/935411.asp?0dm=V21CV).]

Here is what Ambassador Wilson wrote in his op-ed piece:

"Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq?

Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat."

And Ambassador Wilson explains why all this matters:

"America's foreign policy depends on the sanctity of its information. For this reason, questioning the selective use of intelligence to justify the war in Iraq is neither idle sniping nor "revisionist history," as Mr. Bush has suggested. The act of war is the last option of a democracy, taken when there is a grave threat to our national security. More than 200 American soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq already. We have a duty to ensure that their sacrifice came for the right reasons."

Ambassador Wilson is a veteran of more than three decades in the U.S. Foreign Service and a former member of the National Security Council. He has served numerous presidents of both parties in a variety of high-level jobs. Why would he lie about this? Do you think the Democrats are controlling him with their new mind control ray gun?

What's more, the Bush administration was warned not just by Ambassador Wilson but by the CIA that this "intelligence" was phoney--long before Mr Bush's State of the Union address. Here is a new report from the BBC on this subject:

"The CIA warned the US Government that claims about Iraq's nuclear ambitions were not true months before President Bush used them to make his case for war, the BBC has learned.

Doubts about a claim that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from the African state of Niger were aired 10 months before Mr Bush included the allegation in his key State of the Union address this year, a CIA official has told the BBC.

On Tuesday, the White House for the first time officially acknowledged that the Niger claim was wrong and suggested it should not have been used in the president's State of the Union speech in January."

[To read the entire story, go here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3056626.stm).]

The Chairmen of the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees are both Republicans. Of course they are defending the Bush administration. For now, anyway. They are also blocking an investigation of this matter. If the Bush admin did not lie, surely they won't mind an investigation, right? After all, an investigation would only confirm their story, right? Funny, then, that they oppose an investigation. Hmmm.

Originally posted by RODDY
As for our oil reserves what I ment to type was that we have among the largest reserves in the world.(Especially outside of the Middle East) But again the point stands that the realities of the global oil market indicate that your war for oil theory just does not stand up to the facts. Oil production increases after the war- world supply goes up- demand stays the same- price of oil goes down along with big oil profits. Simple economics. Plus just about all economists agree that the cost of war and occupation far outweighs any benifit from Iraqi oil.

Actually, I never wrote that the war was about oil. Of course, it was partially about oil. Almost everything that goes on in the Middle East is at least partially about oil. Oil is the only reason the rest of the world puts up with the Middle East. Oil is the only real reason the Middle East matters to westerners. We need oil. They have oil.

You're wrong about the price of oil, however. It has not gone down significantly since the fall of the Saddam Hussein regime. One of the reasons is that sabotage has prevented Iraq from exporting any oil that wasn't already in storage before the war. [See this story (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=businessNews&storyID=3052285) for more information about this. It matters because the Bush admin promised the American people that Iraq could pay for its own reconstruction with its oil wealth. If that cannot happen, the reconstruction will have to be paid for by the American taxpayer. That's something I think most American taxpayers would want to know about, don't you?]

The larger reason for the Iraq War, however, was to reshape the Middle East politically. The Bush admin has stated publicly that they believe getting rid of Saddam Hussein will intimidate the Syrians and Palestinians into making peace with Israel and lessen our dependence on Saudi Arabia. All this will reduce the level of terrorism against the United States and usher in a grand era of peace to the region. That's the theory, at least. Doesn't seem to be working too well so far.

You're certainly correct that the cost of the war and the occupation will outweigh any economic benefit from the war. There is no doubt about that. That's one reason people like me opposed the war. Just one reason, though. There are many others.

[Spence]

PART TWO of my reply to RODDY

Originally posted by RODDY
As for doing buisness with Iraq you address Halliburton but again ignore how dirty the French, Russian and Germans are. You try to steer away from the fact that these governments resisted lifting the sanctions after the war ended, when Iraq was no longer a threat! Yes economics played a major part in this crises but not for the U.S.A.

I don't deny other countries pursued their own self-interests in Iraq and I certainly have no illusions that the foreign policy of Russia or France is guided by anything but national interest. I don't address it because it isn't relevant. The article I posted is about the Bush admin's lies regarding Iraq and why one conservative thinks other conservatives should care about it. Russia's foreign policy has nothing to do with that. I'm not responsible for Russia's foreign policy. As an American, I am responsible for my own country's foreign policy. Whatever the foreign policies of other countries, I expect my government to tell me the truth about why it wants to go to war. In fact, I insist upon it.

Originally posted by RODDY
Halliburton did buisness through foreign subsidiaries and joint venures with French Affiliates after UN sanctions were eased in 98 but this could never be used by the left because Clintons boy John Deutsch (Yes the very same guy President Clinton pardoned for mishandling 100's of classified documents) did the same thing with his co., Schlumberger- the 2nd largest U.S. oil services co.. Funny how the left never brings up the democrats relationship with big oil.

When a Democratic president lies to me in order to invade Iraq, you can bet I'll raise a stink about his/her ties to Big Oil--if any. In fact, however, Halliburton pursued oil contracts with Iraq before 1998, as I'm sure you already know.

Originally posted by RODDY
Lets now focus on how you dispute what America has done other countries. Without getting going history and what we have done with our political, economic and military influence, there has simply not been a better friend to the world than the U.S.A.. It makes me wonder why when discussing foriegn aid you pick the one mesurement that rates us last to make your point. Well the truth is you fail to disclose that in raw dollars the U.S.A. is THE TOP donor of economic aid in the world.(Oh- just to give you all the facts humanitarian and development aid was steadily cut during the Clinton yrs.)

Of course the U.S. is the top donor in terms of total dollars. But the more important measurement is measured by GNP. Your argument goes like this: A millionaire and a homeless man each donate to a charity. The millionaire donates $101. The homeless man donates $100. By your standards, the millionaire is more generous. Anyone can see how absurd that is. When measured against total spending, the U.S. ranks dead last in foreign aid among rich nations. That's a fact.

There's no doubt foreign aid fell during the Clinton administration. Have a look, though, and you'll see that it fell AFTER the Republicans took control of Congress. The GOP doesn't like foreign aid. That's fine. But don't blame Clinton because the Republicans in Congress refused to appropriate very much money for foreign aid. You never hear liberal groups complaining the U.S. gives too much in foreign aid. You hear it all the time on Rush Limbaugh's show.

Let me make something clear, though I do not think I should have to do this. I love my country more than I love my own life. I have the means to live in almost any country in the world and I choose to live here in the United States. America is the most important thing in the world to me. That's why I care about this issue so much. I'm proud of America--I'm just not proud of my government when it lies to me about war.

Originally posted by RODDY
And Finally- Its a well established and known fact that Presedent Clinton lead us into a recession before leaving office. Rates of corporate profits had already started to decrease measurably by the end of his last term. Not to mention corporate failures- Enron, World Com, Global Crossing and Im Clone all built up their inflated depts and expectations during Clintons watch.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the Bush admin's lies about WMD in Iraq, but I'll answer it anyway. You're wrong. The United States did not enter a recession until several months into the Bush admin's tenure--sometime between late March and early June of 2001. That's a fact and confirmed by the GAO, Mr Bush's OMB, Mr Bush's Treasury Department, and the Congressional Budget Office--as well as just about every private economist on the planet.

[Your claim about which country has the largest oil reserves and now this claim were both provably false, Roddy. I love a good debate as much as the next guy, but you must get your facts in order before arguing with me. Otherwise, it is difficult to take you seriously and I want to take you seriously.]

There's more, though. According to the Bush admin, the two massive tax cuts and huge increases in government spending the Bush admin has carried out should have created millions of jobs and lifted our economy out of this economic stagnation. To date, about 3 million jobs have been lost since Mr Bush took office and more than 2 million since his first tax cut in 2001. And all the while, the budget surplus has gone from the largest in human history to the largest budget DEFICIT in human history. [That exceeds the previous record of $290 billion set by Mr Bush's father, President George H.W. Bush in 1992.]

So, let's sum that up. Biggest budget deficits in human history. Three million jobs lost. [And this further bit of good news from REUTERS: "The number of jobless Americans receiving benefits hit its highest point in over 20 years last month, and new claims for jobless aid unexpectedly rose again last week, the government said on Thursday." Go here (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=568&ncid=749&e=1&u=/nm/20030710/bs_nm/economy_jobless_dc) to read the full story.] And all this despite massive spending increases and gigantic tax cuts. Pretty pitiful record, I think any reasonable person would have to agree. The fact is, "borrow and spend" is no way to run an economy. It doesn't work. We pursued that policy in the 1980s and it got us into huge trouble until Ross Perot forced both parties to take the situation seriously. We solved the problem in the 1990s and now we're right back where we were 20 years ago--only worse now because the deficits are so much larger now.

Originally posted by RODDY
Well it was fun clouding your deceptions with the truth.

P.S.- Your agenda is quite transparent. Its cute the way you refer to Clinton as Presedent Clinton and Bush as Mr. Bush. Keep hitting all those talking points. (Its just kind of sad how you use this forum to try and spread your propaganda).

Why is it "kind of sad" how I use this forum to spread my "propaganda"? I mean, PennSkinsFan and I did invent this forum, you know. We invite everyone to spread their "propaganda" here--prohibiting only pornography, insulting profanity, and racist material. We let you spread your "propaganda" here. In fact, we encourage it. I've told you this before, RODDY, and I'll tell you again: This Web site is devoted not only to the Washington Redskins, but to the free and open discussion of any topic. If you don't like that, you're probably at the wrong Web site. In fact, you might even be living in the wrong country.

[RODDY]

First you suggest that I should not be on this site then you suggest that I should not be living in this country? I guess your not really comfortable with dissenting views. I guess anger is natural.

Just for the record Spence, I would like you to stay.

[TexSkin]

Roddy lets stay away from personal attacks. Lets keep it civil, we are all Skins fans after all and share a love for the same team and a hate for the Cowboys. That should be enough to forgive each other for our personal views of politics and religion. :)

[Spence]

Originally posted by RODDY
First you suggest that I should not be on this site then you suggest that I should not be living in this country? I guess your not really comfortable with dissenting views. I guess anger is natural.

Just for the record Spence, I would like you to stay.

RODDY, I am not angry with you. Once again, please pay attention to what I write. What I wrote was that if you oppose the free and open discussion of any and all topics, this is the wrong site for you and America might be the wrong country for you. I say that because I believe free and open discussion is as American as applie pie. It's why I love my country so much.

I'm very comfortable with dissenting views, RODDY. I'm an Admin here. If I wanted, I could edit your posts, delete them or ban you. I have no intention of doing any of those things unless you post something pornographic, profanely insulting, or racist. By debating you when I don't have to, I'm proving I am comfortable with dissenting views.

As long as you stay within those very generous boundaries [no porn, no racism, no profane insults] you will be able to post here as much and as often as you like--on any topic you like--and never worry if the Admins agree with you.

I guarantee it.

[If you doubt my word, please consult my fellow Admin CarMike about this. His political views are much closer to yours than mine, but I"m pretty certain he'll vouch for my good faith and conduct in this matter.]

[TexSkin]

As long as you stay within those very generous boundaries [no porn, no racism, no profane insults] you will be able to post here as much and as often as you like--on any topic you like--and never worry if the Admins agree with you.


What no porn!! Man there goes my next post! :wacky:

[Skinzaholic]

I have to say that although Spence shows great thought and articulation in his points, I have to agree with Roddy in the overall position.


But to be truthful... my eyes are starting to blur.


TexSkin my man... I dont think it is fair to accuse Roddy of personal attacks. Seems by reading through this post, both sides have gotten heated regardless of who is posting. THAT is the fun/nightmare of debating. THAT is America... We should allow others to express their opinions (even with some strong emotion) and not be too hasty to clamp down on one side or the other due to a bit of smoke.

Im certain Spence can handle it.


I wonder if the original Americans really knew what they were starting with all this free speech stuff.

[TexSkin]

Sorry Skinzaholic not trying to play favorites or anything...I just feel Roddy is taking this all to personally. I actually agree with Roddy's views and not Spence's ,but we need to remember that this is just idle chat. Do not start hating each other over it.

[Spence]

Originally posted by TexSkin
What no porn!! Man there goes my next post! :wacky:

:D

Funniest post of the day so far!

[RODDY]

I certainly hope no one is taking all this personal. Just strong opinions- Hope that dosent offend anyone.

[TexSkin]

Originally posted by RODDY
I certainly hope no one is taking all this personal. Just strong opinions- Hope that dosent offend anyone.

Glad to hear that Roddy. ;)

[BigCountry]

OK hold up.....no porno?! :D :smash:

[Skinzaholic]

Originally posted by BigCountry
OK hold up.....no porno?! :D :smash:


OOOps... looks like BC just woke up! :D

[BigCountry]

I don't think it would've been a good idea for me and Spence to join forces here. Heads would have rolled. Luckily I LEFT it in more then capable hands... ;)

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by Spence
You're certainly correct that the cost of the war and the occupation will outweigh any economic benefit from the war. There is no doubt about that. That's one reason people like me opposed the war. Just one reason, though. There are many others.

Agreeing with almost all your points, however please remember that the admin and Bush are not necessarily interested in cost/benefits overall, just the costs and benefits as it applies to them and those who support them. The Bushies truly believe that whatever increases the wealth of the rich is best for the country (see recent tax cuts). The Hallibutons of the world and their administration connections will surely profit mightily, at the low cost of some poor schlub's kid who was not fortunate enough to acquire a National Guard post stateside.