saddam's capture

[CarolinaTiger 0]

saw lieberman on TV this morning (Sunday morning of the announced capture) and naturally he was beating on dean...saying, 'had we followed dean's advice, saddam would still be in power in iraq'.

dean garnered initial support as being one of the only ones against the war...

might this be the bump the others need to catch him in the 2 early primaries??

as far as the dems go, there are 2-3 i could live w/ more easily,should they get elected, and joe l. is one of them... along w/ dean, interestingly enough.

ct

[Ranger12 46]

Most of the libs have been saying that we should not have went to Iraq because we did not fine WMDs. They seem to forget the fact that the man was pure evil that imprisoned and killed children. That should be enought without WMDs, but that is not good enough for most libs for some reason. What is really funny is that these same libs had no problem with Clinton taking Milosovechk out in Bosnia for the same things that Hussien was doing. It seems that alot of libs show their true colors by blindly supporting their party instead of focusing on what it right. Their is no way they can defend their hypocrisy for the support of Clinton in Bosnia, but then they go against what Bush did with Hussien. If they do try to defend that, then again they will just show their true colors as selfish party followers. I am conservative, but I supported what Clinton did and I was in the military when that was going on. We have strayed from right and wrong and let political parties that we blindly support tell us what to believe.

[Tiger Al 0]

Most of the libs have been saying that we should not have went to Iraq because we did not fine WMDs.

As usual, ranger, you present the opposition side in the way that you want regardless of other facts involved and then easily come to conclusions based on your tidy little package. That's a device known as a "strawman".

If you look back over my posts you'll see that I've not said that ANY action against Saddam was unjust because there were no WMD's. Again, I've consistently said that of ALL the reasons the Bushies gave us for going to war, the only one that isn't either seriously in question or never even existed was the "brutal dictator" claim. And, I've always said that if that was a good enough reason to go to war then THAT should've been the primary reason we were given and THAT should've been what Powell's speech was about in the UN. THAT should've been what we tried to persuade the world to rally around and THAT should've been the reason the world went into Iraq, either under the UN or NATO, as a unified coalition that wouldn't have even the appearance of imperialistic designs for that country.

That wasn't the case, though. The rest of the world was given lots of claims about WMD's, nuclear weapons, alleged uranium purchases, Saddam/bin Laden/Sept. 11 conspiracy claims and so on. In Powell's pitch to the UN, he gave six pages worth of speech and, of that six pages, two paragraphs at the end of the speech addressed the "brutal dictator" reason.

Maybe this sounds like splitting hairs to you, as if we were given "X" number of viable reasons and we just picked the "wrong" one. To the contrary, we were told of lots of reasons to go and none has proved true.

[rexbo 104]

So Much for a “Quagmire”

Al Gore must be thinking life is pretty unfair about now. After dominating the news by endorsing Howard Dean, thereby making a play for the pro-Saddam wing of the Democratic party, he is unceremoniously swept aside by the news that U.S. soldiers have captured Saddam Hussein.

[TitanTiger 20,519]

Actually, Saddam's human rights violations (which were direct violations of UN resolutions) were one of the reasons given for going after him. From Bush's speech to the UN, Sept 12, 2002:

"...He has proven instead only his contempt for the United Nations, and for all his pledges.  By breaking every pledge -- by his deceptions, and by his cruelties -- Saddam Hussein has made the case against himself. 

In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities -- which the Council said, threatened international peace and security in the region.  This demand goes ignored. 

Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights found that Iraq continues to commit extremely grave violations of human rights, and that the regime's repression is all pervasive.  Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating and burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands, children in the presence of their parents -- and all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state. 

In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolutions 686 and 687, demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands.  Iraq's regime agreed.  It broke its promise.  Last year the Secretary General's high-level coordinator for this issue reported that Kuwait, Saudi, Indian, Syrian, Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Bahraini, and Omani nationals remain unaccounted for -- more than 600 people. One American pilot is among them..." 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20020912-1.html

[CShine 0]

Well, I posted this on the other thread. Might as well put it here too.

It's pretty funny to see that on hearing this great news the first thought of so many people was how it would affect their political enemies here at home. Y'all are some great self-parodies and you don't even know it.

[Tiger Al 0]

Titan, I understand that human rights violations were a reason, among many, that were given. I've never said the contrary. But, 99% of the effort to justify war by Bush was about WMD's, al Quaeda/9-11/Hussein links, alledged uranium purchases, etc. Human rights violations received maybe 1% of the attention by Bush.

[MDM4AU 336]

Well, I posted this on the other thread. Might as well put it here too.

It's pretty funny to see that on hearing this great news the first thought of so many people was how it would affect their political enemies here at home. Y'all are some great self-parodies and you don't even know it.

Yeah, I guess haters like you really can't say much else.

[Donutboy 0]

Most of the libs have been saying that we should not have went to Iraq because we did not fine WMDs. They seem to forget the fact that the man was pure evil that imprisoned and killed children. That should be enought without WMDs, but that is not good enough for most libs for some reason. What is really funny is that these same libs had no problem with Clinton taking Milosovechk out in Bosnia for the same things that Hussien was doing. It seems that alot of libs show their true colors by blindly supporting their party instead of focusing on what it right. Their is no way they can defend their hypocrisy for the support of Clinton in Bosnia, but then they go against what Bush did with Hussien. If they do try to defend that, then again they will just show their true colors as selfish party followers. I am conservative, but I supported what Clinton did and I was in the military when that was going on. We have strayed from right and wrong and let political parties that we blindly support tell us what to believe.

We went into Bosnia with the support of the UN and NATO. We knew going in WHY we were going in. We weren't lied to to garner our support. The ethnic cleansing was ongoing and was seen daily on our TVs. It was brought into our living rooms. The attrocities that went on in Iraq were done during the original Reagan-Bush administration and we supplied them with the poison gas that they used. There was also some mass killings immediately after the first Gulf War, but President Bush (the first) didn't intervene. There was no evidence that any attrocities had happened since 1991.

There's a difference in blind support, which you allege, and supporting war when deemed necessary. Yes, Bosnia was necessary. The killings were happening as current events, not when nearly a decade old and merely used as a backup reason for going to war when the first reasons were shown to be wrong. The Afghan war was necessary and was widely supported here and abroad because of the terrorists attacks on our soil. I supported our reasons for going to war in Afghanistan then and I still do today. We should not rest until Bin Laden's either inprison for life or suffering the same fate he gave so many of our citizens.

[CShine 0]

Well, I posted this on the other thread. Might as well put it here too.

It's pretty funny to see that on hearing this great news the first thought of so many people was how it would affect their political enemies here at home. Y'all are some great self-parodies and you don't even know it.

Yeah, I guess haters like you really can't say much else.

Oh, aren't you a silly. We're both haters. That's why you and I both come to threads like this.

[Donutboy 0]

Political ramifications.... I'll try and espouse an opposing view. Shucks, I can get drawn into most any ole argument. First off, this capture will be an immediate boost for Bush. Don't be surprised to see his numbers jump considerably in the next polls. It's also going to have a long term residual effect for him. It's become a positive for him in 2004 instead of a negative. It might also help him in other ways. It could be the stimulus that the economy needs to finally shake the three year doldrums that it's been in. It could also tighten up the Democratic race and the Democrats needed a leader going into Spring, not into the Summer. Those are the pluses.

There are other things that "MIGHT", let me stress that word, "MIGHT" happen. With the war winding down and less and less news to report from Iraq, the nation's press may turn their attention to the domestic issues and many questions that have gone unasked because of the war, such as Enron's role in the energy policy, the CIA leak, hidden givaways in the energy and Medicare bills, etc... These could be politically damaging, especially if it appears this administration is covering up corruption and crimes. American memories are short when it comes to good times and bad times. A huge political bonanza such as the Saddam Hussein capture can be yesterday's news by November 2004. Ask George, Sr. George W. runs a political risk by making the war a campaign issue in 2004. The Democrats can air his own pre-war rhetoric against him, much like the Republicans did to Al Gore in 2000. The terrorism might continue in Iraq. If the terrorism was being orchestrated by Al Quida instead of Saddam Hussein, it might point out more vividly that we were wasting our time on Saddam Hussein instead of "focusing like a laser" on Bin Laden and Al Queda. If this capture does damage Dean's chances at the democratic nomination, it might open the door for a candidate that is more electable to ALL Americans, such as Wesley Clark.

It's still a long way to November 2004, and even though the political waters have probably shifted, it's still too early to tell what's going to happen.

[CarolinaTiger 0]

Well, I posted this on the other thread. Might as well put it here too.

It's pretty funny to see that on hearing this great news the first thought of so many people was how it would affect their political enemies here at home. Y'all are some great self-parodies and you don't even know it.

well, i read this on another thread and i read it here.

CShine...every station i've seen cover this story has eventually gotten around to political ramifications...pardon us for doing the same.

feel free to ignore these threads if they make you feel too indignant

[rexbo 104]

...first thought of so many people was how it would affect their political enemies here at home....

If it didn't seem that our political enemies at home were aligning themselves with our political enemies abroad, maybe we wouldn't be so quick to discuss the affect...