Red White & Blue Hens

College students in Delaware who think right is right, and left is wrong. We study hard, party hard, and play hardball.

Sunday, April 17, 2005

Let's Export Us Some Democracy


  • At 12:11 AM, Blogger M. McKain said…

    I glanced through the posting, but just the name in and of itself, "WMDs don't really matter," is absurd. The writer states that "to Bush critics, WMDs were all that mattered."

    Apparently he missed EVERYTHING Pres. Bush said leading up to the war. To him, WMD'S WERE all that mattered. It was his premise for taking this country to war. Colin Powell at the UN, that whole thing...remember that? Blame bad intelligence... whatever. We were deceived by our President into going to war.

    If exporting Democracy was his true purpose, as it appears it was (or at least that is how he is now justifying it), he should have said that to the American people in the first place.

    WMDs MATTER because THEY were the stated purpose for our troops fighting and dying in Iraq.

  • At 11:00 AM, Blogger Ryan S. said…

    Actually, Bush talked about freeing the Iraqi people and pure regime change in Iraq just as much as he talked about WMD's, leading up to the war. Unfortunately, the mass media only remembers things they want to report, and so history has been twisted to show that Bush's only concern was WMD's, as well as an Iraq-911 or strong Iraq-Al Qaeda connection, which he denied.

    In fact, regime change in Iraq had been the policy of the US since President Clinton signed ythe Iraqi Liberation Act into law. And, if WMD's were the main purpose, why is it Operaton: Iraqi Freedom? Not Operation: WMD Sniffer?

  • At 12:04 PM, Anonymous Mike M. said…


    No...Bush only talked about freeing the Iraq people once it was confirmed we'd never find those WMD.

    Freeing Iraqi's wasn't even an ancillary reason for this war. THere were three distinct reasons George Bush took this country to war. As a refresher, I'll provide them.

    1) Saddam Hussein's regime possessed biological, chemical and "nucular" weapons of mass distruction.

    2) Saddam Hussein worked in tandem with al-Qaeda to accomplish the horrific events of 9/11.

    2) Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat to the security of the United States.

    Only after all of these reasons for war were chalked up to neo-conservative BS, only THEN did Bush start talking about the poor, democracy-craving Iraqis.

    Mike's point above is right. WMD were ALL that mattered to conservatives prior to the war. THey couldn't shut the hell up about them.

  • At 1:25 PM, Blogger Ryan S. said…

    See, this is what happens when you only read the New York Times and watch CNN. I may watch FoxNews, but I don't trick myself into thinking that one news source provides all the answers.

    No one ever said that Saddam had nuclear, or even nucular weapons, but that he had the desire to posess them. Intelligence indicated to all parties that Iraq did posess biological and chemical weapons, especially since he had previously used them.

    The White House never said that Saddam worked with Al Qaeda in planning the 9-11 attacks. They had a relationship of sorts, but bin Laden never liked Saddam, and only had training camps in Iraq.

    Saddam was an imminent threat to the US and its allies. Those same allies who were making money of Oil-For-Food, aka, Oil-Money-For-Saddam (France).

    And, if you knew anything about Neoconservatives, they believe strongly in promoting democracy abroad.

    Don't have time right now, but I'll pull up some pre-war speeches where he talks about freeing the Iraqi people

  • At 2:01 PM, Blogger M. McKain said…

    As I said before, the neocon idea of promoting democracy abroad is worthy of debate; I have no problem with that. I don't care what news source you read/watch, the idea, AS PRESENTED TO THE AVERAGE AMERICAN, was that Saddam had WMDs and was an imminent threat. For instance they heard quotes like:

    Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."
    –Dick Cheney, Vice President , Aug. 26, 2002

    "The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."
    –George W. Bush, Oct. 7, 2002

    "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." George W. Bush, Jan. 28, 2003.

    Oh, and here's a case to prove you completely wrong: On Meet the Press, March 14, 2003, Cheney was asked, "What do you think is the most important rationale for going to war with Iraq?"

    His response? "Well, I think I've just given it, Tim, in terms of the combination of his development and use of chemical weapons, his development of biological weapons, his pursuit of nuclear weapons. …

    It's only a matter of time until he acquires nuclear weapons."

    Hmm, seems to me WMDs mattered A WHOLE LOT; they certainly did to Cheney, or at least that's what he made the American people think.

    We can debate the good we've done in Iraq, but it is a separate issue from the fact that THE primary reason for war proved to be unsubstantial.

  • At 2:15 PM, Anonymous Mike M. said…


    Even worse! So, we went to war because of one man's DESIRE to hold nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.

    Wow, you conservatives get smarter and more convoluted as the years pass!

    I, as a liberal, would be willing to give the BUsh Doctrine credit if in 20 years the Middle East is a changed place. All some of us liberals are asking is that you conservatives finally ADMIT that the Bush neo-con warriors LIED to start this war. Just give us that. Just give us that one victory that your team LIED.

  • At 4:22 PM, Blogger Ryan S. said…

    At this point, we have found no stockpiles of WMD's in Iraq. Then why did they say it?

    Bush said it, Cheney said it, Clinton said it, Kerry said it in 2002, France and Germany said it in the 1990s.

    David Kay, former UN Cheif Weapons inspector, who was sent to Iraq to find the WMD's, issued a report that we had found no stockpiles, but what we have found is also remarkable.

    "We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activites and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002."

    "In the chemical and biological weapons area we have confidence that there were at a minimum clandestine on-going research and development activities that were embedded in the Iraqi Intelligence Service. While we have much yet to learn about the exact work programs and capabilities of these activities, it is already apparent that these undeclared activities would have at a minimum facilitated chemical and biological weapons activities and provided a technically trained cadre."
    Here is the transcript:

  • At 8:49 PM, Blogger M. McKain said…

    A simple question:
    "Bush said it, Cheney said it, Clinton said it, Kerry said it in 2002..."

    Of these leaders, who took our nation into WAR that has thus far cost 1,559 American lives on this premise? That’s right, Bush/Cheney/Halliburton (oops, how did that get in there?)

    Sorry, that's a bit tangential, maybe even a cheap shot, who knows. I'm not debating the information you provided (meaning the Kay report); we can have that debate, but my original challenge was that WMDs DID and DO matter. This report, the fact that we are still talking about it, is only further evidence of that. The Bush administration is still trying to find ways of showing it did not deceive the American people in the first place. With this and other issues, they're having a difficult go of it.

  • At 9:45 PM, Blogger St. Joan of Arc said…

    i heart halliburton.


Post a Comment

<< Home