“The UN Wasn’t Going to Get Rid of Saddam”

[wadestock]

The Freudian slip of all time….

John McLaughlin was the ONLY commentator that addressed this historic statement following debate #2....as far as I have seen over the weekend.

Oh America, where art thou?
Can’t you now see through this president?
Has the country just gone through some enormous cognitive dissonance?

I hate to sound melodramatic....but I believe we have a serious problem going on here.

I’ve already talked to several people who have downplayed the significance of this statement. I’m starting to wonder if at least 40% of the country is in the grips of some psychosis that endorses this president’s reckless behavior…..as if for some reason this dangerous “kick ass” mentality is what is actually what the doctor ordered when it comes to killing terrorists.

I rationalized our country having way too little reaction to Abu Ghraib, but this is clearly over the top. This statement to me is a signed, sealed and delivered statement from our president that WE HAD TO BYPASS THE UN BECAUSE THEY AS AN ORGANIZATION ARE NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF TAKING OUT LEADERS OF OTHER COUNTRIES.

AND THIS IS THE PRESIDENT THAT 40% OF MORE OF THE COUNTRY WANTS TO RE-ELECT???? THINKING HE WILL PROVIDE MORE SECURITY TO OUR NATION?#$%$#@!

Coming out of debate 2...with the evidence now clearly out of the president’s mouth...the country has SEEN ON NATIONAL TV THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD DESIGNS ON IRAQ ALL ALONG...AND SPECIFICALLY SADDAM. How simple is it now to piece together the entire story? Come on people.

1. Saddam, in W’s mind had to go.
2. WMD had NOTHING to do with it.
3. Intelligence had NOTHING to do with it.
4. W’s specific intentions to get rid of Saddam had EVERYTHING to do with it.

OVER AND OVER PEOPLE CONTINUE TO BE CONFUSED ABOUT THE ALLEGED VOTE THE CONGRESS MADE “TO GO TO WAR”. Kerry voted for the war?@#$#@! No he didn’t. No one voted for any war.

Hello people...there was never any so called vote to “GO TO WAR”.

BUSH duped people and the congress into the mindset that force had to be used. Immediately after that specific authorization to use force was granted (and also tied to further inspections, and any other “last resort” measures)...Bush very conveniently changed the objective to regime change.

Wake up America.
The word is out.

Please Kerry/Edwards campaign put together a TV commercial and play this over and over.
Use it to explain HOW THE VOTE FOR THE USE OF FORCE HAD NO BEARING ON WHAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN ANYWAY. A carefully crafted TV infopiece on this can and should be completely devastating to the Bush campaign.

ARE WE REALLY GOING TO BE SAFER WITH A PRESIDENT THAT DECIDES A PRIORI WHO AND/OR WHAT REGIME IS ON THE HIT LIST OR NOT?????

[sadiesworld]

1. kick

[ladybugg33]

2. It is not the UN's job to overthrow dictators. Otherwise, Bush would be

one of the first to be overthrown since the majority of Americans who voted, didn't vote for him.

[MsUnderstood]

3. discussing this in another message board

The arguement given to me was that we had to go to war because Russia and France were making money in Iraq and Saddam was taking money from the oil for food program.

Did we go to war to screw up an economy then?

[wuushew]

4. Raising this point accomplishes nothing

Most members of Congress voted for the dubious Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the stated goal of the bill was the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

Pointing out the reality of American policy does nothing if there are no political alternatives. As is stands now both parties are full of imperialists, both of the well meaning and malevolent variety.


Perhaps in the future a coalition of Pat Buchanan isolationists and critical thinking and legalistic liberals will accomplish my goal of the U.S. out of everywhere.

[info being]

7. Exactly. In this respect, we don't have a real opposition party

[wadestock]

8. Verbiage from the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998....

"In the meantime, while the United States continues to look to the Security Council's efforts to keep the current regime's behavior in check, we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government."

There's a BIG difference between this and "you have 48 hours to get out of town"....don't you think @#$%? ....and not to mention the deaths of over 1000 US soldiers.

The point of this is that "right out of the horses mouth" has come the very statement that many people have feared all along. This man is quite insane. The neocons fed this man what they knew he would run with. None of any of them would have had the guts to do what he did...so they capitalized on his insanity. Bush's "decision" to go to war WAS IN FACT NO DECISION. IT WAS SHOOTING FROM THE HIP. This utter lack of constructive thinking has put the US in the toilet in terms of world wide foreign policy credibility. The US decision to use the A-bomb in WWII now looks moral in comparison to psychotic behavior.

Yes, the US has had a host of embarrassing covert actions....but now comes the light of day....and let's make sure we really understand the difference. Having this mentality summarily justified, especially through the RE-ELECTION of this man....will be the saddest day in US history.

BTW....What shread of evidence do you have that Kerry intends to breed the same mentality of reckless, indefensible premeptive military action against any nations in the future which poses no threat to the United States?

Sit down and read this....and then give me your answer....

Kerry’s Undeclared War

October 10, 2004
By MATT BAI

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/10/magazine/10KERRY.html?ex=1098470759&ei=1&en=1c135f56259af4f7

[wuushew]

9. And this is were the Chalabi money came from

Overthrowing governments is not on my priority list
Determining the subjective "rightness" or "wrongness" of extranational interference has no grounding in objective decision making. Why are Chile and El Salavador bad but Iraq good other than just because?




-snip--

On October 21, 1998, I signed into law the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, which made $8 million available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition. This assistance is intended to help the democratic opposition unify, work together more effectively, and articulate the aspirations of the Iraqi people for a pluralistic, participa--tory political system that will include all of Iraq's diverse ethnic and religious groups. As required by the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 1998 (Public Law 105-174), the Department of State submitted a report to the Congress on plans to establish a program to support the democratic opposition. My Administration, as required by that statute, has also begun to implement a program to compile information regarding allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes by Iraq's current leaders as a step towards bringing to justice those directly responsible for such acts.

http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/libera.htm

[Mike L]

5. Bad monkey.

[Poiuyt]

6. Bush wanted war for politcal strength

W remembered how his father's popularity was sky high during the first Gulf war but dropped after it was over, and he could see (before 9/11) how his numbers were dropping too. He knew that the American public tends to rally behind its leaders during times of war, so it was a simple process of picking out a country to invade. In come the neocons with their rational for invading Iraq and with the "Pearl Harbor" type event they were good to go.

You made an excellent post, wadestock.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

10. Interesting.

It was all about "regime change" as they said before, but that was convoluted with the WMD fears.
Unfortunately, a lot of people are on board with getting rid of Saddam as an acceptabe rationale for the war. Now the post mortems concern "at what price?"
I don't see how there is traction for attacking Bush on this since he already stated that this was a goal of the war.

[wadestock]

11. Haven't you answered your own question?

Do you really have to "go to war" to remove the one guy?

In fact people have signed up to the notion that "it is better to fight them over there...than over here". They have generally signed up to the notion that "the world is safer without Saddam". But these are clever metaphors....and don't deal with the real issue of Bush and how he had to have Saddam on a platter.

What we have here is the fact that Bush went to war WITHOUT THE SUPPORT OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND WITHOUT THE SUPPORT OF CONGRESS!!!

Don't you get it?
That fool pranced back and forth on stage....barely able to think a coherent thought and blurted out that the UN wasn't going to get rid of this guy. He had made his mind up.

Two things....

1. We are not a dictatorship. Just think about that concept in and of itself.
2. Add to that insanity the notion that the dictator has behind him the most powerful army in the entire world. (Not scared yet)
3. Add to that the plain fact that he can't weigh his decision based on facts or what is best for the American people.

Now are you really scared. Get the picture?
We have now entered the twilight zone with this guy.