Reasons Why The Iraq War Is "Retarted"

stackmjwiz

26-09-2005 14:56:16

[b25d5e0bd65]1. Saddam Hussein had no ties to terrorism[/b25d5e0bd65]

Without question, Iraq was a nation that provided "safe haven" for terrorists with "global reach". Among them were terrormaster Abu Nidal, Abdul Rahman Yasin, one of the conspirators in the 1993 WTC bombing, "Khala Khadr al-Salahat, the man who reputedly made the bomb for the Libyans that brought down Pan Am Flight 103 over...Scotland,"Abu Abbas, mastermind of the October 1985 Achille Lauro hijacking and murder of Leon Klinghoffer," & "Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, formerly the director of an al Qaeda training base in Afghanistan" who is now believed to be leading Al-Qaeda's forces in Iraq. Quite frankly, any war on terrorism that didn't tackle that nest of vipers would have been a war in name only.

[b25d5e0bd65]2. Saddam Hussein had no ties to Al-Qaeda[/b25d5e0bd65]

Al-Qaeda and Saddam may not have worked together to target American infrastructure, but had ties and worked together at times throughout Saddam's reign.

[quote25d5e0bd65]li Abdul Rahman Yasin was the only member of the al Qaeda cell that detonated the 1993 World Trade Center bomb to remain at large in the Clinton years. He fled to Iraq. U.S. forces recently discovered a cache of documents in Tikrit, Saddam's hometown, that show that Iraq gave Mr. Yasin both a house and monthly salary.

li Bin Laden met at least eight times with officers of Iraq's Special Security Organization, a secret police agency run by Saddam's son Qusay, and met with officials from Saddam's mukhabarat, its external intelligence service, according to intelligence made public by Secretary of State Colin Powell, who was speaking before the United Nations Security Council on February 6, 2003.

li In 1998, Abbas al-Janabi, a longtime aide to Saddam's son Uday, defected to the West. At the time, he repeatedly told reporters that there was a direct connection between Iraq and al Qaeda.

li Mohamed Mansour Shahab, a smuggler hired by Iraq to transport weapons to bin Laden in Afghanistan, was arrested by anti-Hussein Kurdish forces in May, 2000. He later told his story to American intelligence and a reporter for the New Yorker magazine.[/quote25d5e0bd65]

[quote25d5e0bd65]Stephen Hayes "Evan Bayh, Democrat from Indiana, has described the Iraq-al Qaeda connection as a relationship of "mutual exploitation." Joe Lieberman said, "There are extensive contacts between Saddam Hussein's government and al Qaeda." George Tenet, too, has spoken of those contacts and goes further, claiming Iraqi "training" of al Qaeda terrorists on WMDs and provision of "safe haven" for al Qaeda in Baghdad. Richard Clarke once said the U.S. government was "sure" Iraq had provided a chemical-weapons precursor to an al Qaeda-linked pharmaceutical plant in Sudan. Even Hillary Clinton cited the Iraq-al Qaeda connection as one reason she voted for the Iraq War."[/quote25d5e0bd65]

In addition, no one disputes that Abu Musab al Zarqawi, who once ran an Al-Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan and is leading Al-Qaeda terrorist attacks in Iraq today, was in Iraq BEFORE the war started getting medical care. In and of itself, that would seem to strongly suggest a significant connection. Also, Zarqawi's Al-Qaeda affiliated group had operated in the outskirts of Baghdad long before the war.

[b25d5e0bd65]3. Bush "lied, manipulated, distored, decieved" about Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq[/b25d5e0bd65]

The reality is that numerous prominent Democrats with access to the same intelligence data also openly declared and obviously believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, it becomes nearly impossible for a rational person to believe that Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq. We're not talking about small fry or just proponents of the war either. The aforementioned Democrats include Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, John Edwards, Robert Byrd, Henry Waxman, Tom Daschle, and Nancy Pelosi among many, many others. Just to hammer the point home, here's a quote from the 800 pound gorilla of the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton, that was made on Oct 8, 2002
[quote25d5e0bd65]
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security."[/quote25d5e0bd65]

[quote25d5e0bd65]"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002[/quote25d5e0bd65]
[quote25d5e0bd65]
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002[/quote25d5e0bd65]

[quote25d5e0bd65]"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003[/quote25d5e0bd65]
[quote25d5e0bd65]
"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002[/quote25d5e0bd65]

[quote25d5e0bd65]"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002[/quote25d5e0bd65]

To believe that George Bush lied about WMDs is to believe that there is a vast conspiracy to lie about WMDs that goes to the highest level of both parties & that stretches across both the pro and anti-war movements. It's just not possible -- and that's before we even consider the numerous other pieces of exculpating evidence like all the non-American intelligence agencies that also believed Saddam had WMDs, CIA Director George Tenet famously saying it was a "'slam-dunk' that Hussein possessed the banned weapons", the once secret Downing Street Memo which certainly proves that our allies in Britain believed Saddam had WMDs...And of course, that we did find warheads designed to carry chemical warfare agents and artillery shells filled with mustard gas & sarin (even though they were small in number and weren't recently made).
[b25d5e0bd65]
4. People Tasted Political Freedom For The First Time In A Long Time[/b25d5e0bd65]

By taking out Saddam Hussein, we freed more than 25 million Iraqis and are helping them towards Democracy. This isn't a small thing given that Democrats justified military intervention in places like Bosnia and Haiti SOLELY on humanitarian grounds.

[b25d5e0bd65]5. The War On Terror Had Nothing At All To Do With Iraq And Saddam[/b25d5e0bd65]

[quote25d5e0bd65]"Iraq may not be the war on terror itself, but it is critical to the outcome of the war on terror, and therefore any advance in Iraq is an advance forward" -- John Kerry, 12/15/03[/quote25d5e0bd65]
[b25d5e0bd65]
6. Nothing Good Has Come Out Of This War For Oil[/b25d5e0bd65]

A new Constitution, elections, Saddam Hussein in jail, much lower casualties than predicted (though still too many at under 2,000). By every measure of history and modern warfare, the war in Iraq has been won many times over.

[b25d5e0bd65]Lastly, the Iraq War is "Retarted" because Bush & his bigoted administration are the real insurgents, not Saddam, Al Qaeda, Hamas, PLO, Hezbollah, Ansar al-Islam, Muslim Brotherhood. Those are the real "freedom fighters" and heroes! Rogue nations with intents and long track records to obtain deadly weapons and sponsor terrorism aren't the problem. Amerikkka is!

Long Live Mother Sheehan![/b25d5e0bd65]

But seriously, If people think we should speed the withdrawal, then they don't care who wins the war (which unfortunately, I think is the position of many on the Left) If the Coalition were to pull out now, Iraq would fall to Zarqawi and his band of Islamic killers. If you're worried about losing the war, then why speed the withdrawal? The answer is that you don't (unless you don't care if the Coalition break down or if the terrorists win). It would be a disastrous failure and would threaten the security of the United States. It's that simple.