GTech can you then explain why Cheney and Bush Senior did not remove him in the first Gulf War???? PS: Maybe they worked a dirty oil deal????
Iraq ties to terrorism, including al qaeda: http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200410\SPE20041004a.html Twenty tons of chemical WMD. I wonder where they came from? http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/4/27/164917.shtml Weapon's Inspector comments on WMD sent to Syria? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...25.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/01/25/ixnewstop.html
Anthony, it would only be speculation why he wasn't removed, but even if I could explain it, you wouldn't have been happy with it then, and you certainly are disappointed he's not in power now. Besides, the current course is not really focused on that. Am I wrong in assuming that's sort of a side tracker question? With all that's posted, surely you have *something* you could share???
Simple. Stormin' Normin' said it best. "We do not have a plan". More to the point, I respect Bush Senior for this decision, because he apparently learned from the mistakes of Vietnam. Our objective was to remove Saddam from Kuwait. That was it. US made a plan, set an objective, followed that plan to the letter and achieved said objective. The plan/objective was not to remove Saddam from power. Besides doing that at that time would have truly destabilized the Middle East to the point where every country in the ME would have to contend with the threat of IRAN making a move in one direction or another. Anyway, what was done then was done for a reason. It was calculated, clean cut, and in retrospect, appears to have been the right decision.
Uh oh, you slipped that ol' oil one in on me after you posted the first line. Do you mean like the United Nations oil deal? Maybe the oil deals that France, Russia, Germany, China and 270 influential world leaders and businessmen were part of? If I'm correct, the kind of oil deal I describe above is perfectly legitimate in your eyes? So much oil outrage, but never for those caught red handed
I'm too lazy to look for it, but if you Google for the transcripts of the 92' debate with Perot, Bush and Clinton, you will see an argument/debate session between Bush and Perot where Bush goes into great detail explaining the reasons for not invading Iraq during the Iraq war. I know I have it book marked somewhere... Anyway, it is a nice read.
No GTech I am mad that Bush Senior and President Cheney did not take out Saddam in 91-92 when we were on the ground in Bagdad then. In addition this nation and the world has paid ONE THOUSAND fold when we did not have to if they were capable of making good judgments (THE BUSH GANG THAT WAS IN POWER THEN IS IN POWER NOW). So you blame Saddam for 9/11 then BLAME PRESIDENT CHENEY for it also and Bush Senior. In addition blame another one of your Republican Union busting Presidents Ronald Reagan for firing the Air Traffic controllers when PATCO went on strike. The replacements thought the attack on 9/11 was coming from the east from Europe when in fact they were lost and did not realize that the attack was coming from within the United States.
Anthony, there's just entirely too much good information coming about in this thread for all that nonsense.
And like I said before if Bush Sr took Saddam out of power you would be screaming about how wrong it was. It doesn't matter what they do you just figure it has to be wrong with those really dark glasses you were you don't see much of anything.
How would things have been any different? Do you honestly thing the French and Germans would have been overwhelmed with joy, and happy to jump on board if we went and said, "hell, while we're here let's sack Bagdad?" Think about that for a moment.. Just how would this have been any different, any less costly in human lives on both sides, and any less costly in terms of dollars? Why do you call him "President Cheney?" I can only assume it is a typo, or you really have some serious Cheney envy. Who is blaming 9/11 on Saddam? I've seen you say it in the past. I have seen the NY Times say it (actually they are the first to say it). I've seen others say it. Though I have never heard the Bush administration, or President Bush, or VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY say it. Odd... This is so far off topic it begs the question, what the hell are you drinking. I'm giving you some levity because, after all it is Friday. Since you bring it up, firing the Air Traffic Controllers was the best thing he did IMHO. You do realize it is ILLEGAL for government employees to strike right? I only wish when other union touting luzers were on strike that others would have the balls to fire them. Imagine if they just canned the hockey players, or baseball players, instead of canceling the season. There are tons of people that would take their place. Hell, the price of US made cars would come down if some of the union dimwits were knocked down a peg or two. Anyway, like I said, that is way off topic. But you did bring it up. Replacements? What in the hell are you talking about? You do know when the striking workers were let go don't you? Check your timeline. If you are trying to say that replacement workers are to blame for some type of air traffic problems, you are way off base. First off, most of the striking workers went back to work, secondly, this was a LONG, LONG time ago in the over all scheme of things. It's not like every air traffic controller was 18 fresh out of high school, and new on the job. Show me how many accidents there were during that actual period that Reagan fired the striking workers that was a direct result of inadequate air traffic control? Anyway, anyone refusing to do a job that they are legally obligated to do and goes on strike, should probably not be doing that job in the first place.
Well, hind sight is always 20/20. Besides, years later when things settle down, the war on terror is over and Iraq is as peaceful as an octopus's garden, several on the left will claim it was their doing.
Now we agree that the Bush leadership from Senior, to Cheney, to Rumsfeld, to Ashcroft, to National Security Advisor Condi Rice is Nonsense, exactly, she as National Security advisor on 9/11 did not even understand the threat even though there were tips and intelligence that it could happen and Ashcroft knew and booted a man out of his office for giving him that information, you are right GTech they are nonsense leaders.
No Anthony, we agree that when you make assertions and others show clear evidence to the contrary, you will simply move on to the next... but, but, but what about {insert some wild accusation here}? It's much simpler to do that, than to acknowledge the information presented. Some work very hard to present the "why" part of why they believe differently. Instead of responding, you just move on to a new topic. One to the next to the next. That way, two days down the road, you can make the same baseless accusations and we can start all over.
Baseless accusations? Bush Senior did leave Saddam in power. Condi Rice was National Security Advisor on 9/11 Cheney was Defense Secretary under Bush Senior. Reagan did fire all the Air Traffic Control Union workers contributing to Rookies watching the air traffic in this Nation.
I don't know what it would have to do with aircraft crashing into buildings that the current air traffic controllers could not account for nor did they know where those planes were coming from. Again read my same statement over below. Republican Union busting President Ronald Reagan fired the Air Traffic controllers when PATCO went on strike. The replacements thought the attack on 9/11 was coming from the east from Europe when in fact they were lost and did not realize that the attack was coming from within the United States.
So using your logic of fabricated outrage, then you hold Clinton responsible for letting bin laden go three times? I honestly believe your outrage at Bush is because he invaded a Muslim country. That assumption makes a whole lot more sense to me then the outlandish claims you make, then move on to the next one. It's sort of a circular pattern of fabricated issues, always addressed, never acknowledged.