Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Cloudbringer: [img]smile.gif[/img] Well, as I said, I see this piece as contrived and lacking that 'innocence'. It 'feels' too much like a set up to arrive at the 'necessary' conclusions on the whole, that's all. [img]smile.gif[/img] LOL, I'm critiquing the style and attempted 'effect' it appears to be meant to confer on readers.

True but is not all humor contrived? This *is* a humor piece after all, at the expense of U.S. foreign policy. It has the same political impact as perhaps the Daily Show or a funny political cartoon. Not much, but enough to make a point(s).

I wonder though... if the conversation were between an alien visitor to the planet and an earthling, rather than a father/child if the humor and political impact would be any different. Hmmmm.

[Gab]

I find this FAQ funny just because the answers are completly ridiculous. What the main point the FAQ states is that the countries are bad if they aren't friends with the U.S. Doesn't anyone else find this FAQ just really stupid instead of funny.

[ 09-16-2003, 10:19 PM: Message edited by: Gab ]

[Lord Lothar]

Originally posted by Gab: I find this FAQ funny just because the answers are completly ridiculous. What the main point the FAQ states is that the countries are bad if they aren't friends with the U.S. Doesn't anyone else find this FAQ just really stupid instead of funny.

No.

[Skunk]

Originally posted by Gab: I find this FAQ funny just because the answers are completly ridiculous. What the main point the FAQ states is that the countries are bad if they aren't friends with the U.S. Doesn't anyone else find this FAQ just really stupid instead of funny.

"You're either with U.S. or against U.S."

Does that sound familiar?

[Xen]

Originally posted by Skunk: quote: Originally posted by Gab: I find this FAQ funny just because the answers are completly ridiculous. What the main point the FAQ states is that the countries are bad if they aren't friends with the U.S. Doesn't anyone else find this FAQ just really stupid instead of funny.

"You're either with U.S. or against U.S."

Does that sound familiar? [/QUOTE]Yes it does. [img]tongue.gif[/img] Oh and i don`t find this FAQ stupid.

[Gab]

Originally posted by Skunk: quote: Originally posted by Gab: I find this FAQ funny just because the answers are completly ridiculous. What the main point the FAQ states is that the countries are bad if they aren't friends with the U.S. Doesn't anyone else find this FAQ just really stupid instead of funny.

"You're either with U.S. or against U.S."

Does that sound familiar? [/QUOTE]Exactly, Skunk and that's the point the FAQ makes. Not every country against the U.S. is evil. I'm aware that guys find this FAQ amusing but I don't.

[ 09-17-2003, 08:22 AM: Message edited by: Gab ]

[Skunk]

I have seen this one before and I was impressed rather than amused. T

The author has taken a great deal of care to try to lead Joe Average - rather than Mr Intellectual, through foreign policy to point out its illogical justifications - and he/she utilises a logical approach to do so.

It's an interesting exercise if nothing else.

[John D Harris]

Truly did the Indian say that White Man speaks with forked tongue. Its not that these people have no memory; the sad truth is that they have no conscience, no sense of moral or ethical responsibility, and no respect for the people they were elected to lead. There is a famine of leadership in this land. May God have mercy on our grand-children.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Subject: Weapons of Mass Destruction

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec,
5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"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" Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"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 ... 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." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... 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 ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

SO NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WMD'S AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES???

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by John D Harris: There is a famine of leadership in this land. May God have mercy on our grand-children. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SO NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WMD'S AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES???

I agree with you on the first part, especially since our grandkids will be paying off the, so far, 140+ billion dollars we have spent on Bush's Iraq adventure.

Now here are some interesting quotes on the administration's changing views on Iraq & 9/11:
Plans For Iraq Attack Began On 9/11
WASHINGTON, Sept. 4, 2002

(CBS) CBS News has learned that barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq — even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now in truth the neocons have been ready to roll into Iraq since the mid 90's. When 9/11 happened it was only by a bare margin that we attacked Afganistan before Iraq. A good read about how close we came to taking Iraq first is Bob Woodward's "Bush at War".

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now the administration is changing it's tune:

Rumsfeld sees no link between 9/11 and Iraq
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Robert Burns

Sept. 16, 2003 | WASHINGTON (AP) -- Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Tuesday he had no reason to believe that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had a hand in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States.

At a Pentagon news conference, Rumsfeld was asked about a poll that indicated nearly 70 percent of respondents believed the Iraqi leader probably was personally involved.

"I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that," Rumsfeld said.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rice: U.S. Never Said Saddam Was Behind 9/11
Tue September 16, 2003 09:34 PM ET
By Randall Mikkelsen
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said on Tuesday the Bush administration had never accused Saddam Hussein of directing the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.

Her statement, in an interview recorded for broadcast on ABC's "Nightline," came despite long-standing administration charges the ousted Iraqi leader was linked to the al Qaeda network accused of the Sept. 11 attacks.

This quote here is my favorite:
"We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein ... had either direction or control of 9/11," Rice said when asked about the public perception of a link.

I guess since they took the one teneous link and stretched it to the breaking point they have decided to disavow all knowledge of their own actions.

[ 09-17-2003, 11:03 AM: Message edited by: Rokenn ]

[Rokenn]

Just found this editorial thought it would be an even better rebuttal to John's post:
Editorial: Truth / Too little of it on Iraq

Published September 17, 2003 ED17

Dick Cheney is not a public relations man for the Bush administration, not a spinmeister nor a political operative. He's the vice president of the United States, and when he speaks in public, which he rarely does, he owes the American public the truth.

In his appearance on "Meet the Press" Sunday, Cheney fell woefully short of truth. On the subject of Iraq, the same can be said for President Bush, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz. But Cheney is the latest example of administration mendacity, and therefore a good place to start in holding the administration accountable. The list:

• Cheney repeated the mantra that the nation ignored the terrorism threat before Sept. 11. In fact, President Bill Clinton and his counterterrorism chief, Richard Clarke, took the threat very seriously, especially after the bombing of the USS Cole in October 2000. By December, Clarke had prepared plans for a military operation to attack Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, go after terrorist financing and work with police officials around the world to take down the terrorist network.

Because Clinton was to leave office in a few weeks, he decided against handing Bush a war in progress as he worked to put a new administration together.

Instead, Clarke briefed national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Cheney and others. He emphasized that time was short and action was urgent. The Bush administration sat on the report for months and months. The first high-level discussion took place on Sept. 4, 2001, just a week before the attacks. The actions taken by the Bush administration following Sept. 11 closely parallel actions recommended in Clarke's nine-month-old plan. Who ignored the threat?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------