Iraq had no WMD.
Iraq was cooperating with international inspectors.
Iraqi was still Invaded.

JC Silverberg on September 11, 2008 at 4:00 PM

Until 2002 Iraq was not co-operating with weapons inspectors. They had evicted all the inspectors some four or so years previously and only allowed them to return in 2002 when the USA and UK parked 100,000+ troops on the Iraqi borders and made it very clear that these troops were being made ready for battle. In late 2002 Hans Blix reported that co-operation was still less than required, in February 2003 missiles of forbidden range, that Iraq had denied having, were found, newly made.

The Iraqis had a long history of hiding things and denying that they had them, and they were known to be good at it. Their nuclear weapon ambitions, for example, were not even known about until the early stages of the programme were discovered *by accident* in the early 1990s.

It is well established that Iraq *did* have chemical weapons (the Iraqis admit it and have never denied it). The issue in 2003 was that those weapons were unaccounted for. The Iraqis claimed to have destroyed them but there were several good reasons to disbelieve that claim. As far as I know there is still no evidence that they were destroyed, but by now it is likely they would have degraded to uselessness.

Subsequently it has become apparent that even if the WMD program was considerably scaled back or suspended, the intention of having them was never abandoned.

The Iraqi government would appear to have been gambling that the international community would prevent military action, that the sanctions regime would collapse, and they would be able to continue their horrible ways with impunity. It was a reasonable gamble because for a while the odds did appear to be in their favour. Nonetheless they lost the gamble.

You are right that there was no known connection between Iraq and the events of 11th September 2001, but nobody who had been following Iraq ever really believed that there had been a connection. They were always two different conflicts, despite what agitators, simple-minded politicians and protestors might have said.

raq had no connection to 9-11.
Iraq had no WMD.
Iraq was cooperating with international inspectors.
JC Silverberg on September 11, 2008 at 4:00 PM

Iraq not cooperating on weapons inspections, Kawaguchi says, Salmak Pak, terrorist training camp, By Brian Murphy

Associated Press

The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein’s nuclear program – a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium – reached a Canadian port yesterday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans.

A quote that nearly all modern day liberal democrats seem to have forgotten was uttered by the person so many of them idolize.

Fatal

…the simple fact is that, were he alive and active today, Jack Kennedy — tax cuts, national defense — would be a Republican.

The only thing qualifying him as a modern Democrat is his botched foreign policy leading to the Cuban Missle Crisis, his ineptitude with Khrushchev, his imbecilic treatment of Diem and his philandering.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

- John F. Kennedy

A quote that nearly all modern day liberal democrats seem to have forgotten was uttered by the person so many of them idolize.

I sure wish someone would ask Mr. Obama what his opinion of this quote is, especially in light of his dogmatic insistence that the liberation of Iraq was a mistake.

The folks who made it have an incredible eye for editing, drama and pathos. It brought the day back to me.

I was in Austin, working a help desk. The calls fell to zero. Someone went down the hall and ripped off a TV on an AV tray, plugged it in for us, and we watched the towers fall. All I could think was, “I wish that I was there. I wish that I could do something to help.”

…then, I thought, “I want vengence.”

I got over the the second thought. It took time. Watching this documentary, that first thought came back in full.

…and today we scarcely think of 9/11, except as a political slogan. Sad.

No that was not what I meant and you know it! It was a rhetorical figure meant to illustrate the relative overreaction of invading Iraq in retaliation for 9-11, something the Iraqis had nothing to do with, their only connection being that they share their muslim faith with the alleged Saudi hijackers. Why not invade Saudia Arabia then? That would at least have been logical given the nationality of the alleged hijackers.
.
Iraq had no connection to 9-11.
Iraq had no WMD.
Iraq was cooperating with international inspectors.
Iraqi was still Invaded.
.
Hmmmm. Ulterior motive anyone?
.
***
.
As for that naive poster who claimed the invasion was motivated by humanitarian concerns: Since when did the USA get the right to decide when other peoples “are better off” with an American invasion? Maybe the USA is better off with a Chinese invasion according to China, would that then justify that the Chinese attacks the USA, kills thousands of Americans and demand that you be grateful? No, certainly not! Please think before you post such naive rubbish! Each nation is soverign and must deal with its own problems unless it invites the US to come to its aid like for example South Vietnam did.

JC Silverberg on September 11, 2008 at 4:00 PM

Since Iraq was not a response to 9/11, you just make a fool of yourself with this off-topic and pointless argument.

Besides which you keep repeating things that are only true in Democrat Bizarro-world.

– No one ever claimed Iraq was connected to 9/11.
– Iraq was proven to have WMD’s. They proved it themselves when they used them on their own citizens at Halabja. The dispute has always been about the actual extent of those WMD’s, except for those suffering from BDS, who are always convinced there were NO WMD’s.
– Iraq was not cooperating with inspectors. Your claim that they were exposes your absolute refusal to face facts honestly.
– Iraq broke the terms of their cease-fire repeatedly over a period of nearly 10 years. I suppose, it being a Middle Eastern cease-fire, no one ever expected it to be taken seriously?

If Iraq was not a response to 9/11, why do you keep wanting to talk about Iraq in a thread on 9/11?

dems, when they, if they’d been in charge, would have most likely done nothing.
4shoes on September 11, 2008 at 10:39

AM
What a pointless stupid lie. And how ignorant to be spitefully partisan on a day like today.
Dave Rywall on September 11, 2008 at 11:20 AM

And what did clinton do each time that we were attacked?

Johan Klaus on September 11, 2008 at 3:01 PM

- WTC 1,
- Airforce Barracks in Saudi
_ Amcn. Embassy bombings in Africa
- USS Cole in Yemen
- Blackhawk down
- and don’t forget the Saudis’ offered us Bin Laden.

I remember Clinton sent a few missiles and the FBI for some of these, but Bill never followed through, treated these incidents as crimes and claimed the perpetrators would be brought to justice, but they weren’t. All talk, no action.
So I guess I was just using Clinton as a guide for that rash comment, not the other Democratic presidents.
I don’t usually make general statements like that, and if you don’t know, (you probably do) Dave Rywall is a huge troll, I usually ignore him too.

I read your other posts, and I hope your son and grandson come home ok.

God Bless.

however going from that to realizing that we as a society cannot bring ourselves to man up to the plate in what I view as a cultural war and in another way a clash of civilizations is angering. As well as depressing.

Multiculturalism and political correctness will be our doom if we cannot manage to know when to put our foot down.

JC Silverberg on September 11, 2008 at 5:11 PM

That statement doesn’t apply to me so that’s fine. I wasn’t speaking of physicality but I’ll leave it to Euro-trash to take it there. I was speaking of your effette mindset.

JC Silverberg on September 11, 2008 at 5:57 PM

I suppose you think Neville Chamberlain took the right approach? Poor old chap.

Zetterson on September 11, 2008 at 5:52 PM

I was wondering when someone was going to throw that out there…

“We will not sit still until the luster of that blue helmet is restored.”

There was a luster? Lust, yes – luster, not in a 1000 years (and why we still fund the UN is beyond my comprehension).

JC Silverberg on September 11, 2008 at 5:57 PM

The terrible old U.S. bailed out Europe in WW1 and WW2 and will probably have to do the same after the muslim invasion.

There are already international peacekeepers in Darfur.

JC Silverberg on September 11, 2008 at 5:01 PM

Doing a fine job too.
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gQxgAagaIb8k2Xt4eBRd1ZS0O47Q
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=15202&Cr=Sudan&Cr1=
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=17043&Cr=Sudan&Cr1=Darfur

I’m more concerned about how we will deal with China than I am about Europe.

Y-not on September 11, 2008 at 5:36 PM

That’s for sure.

I spend a lot of time in Europe, where I have got a lot of friends and relatives and not just a few dislike the U.S.

Johan Klaus on September 11, 2008 at 5:27 PM

I know, but look at what Reagan accomplished. I think it can get better.

I’m more concerned about how we will deal with China than I am about Europe.

Y-not on September 11, 2008 at 5:00 PM

I spend a lot of time in Europe, where I have got a lot of friends and relatives and not just a few dislike the U.S.. They are brainwashed with their socialism and they know that socialism cannot compete with free markets.

Johan Klaus on September 11, 2008 at 5:12 PM

Ignore Silverberg. He’s a bug.

Thank you for the sacrifices you and your family are making for us. God protect them.

Hypocrites!
.
USA, leave Europe alone!

JC Silverberg on September 11, 2008 at 4:37 PM

You say that until we have to bail you out again, like in WW1 and WW2.