For those of you who need to see the essay that was deleted from the thread :

Saint Bastard wrote:

Scurmudgeon wrote:
Are you against U.S. involvement in Iraq based on principle alone? Are you against all wars or just this one?

Excellent question. In my mind, it was and is a matter of priority. I am no pacifist and hoped to see Al Qaida served a cold dish of revenge. To diverge from that task weakened our international relations created an unnecessary economic burdon.

This is not to say that Saddam wasn't a bastard that was attempting to cause other economic concerns, but I do believe that that he should have been dealt with differently as he was holding a potentially violent region together. Now we have taken on that burden without the appropriate knowledge to do so.

Stupendous Man responds:

For me Saddam had to go for several reasons:

1. In spite of the loss of life in Iraq, still more was taken under Saddam's reign and greater numbers of life would have been lost had he been left in power, exceeding what we have seen over 4 years, and possibly in less time.

2. His own scientist said he could have his WMD program back up and running in 6 months. He still had the means to manufacture Nuclear Weapons before we arrived, and even if he didn't manufacture, the evidence was clear they could have handed off material to al-Qaeda to use as a dirty bomb against us.

"Sir, the biological is very easy to make. It's so simple that any biologist can make a bottle of germs and drop it into a water tower and kill 100, 000. This is not done by a state. No need to accuse a state. An individual can do it." - Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz

While a dirty bomb does not have the explosive power of an atom bomb, the fall out of radiation and sickness and death due to it, would have been as equal as what we had seen in Hiroshima. Had London been hit by the dirty bomb design the Nazis did have and intended, but never got around to using, part of London would still not be fit to live in today. That was probably my biggest fear on 9/11 when I saw the planes hit the WTC was that they had dirty bombs loaded onto them. Instead of just seeing just over 3, 000 deaths on 9/11, it would have been more like 60, 000 from the radiation sickness that would follow. The UN wasn't happy with us removing the tons of yellow cake from Iraq after we arrived, but it was better than letting it fall into the hands of terrorists.

Then there are the questions regarding what happened to the WMD and the claims that it went to Syria by Saddam's own former number 2 General. The Syrians are too smart to use it, or be caught letting terrorist use it. They can easily recall the Gulf War of 1991 promise, that if Iraq used Chemical or Biological WMD, our military would use a Nuclear Response. At that time we didn't realize how close Saddam was to having his own Atom Bomb. When the inspectors went in after the war, they couldn't make sense of what they were looking at until a member of the Manhattan project arrived. The technology was so old the younger men had never seen it, but the member of the Manhattan project recognized everything, and noticed that Saddam was close to back engineering literally the Manhattan project that helped us develop our first Atom bombs.

3. Saddam's ties to al-Qaeda, as clearly seen in this long since forgotten and never seen on Network TV clip from 1999! Then there is the documentation found after the 9/11 Commission report that former Democratic senator and 9/11 commissioner Bob Kerrey was found to say the following:

'This is a very significant set of facts, " former 9/11 commissioner, Mr. Kerry said yesterday. "I personally and strongly believe you don't have to prove that Iraq was collaborating against Osama bin Laden on the September 11 attacks to prove he was an enemy and that he would collaborate with people who would do our country harm. This presents facts should not be used to tie Saddam to attacks on September 11. It does tie him into a circle that meant to damage the United States."

We cannot do to Iraq what Bush Sr. did in 1991. Ask the Iraqis to stand up for freedom, and then not support them. The news Media doesn't point out to often that Libya gave up their Nuclear Ambitions after seeing Saddam fall. They don't point out that Ethiopia learned from our example, and went in and drove the briefly backed al-Qaeda government out of Somalia. They don't point out that the Lebanese army has learned from us, and is currently seeking to drive al-Qaeda out where they have nested with Palestinian Refugees. They fail to point out that Sunnis themselves, who once allied with al-Qaeda, are now not only turning their back on them, but running them out of their towns.

The death rate in Iraq is significantly lower than Vietnam when it comes to the US Military. Plus in Vietnam we were supporting an ally that wasn't a Democracy. This is not the case in Iraq. In Vietnam you had significant numbers of the Military that didn't want to be there or approve of it. In the Iraq conflict, we have 99% of Military Forces in Iraq who want to stay until the Democracy there is stabilized and around the world you have a 99.9% approval rating within all branches of the military including Reserves and National Guard (some who have paid the most for being over there, while losing money back home).

The Democrats off no solutions other than cutting and running and risking Iraq becoming the next Afghanistan for al-Qaeda, and if we cut in run in Iraq, it won't be long until al-Qaeda and the Taliban are back in Afghanistan. al-Qaeda saw our pulling out of Somalia a gesture of weakness, not kindness nor compassion. It only encouraged them to come after us. All you have to do is look at the psychology of the radical jihadist Muslims (not Moderates mind you), and you know this isn't a fight we can afford to run away from.

This is an excellent OP Ed piece from the Wall Street Journal of all
publications, and shows Joe Wilson for the blatant liar he was and still
is! It's a shame Joe Wilson is not on trial for perjury and waiting to
be sentenced right now instead of Scooter Libby!  It also shows clearly
that the Bush administration lied about nothing concerning the follow-up
to the War in Iraq and when you see these facts you'll understand why
the diverse liberal intellectual democratic affiliated minds said the
following -  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WLqIlt39ws

But first the OP Ed piece from the Wall Street journal:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007540

also a strong secondary source - "But Iraq did go to buy Uranium in
Niger" - http://www.slate.com/id/2139609/ - which points out not only
what the previous article says, but then points out Niger is where
Saddam bought yellow cake Uranium the first time for the Nuclear
Reactors the Israelis took out in the early 80's.  Both Articles show
Joe Wilson to be a liar and partisan hack!

And yet another response in the Forums of US Politics:

George © wrote:

Stupendous Man wrote:
Saddam, Al Qaeda Did Collaborate, Documents Show

What a lovely and misleading title this is....

"News did not prove Saddam Hussein played a role in any way in plotting the attacks of September 11, 2001."

"One of these was a handwritten account of a February 19, 1995, meeting between an official representative of Iraq and Mr. bin Laden himself, where Mr. bin Laden broached the idea of "carrying out joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia. The document, which has no official stamps or markers, reports that when Saddam was informed of the meeting on March 4, 1995 he agreed to broadcast sermons of a radical imam, Suleiman al Ouda, requested by Mr. bin Laden."

So what it says is someone from Iraq met with someone representing Bin Laden...yet the official paper is not signed, stamped or anything....yeah, that is great proof that Saddam was working wth Al Qaeda.

One of the most dramatic moments in the 12 hours of recordings comes when Saddam predicts - during a meeting in the mid 1990s - a terrorist attack on the United States. "Terrorism is coming. I told the Americans a long time before August 2 and told the British as well . that in the future there will be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction." Saddam goes on to say such attacks would be difficult to stop. "In the future, what would prevent a booby-trapped car causing a nuclear explosion in Washington or a germ or a chemical one?"

Also at the meeting was Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz, who said  Iraq was being wrongly accused of terrorism. "Sir, the biological is very easy to make. It's so simple that any biologist can make a bottle of germs and drop it into a water tower and kill 100, 000. This is not done by a state. No need to accuse a state. An individual can do it."

The tapes also reveal Iraq's persistent efforts to hide information about weapons of mass destruction programs from U.N. inspectors well into the 1990s. In one pivotal tape-recorded meeting, which occurred in late April or May of 1995, Saddam and his senior aides discuss the fact that U.N. inspectors had uncovered evidence of Iraq's biological weapons program-a program whose existence Iraq had previously denied.

At one point Hussein Kamel, Saddam's son-in-law and the man who was in charge of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction efforts can be heard on the tapes, speaking openly about hiding information from the U.N.

"We did not reveal all that we have, " Kamel says in the meeting. "Not the type of weapons, not the volume of the materials we imported, not the volume of the production we told them about, not the volume of use. None of this
was correct."

On Oct. 25, 2001, an article in The Washington Post said only the U.S., Russia and Iraq were capable of weaponizing anthrax in the form found in the letters to the senators. And as we have seen, the FBI has been unable to duplicate it.

The Washington Post's editor Bob Woodward wrote in his book, "Bush at War, " that CIA Director George Tenet believed the anthrax attacks were made by al Qaeda, with the backing of a state. Vice President Dick Cheney agreed, but said it was important not to talk about state sponsorship, "because we're not ready to do anything about it."

Miss Mylroie deftly summarizes evidence linking 9/11 hijackers to the anthrax letters. Mr. Woodward quotes Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Mr. Cheney's chief of staff, in explaining why the administration did not acknowledge an al Qaeda link, even though it thought there was one: "If we say it's al Qaeda, a state sponsor may feel safe and then hit us, thinking they will have a bye, because we'll blame it on al Qaeda."

Plus as you can see, it wasn't hard for Bush & Co. to connect the dots, but the Liberal Media never has, and never will air this in mass for the public to see - they're too interested in putting Democrats not just in control of the Congress as they have, but the White House in 2008, and they don't care how much lying and covering up they have to do! They'll risk your life and mine to do it, just so they can have their power! And to think, until now, you thought there was no possible connection between Saddam and al Qaeda!

And when in doubt they try to hide the evidence through comittees:

M Harnden wrote:
Those articles are outdated because the senate intel report more recently concluded there was no connection. The report said Saddam though people like Bin Laden were out of their minds and needed to be removed. The two also had serious religious differences. Read the report sometime. Also even more recetly a house subcommittee reported no link could be made between the OKC bombings and foreign involvement. However the report did say that perhaps McVaigh did take a lot to the grave with him that we will probably never know.

Don't know about McVaigh, however, the senate intel report couldn't conclude there was a connection any more than they could conclude there wasn't one, and for the reasons, I said. Only the US, Russia, and Iraq had the expertise to manufacture the Teflon coated Anthrax so it wouldn't clump together, and yet the FBI couldn't duplicate the stuff in their own lab.

Plus, I put no stock in anything on the senate intel committee that is based upon the 9/11 Commission because of Jamie Gorelick's involvement and blatant conflict of interest!

From my response to US Politics as of lately:

CELLENIN wrote:

Fred, like Flintstone wrote:
link

"A rocket was fired at the U.S. Embassy early Friday, striking the front of the building but causing no injuries. A senior police official said the blast was an act of terrorism, raising fears of a resurgence of far-left Greek militant groups."

Wtf? So he is responsible for the attack? Oh i guess Bush caused the attacks on the WTC, USS Cole, Khobar Towers and So on right?

http://www.citizensunited.org/multimedia/details.aspx?id=10

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oj-EAMgZWtE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8g-HxmWoyq0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMv0qFgwbYs&NR

Let's see, the Democrats had a plan for Iraq; what was it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WLqIlt39ws

Let's see how the Democrats think now!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WH4-7PF7h6M

How do Democrats see the game now?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hzH6X8g34Y

Of course, why Vote Republican?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9DBdokG2D0