READER COMMENTS ON
(13 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
said on 9/2/2004 @ 9:37 pm PT...
As George Pataki mused:
"On September 11th in New York we learned that in the hands of a monster, a box cutter is a weapon of mass destruction.
And Saddam Hussein was a monster --- a walking - talking weapon of mass destruction. It is good for the world that he is gone."
Damn you Saddam for knocking down the towers!!!!!!!
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
said on 9/3/2004 @ 4:48 am PT...
Apparently wanted dead or alive depends on what "wanted" means.
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
said on 9/3/2004 @ 6:01 am PT...
How do you know he isn't dead??
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
said on 9/3/2004 @ 6:12 am PT...
Osama who? Never heard of the guy. But I did hear a teeny tiny reference to Al Qaeda. So that should be enough. Allow me to explain.
The government is so smart, you see.
We asked for orange juice and they gave us an orange and told us to squeeze the juice out.
Only thing is...They keep giving us orange painted lemons.
"Boy, this sure doesn't taste like an orange. It doesn't smell like an orange. It doesn't even look like an orange. But the government says it's an orange, so I believe it's an orange!".
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
said on 9/3/2004 @ 6:39 am PT...
I have always said that Osama is dead. The tapes are not his voice. A Muslim webpage I read a long time ago said that it is good for their cause for him to be alive, whether he is or not.
Saddam gave money ($25,000 each) to the families whose relatives blew themselves up in Israeli buses and restaurants, so yes; Saddam is a part of the War on Terrorism. And, for years, he has been firing at our planes in the no fly zone. He broke the Gulf War resolutions over and over and over again. Just like a willfully disobedient child, they need a spanking instead of an empty threat of a spanking. Anti-war folks do not understand cease fire negotiations. When they are broken, the war can begin again. Iraq was just a continuation of the 1991 Gulf War. We all knew it had to be done and we knew for 8 years that Clinton and the UN was not going to do anything about it.
This is why Kerry will lose:
"According to a New York Times survey of [Democrat convention] delegates, 9 out of 10 say they think Iraq was a mistake and 5 out of 6 say the war on terrorism and national security aren't that important."
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
said on 9/3/2004 @ 7:56 am PT...
"How do you know he isn't dead??"
because Bush didn't carry his head into the convention on a stick. No seriously because even though Paul doesnt trust them, the CIa has verified that it is indeed Usama bin Ladens voice on the tapes.
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
said on 9/3/2004 @ 8:01 am PT...
"because Bush didn't carry his head into the convention on a stick."
*LOL*!!! Good one JHP !!!!
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
said on 9/3/2004 @ 8:04 am PT...
let's compare. On Saidi state tv, the ruling oiligarchy raised 200 million dollars for the same purpose. In fact, it was the Saud regime who paid for Hamas' development of the missiles they use to fire into Israel. By your logic we should have bombed the Saudis not iraq.
The no fly zones were not authorized by the UN. i point this out because you obviously were unaware of this.
As fort eh resolutions ending the Gulf War, the UN was the entity empoewered to enforce the resolutions. The fact is, as the Kay report demonstrated well, of course at the price of now close to 20,000 civilians and almost 1,000 American soldiers, iraq was almost completely in compliance by the time of the war. Even if they werent in compliance the entity empowered to use force would be the security council, not Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair.
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
said on 9/3/2004 @ 8:39 am PT...
The UN gave Iraq one more resolution and if they did not comply - "serious consequnces." Iraq did not comply. And yes, Saudi, Iran, Syria, Canada, and anywhere there are terrorists, we need to go get them. I said earlier that I wished we would have attacked terrorists groups in 6 countries the first night we attacked Afghanistan. That would have been shock and awe! The Canada part was a joke.
COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
said on 9/3/2004 @ 10:57 am PT...
The UN resolution in question, 1441, nowhere makes a decision on the use of force. It demands that iraq comply with inspections process and Iraq complied. i am not sure what problem you have understanding that. As importantly, Security Council resolutions that authorize force do several things. First they use the following language: "2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area." That was resolution 678. Note how the authority for carrying out the resolution is defined. This is completely absent in 1441 except for reference to UNMOVIK. And note the language "all necessary means." This is important because it is not in the UN Resolution that defines the actions to be taken. In fact, it was dropped by the Security Council from the final draft.
What you want is not important. The fact is that Iraq was the least of the supporters of terrorists in the region; in fact, Saudi Arabia is probably the largest terrorist supporter in the region. Why attack a disarmed country?
COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
said on 9/3/2004 @ 11:25 am PT...
Given Bush's coddling of the Saudi's, who far outsupport terrorists, doesn't that mean that Bush is supporting the terrorists?
Doesn't that mean he himself is both with us and against us?
Beyond that, Paul will parrot the talking points till Saudi Kingdom come, and I'd love to see that "NY Times poll" that Paul quoted Jonah talking about in USA Today. (I have a feeling Jonah may have fudged things a bit, counting on the Paul's of the world to buy it hook, line and sinker, as they always do).
Point is, 1,000 Americans dead pointlessly and needlessly in Iraq. Another 20,000 civilians killed there as well.
And the world? Less safe from terrorism than when we started due to the ten-fold (at least) increase in the number of terrorists that exist thanks to Paul and his fishing buddy, Dubya.
Do Republicans care that we are less safe? OF course, not. Vote George W. Bush, because "we" get to stay in power, never mind how Paul is the one who gets screwed in the end. The "spite vote" indeed.
COMMENT #12 [Permalink]
said on 9/3/2004 @ 3:33 pm PT...
i think the case could be made that Bush was sheltering terrorists. The Bush Crew claim that because Abu Nidal, who has been in hiding since he was expelled and sentenced to death by Fatah, whose last terrorist act was the assassination of a PLO guy in 1991, snuck into Iraq the regime there was plotting with terrorists. By this logic the fact that Ansar al Islam was well within the Northern No Fly Zone and the Bush Crew refused to bomb them, they were protecting allies of bin Laden.
COMMENT #13 [Permalink]
said on 9/4/2004 @ 6:22 pm PT...
PAUL WROTE: "And yes, Saudi, Iran, Syria, Canada, and anywhere there are terrorists, we need to go get them. "
First of all, lay off the "jokes". You're not funny, you're just sad. If I've ever cracked a smile when it came to you, it was AT you, not with you.
Second of all, I hope you included the USA on your "go get 'em" list. I hate to break it to you, but terrorists are everywhere. If we were to go by your logic, the USA should be top 10 on the terrorist list .
So please. Keep Canada in the list & add your own country too. Since you like to generalize countries so much, I think the rest of the world should do the same. I'm gonna assume all Americans are like Timothy McVeigh.
So, um, Timothy ..oops, I mean, "Paul", I'm really starting to get scared that you might come kill me. I mean, you lived in the same country as Timothy McVeigh. You must be one and the same. So, I hope you don't mind, but I'll just cluster bomb your ass as a preventative measure. It's not murder, it's strategery. You're okay with that , right?