Hussein Was Right & Bush Was Wrong

[Genx87]

Hehe I just couldnt resist that one

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: raildogg
Do you have posters of Saddam in your bedroom? BBond

Yes, and in them...Saddam is nude

Jason

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: raildogg
Do you have posters of Saddam in your bedroom? BBond

Yes, and in them...Saddam is nude

Jason

Right on topic and indicative of the level of maturity and intelligence you both share.

But being Bush supporters, I wouldn't expect anything more, only less.

 

[GrGr]

"Bush, Cheney, and Rice have all made specific statements claiming there was no connection between Saddam and 9/11. Merely mentioning the two together in the same paragraph does not make for a compelling case at all."

Congrats TLC, you just created my new sig.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Well, it seems based on what was (not) found, the thread title is correct.

Yup and imagine if Huessein cooperated through the 12 years leading upto war where we would be today

Same place we are now. The US would never acknowledge his cooperation. They would say he is lying about destroying those weapons, etc. It's impossible to prove a negative.
Anyways, US got what it wanted, now what? It's stuck in a quagmire with no honorable way out.

You must LOVE the word quagmore, don't you? You keep looking for the easy, fast way out. People like you just want to bail out, haul ass and get out of the way. Well guess what? There are NO EASY WAYS OUT. Nothing worth doing is easy or fast (except your sister..nice knockers, BTW!) (J/K, lighten up!).

Iraq is NOT an easy situation to deal with. Neither was Germany, neither was Japan, neither was the Civil war or the Revolutionary war. Wars are hard, dangerous, ugly and brutal. The biggest difference between modern wars and historic wars is that we've got up-front, in-your-face pictures and reports coming back live every day, and yeah, that makes us all realize a lot quicker just how horrible war is. But if, in the end, Iraq becomes a free, democratic nation whose citizens have constitutionally protected rights and a government founded on the idea that those rights are to be protected, then we'll have done something worthwhile.

Have some patience, man. Relax.


Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: raildogg
Do you have posters of Saddam in your bedroom? BBond

So, do you have posters of babies with limbs blown off in your bedroom?

Well I, for one, have posters of bloated tsunami victims' corpses in my room. Yep, all bloated and dead and rotting...just awesome.

Can we PLEASE stop dipping off into insanity for five minutes?

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: raildogg
Do you have posters of Saddam in your bedroom? BBond

I have neither Saddam or Bush in my room.

Based on what has been found, does it seem that Bushes claim of WMDs actually being in Iraq is correct, or that Saddams claim that there were none is right?

Based on what was found mind you.

As I recall, Saddam thought he DID have WMD's, according to documentation found and testimony from Iraqi scientists. What's your point?

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: sandorski
Don't know if the article is accurate. It states that the US intercepted then altered the report before it reached the UN. However, it offers no evidence that it was even possible to do so nevermind proved that it happened. Wouldn't surprise me that it happened, but I wouldn't just assume just because some guy in Germany claims to have seen the original Iraqi report.

Well, it does beg for an answer to an important question: If the US "intercepted" this report (how was it transmitted? Mail? Email? Was it the ONLY copy in existence? If so, why?) how did they do so? And if it was the only copy, how did this guy get hold of it? If it WASN'T the only copy, why didn't SOMEONE get a copy of the full report sooner? Surely the person who originally TRANSMITTED the report would have a copy, as would, one would presume, his or her superiors.

It's weird. You so-called "liberals" are jumping at this in just the same way as the "conservatives" would jump at a pro-Bush story, which is to say: Without question, criticism or skepticism.

Maybe this has some truth, maybe it doesn't. I don't have a clue (nor, honestly, a care. Obviously I wish that all elected officials would be 100% honest with the public, but when has EITHER of the two major parties been upfront? Not in the 20th century, that's for sure, and so far...not in the 21st, either.)

Jason

^^^ You know you have them when they have to resort to the "they all do it so why not condemn them all" routine.

Well, if you'd like to say I didn't bring up valid questions, then do so. I think they are questions that deserve an answer. Come on, man! Bill Clinton couldn't keep it a secret that he spunked on some ugly fat intern's dress, Kennedy couldn't keep it secret that he was poking Marilyn Monroe on the side, Nixon couldn't keep it a secret when he sent a few guys to steal documents from an office on US soil...what the hell makes you think that dozens, possibly HUNDREDS of people involved in a conspiracy could keep that secret? And that if they *could*, how it is that one guy in Germany managed to find out?

Jason

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: raildogg
Do you have posters of Saddam in your bedroom? BBond

I have neither Saddam or Bush in my room.

Based on what has been found, does it seem that Bushes claim of WMDs actually being in Iraq is correct, or that Saddams claim that there were none is right?

Based on what was found mind you.

As I recall, Saddam thought he DID have WMD's, according to documentation found and testimony from Iraqi scientists. What's your point?

Jason

Were those Saddams public statements?

My point is that because the Devil speaks, don't assume he does so falsely. It seems someone should have paid more attention to this before the fact.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
None of the documentation either way changes the truth one whit. No nuclear program, no wmd's, no links to al qaeda worthy of the term- zero, zip, nada, nothing. Just a very expensive and fruitless war dragged in on the coattails of a lot of fearmongering and misdirection over 9/11, justified and sold on the basis of a great deal of supposition and cherry-picking of intelligence, much of it supplied by Iranian sponsored exile groups...

Whatever Blix believed, TLC, we'll never know unless he tells us, unless you can successfully represent yourself as the next Kreskin... but we know what he said, and that was that his work would be completed in a matter of months from march 7, 2003- months that the Bush admin refused to allow him in their rush to war...

Yeah, those pesky al quaeda training bases in Northern Iraq...nothing to worry about there! And hey, Osama on video proclaiming Al Zarqawi as his "man in Iraq" was probably just an actor hired by Bush! Saddam probably didn't even know they were there!

I mean honestly, people, THINK! I completely understand the hatred of Bush, hell *I* hate Bush (well, GEORGE Bush, anyway but that doesn't mean every conspiracy in the world centers around him! What is the difference between what you guys are doing here and what the Neocon crowd was doing when Clinton was in office? There is NO difference! You're looking for every flaw, every conspiracy, every mistake, every possible way to demonize this imbecile.

How about just taking recognition of the fact that when Bush leaves office we'll have had two solid DECADES of morons in the white house! Now THAT is some sad sh1t!

Jason

Jason

The terrorists weren't in Iraq until the U.S. invaded and brought them there.

It's been in all the newspapers and even posted right here at P&N. It's from a CIA advisers report.

You can read all about it here.

Pay particular attention to the bolded passages.

The report you just linked does NOT say that there were not Al Quaeda or Al Quaeda related training camps in Iraq; it says that the war has brought many terrorists and terrorists-in-training (do they get paid training?) to Iraq, which I have no doubt is true.

It sounds like you're trying to make Saddam out to be some innocent peacenik just minding his own business, which is definitely not the case, as the hundreds of thousands of corpses found in mass graves can attest to.

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: raildogg
Do you have posters of Saddam in your bedroom? BBond

Yes, and in them...Saddam is nude

Jason

Right on topic and indicative of the level of maturity and intelligence you both share.

But being Bush supporters, I wouldn't expect anything more, only less.

I know you enjoy tossing around false accusations, but I will thank you to NOT accuse me of being a Bush supporter. I didn't vote for him in 2000 and I only did in 2004 because Kerry was so freaking stupid.

Jason

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Genx87

US and UK blocked it.

When?

Continuously for those 12 years. They fought any efforts to lift or relax the sanctions. That's why I think the countries that went around the sanctions regime were right. You can bash them all you want, but there was no reason for those sanctions to be in place except to keep Iraq weak for eventual unjustified US invasion.
Well, be careful what you wish for, because the US got it.

Isn't it amazing how France, Germany, Russia and China, who made billions off the suffering, starving, politically oppressed men and women of Iraq, are now "in the right"?

My god, it's a feat of political manipulation worthy of the Bush administration itself, isn't it?

Jason

Russia did not make billions off the suffering. Maybe some in Russia made millions off reselling Iraqi oil. Russia has been advocating lifting or easing sanctions on Iraq for a very long time, which would have relieved the suffering of the Iraqi people, something the US consistently opposed.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
They went through every effort to link Saddam to Al Queda as you have posted. They told us how dangerous Al Queda was, and that Saddam wanted to support them. All they claimed is they had no hard evidence.

Show where they DENIED that Saddam had any connection. What they said is that they had no concrete proof. It's not the same and you and they know it.

I want to see where Cheney said "We know Saddam had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11"

You won't find it. All they said that there was a lack of evidence. Bush knew how to play the public for suckers. It a shame this admin sold it like this, and it's a shame the public bought it.

You're attempting to turn this into a semantics game.

In case you hadn't noticed, politicians rarely speak in absolutes. The fact is, you can't prove Saddam had "absolutely" no connection to 9/11. He may have, directly or indirectly, and it just hasn't been uncovered yet or never will be. It would be stupid to claim he had "absolutely nothing to do with it."

The statements from the Bush admin were all they could say. There is no "proof" Saddam was involved in 9/11. That's all they could claim with any reasonable certainty.

Yet how actively did they try to disuade the public from linkage between 9/11 and Saddam?

I know politics exaggerate, and that is a kindness. I don't limit that to Bush. Clinton was good at it too. One reason I have a general distrust of political animals.

Given that pols lie/exagerate/cover their ass, intent and results count. That is why I voted for the first Bush over Clinton, and why I voted for GWB the first time around over Gore. IMO Gore was tainted by association. I took a chance on GWB, but I am greatly disappointed.

You may not be, but that's America. We have the right to call any leader an ass.

I never voted for Bush so I feel no guilt.

Feel free to call any leader an ass. Just use to the right reasons to do it. Using faulty "facts" is not the right reason.

Well I go by the evidence of what was said, how it was presented and the result. I go by how people react. Certainly you and I have remarked in common that a great many believed in the connection. It was their failure in buying it. I don't grant absolution.

Propaganda is a sophisticated science. The goal is to say and do things that lead a people to believe and act in a specific way. People believed in the connection. Little was done to challenge that in reality. Occasional denials between linkage of Saddam and Al Queda who are then mentioned as the cause of 9/11 can hardly be called forceful denial.

If so many people believed in the link, either they were encouraged, or little was done to correct that belief. No one woke up one day and out of a vacuum decided to believe the same thing as millions of others did, and believed it was this administration who gave them this idea.

That is not rationally consistent.

I wonder how many people came to the conclusion Saddam was involved in 9/11 before Bush ever placed Saddam, 9/11, or al Qaeda together in the same speech?

Saddam had been villanized since the early 90s and all the way through the Clinton administation. For most people he was probably the only leader in the ME anyone could actually name. When 9/11 happened it was the very first possibility to cross my mind and if evidence in the future was ever uncovered that Saddam actually was somehow involved, it wouldn't surprise me one bit.

This "belief" that most people hold is not based on fact. It's based on a gut instinct. Heck, I bet a lot of these people who hold this belief have never or rarely ever heard Bush speak in during his entire presidency, and a bet a few couldn't even name our president. How Bush and his buddies foisted their evil Jedi mind tricks upon those folks is rather hard to explain.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: raildogg
Do you have posters of Saddam in your bedroom? BBond

I have neither Saddam or Bush in my room.

Based on what has been found, does it seem that Bushes claim of WMDs actually being in Iraq is correct, or that Saddams claim that there were none is right?

Based on what was found mind you.

As I recall, Saddam thought he DID have WMD's, according to documentation found and testimony from Iraqi scientists. What's your point?

Jason

Were those Saddams public statements?

My point is that because the Devil speaks, don't assume he does so falsely. It seems someone should have paid more attention to this before the fact.

I think you make a valid point indeed. And I'll say again: the RIGHT time to take out Saddam was in 1991. We wouldn't be embroiled in this crap now if we had.

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Genx87

US and UK blocked it.

When?

Continuously for those 12 years. They fought any efforts to lift or relax the sanctions. That's why I think the countries that went around the sanctions regime were right. You can bash them all you want, but there was no reason for those sanctions to be in place except to keep Iraq weak for eventual unjustified US invasion.
Well, be careful what you wish for, because the US got it.

Isn't it amazing how France, Germany, Russia and China, who made billions off the suffering, starving, politically oppressed men and women of Iraq, are now "in the right"?

My god, it's a feat of political manipulation worthy of the Bush administration itself, isn't it?

Jason

Russia did not make billions off the suffering. Maybe some in Russia made millions off reselling Iraqi oil. Russia has been advocating lifting or easing sanctions on Iraq for a very long time, which would have relieved the suffering of the Iraqi people, something the US consistently opposed.

Yes, I am sure that lifting the sanctions, much like the "Oil for food" program, would have greatly eased the Iraqi people's suffering. Well, either that or Saddam could have gotten some more palaces!

There is only one thing that will ease the suffering of those who live in fear and who exist as rightless creatures under a government that kills men for speaking their minds and imprisons children for refusing to join a political party: The dictator must be removed.

It's not an easy solution, nor a pretty one, but it's the only way. We must NOT prop up tyranny by turning a blind eye.

Jason

PS: You're probably right: Russia probably only made MILLIONS off of those satellite interference devices they sold to Iraq. You know, the ones that caused the bombs to go off course and land in the civilian neighborhoods where the Iraqi military had placed their weapons and other military targets?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Genx87

US and UK blocked it.

When?

Continuously for those 12 years. They fought any efforts to lift or relax the sanctions. That's why I think the countries that went around the sanctions regime were right. You can bash them all you want, but there was no reason for those sanctions to be in place except to keep Iraq weak for eventual unjustified US invasion.
Well, be careful what you wish for, because the US got it.

Isn't it amazing how France, Germany, Russia and China, who made billions off the suffering, starving, politically oppressed men and women of Iraq, are now "in the right"?

My god, it's a feat of political manipulation worthy of the Bush administration itself, isn't it?

Jason

Russia did not make billions off the suffering. Maybe some in Russia made millions off reselling Iraqi oil. Russia has been advocating lifting or easing sanctions on Iraq for a very long time, which would have relieved the suffering of the Iraqi people, something the US consistently opposed.

Russia, the great humanitarian state? :laugh:

Both Russia (Lukoil) and France (TotalFinaElf) had contracts signed with Saddam to develop oil fields in Iraq. They could not initiate those contracts under International law until sanctions were lifted, which is why they were pushing for them to be lifted. It had nthing at all to do with humanitarianism.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: raildogg
Do you have posters of Saddam in your bedroom? BBond

I have neither Saddam or Bush in my room.

Based on what has been found, does it seem that Bushes claim of WMDs actually being in Iraq is correct, or that Saddams claim that there were none is right?

Based on what was found mind you.

As I recall, Saddam thought he DID have WMD's, according to documentation found and testimony from Iraqi scientists. What's your point?

Jason

Were those Saddams public statements?

My point is that because the Devil speaks, don't assume he does so falsely. It seems someone should have paid more attention to this before the fact.

I think you make a valid point indeed. And I'll say again: the RIGHT time to take out Saddam was in 1991. We wouldn't be embroiled in this crap now if we had.

Jason

There was far more justification in 91 because of the immediacy of the war in Kuwait.

The first Bush gave his word that he would not proceed further, and he kept it. I disagreed at the time, but I understand why he did it.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken


I wonder how many people came to the conclusion Saddam was involved in 9/11 before Bush ever placed Saddam, 9/11, or al Qaeda together in the same speech?

Apparently, not many...

The numbers

Polling data show that right after Sept. 11, 2001, when Americans were asked open-ended questions about who was behind the attacks, only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Hussein. But by January of this year, attitudes had been transformed. In a Knight Ridder poll, 44 percent of Americans reported that either "most" or "some" of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens. The answer is zero.

The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Feel free to call any leader an ass. Just use to the right reasons to do it. Using faulty "facts" is not the right reason.

Bush doesn't have anything other than "Faulty" facts.

Instead of flip flopping saying he is The War President to The Peace President and back to War President he should've just called himself an A$$.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Well, it seems based on what was (not) found, the thread title is correct.

Yup and imagine if Huessein cooperated through the 12 years leading upto war where we would be today

Same place we are now. The US would never acknowledge his cooperation. They would say he is lying about destroying those weapons, etc. It's impossible to prove a negative.
Anyways, US got what it wanted, now what? It's stuck in a quagmire with no honorable way out.

You must LOVE the word quagmore, don't you? You keep looking for the easy, fast way out. People like you just want to bail out, haul ass and get out of the way. Well guess what? There are NO EASY WAYS OUT. Nothing worth doing is easy or fast (except your sister..nice knockers, BTW!) (J/K, lighten up!).

Iraq is NOT an easy situation to deal with. Neither was Germany, neither was Japan, neither was the Civil war or the Revolutionary war. Wars are hard, dangerous, ugly and brutal. The biggest difference between modern wars and historic wars is that we've got up-front, in-your-face pictures and reports coming back live every day, and yeah, that makes us all realize a lot quicker just how horrible war is. But if, in the end, Iraq becomes a free, democratic nation whose citizens have constitutionally protected rights and a government founded on the idea that those rights are to be protected, then we'll have done something worthwhile.

Have some patience, man. Relax.


Jason

Haha. Get a grip on reality.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Genx87

US and UK blocked it.

When?

Continuously for those 12 years. They fought any efforts to lift or relax the sanctions. That's why I think the countries that went around the sanctions regime were right. You can bash them all you want, but there was no reason for those sanctions to be in place except to keep Iraq weak for eventual unjustified US invasion.
Well, be careful what you wish for, because the US got it.

Isn't it amazing how France, Germany, Russia and China, who made billions off the suffering, starving, politically oppressed men and women of Iraq, are now "in the right"?

My god, it's a feat of political manipulation worthy of the Bush administration itself, isn't it?

Jason

Russia did not make billions off the suffering. Maybe some in Russia made millions off reselling Iraqi oil. Russia has been advocating lifting or easing sanctions on Iraq for a very long time, which would have relieved the suffering of the Iraqi people, something the US consistently opposed.

Yes, I am sure that lifting the sanctions, much like the "Oil for food" program, would have greatly eased the Iraqi people's suffering. Well, either that or Saddam could have gotten some more palaces!

There is only one thing that will ease the suffering of those who live in fear and who exist as rightless creatures under a government that kills men for speaking their minds and imprisons children for refusing to join a political party: The dictator must be removed.

It's not an easy solution, nor a pretty one, but it's the only way. We must NOT prop up tyranny by turning a blind eye.

Jason

PS: You're probably right: Russia probably only made MILLIONS off of those satellite interference devices they sold to Iraq. You know, the ones that caused the bombs to go off course and land in the civilian neighborhoods where the Iraqi military had placed their weapons and other military targets?

Saddam buying palaces, Russia getting millions, and Iraqis benefitting are not mutually exclusive. If Iraq were allowed to sell its oil, there would be plenty of money to go around. And there are plenty of arabs living under dictatorships, Saudi Arabia not the least, who are quite content, and who the US is pretty happy with. So don't go spewing that naive BS.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Genx87

US and UK blocked it.

When?

Continuously for those 12 years. They fought any efforts to lift or relax the sanctions. That's why I think the countries that went around the sanctions regime were right. You can bash them all you want, but there was no reason for those sanctions to be in place except to keep Iraq weak for eventual unjustified US invasion.
Well, be careful what you wish for, because the US got it.

Isn't it amazing how France, Germany, Russia and China, who made billions off the suffering, starving, politically oppressed men and women of Iraq, are now "in the right"?

My god, it's a feat of political manipulation worthy of the Bush administration itself, isn't it?

Jason

Russia did not make billions off the suffering. Maybe some in Russia made millions off reselling Iraqi oil. Russia has been advocating lifting or easing sanctions on Iraq for a very long time, which would have relieved the suffering of the Iraqi people, something the US consistently opposed.

Russia, the great humanitarian state? :laugh:

Both Russia (Lukoil) and France (TotalFinaElf) had contracts signed with Saddam to develop oil fields in Iraq. They could not initiate those contracts under International law until sanctions were lifted, which is why they were pushing for them to be lifted. It had nthing at all to do with humanitarianism.

And good for them. They just wanted free marketplace ideas instead of sanctions regime in Iraq. I though conservatives were for that.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken


I wonder how many people came to the conclusion Saddam was involved in 9/11 before Bush ever placed Saddam, 9/11, or al Qaeda together in the same speech?

Apparently, not many...

The numbers

Polling data show that right after Sept. 11, 2001, when Americans were asked open-ended questions about who was behind the attacks, only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Hussein. But by January of this year, attitudes had been transformed. In a Knight Ridder poll, 44 percent of Americans reported that either "most" or "some" of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens. The answer is zero.

The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq

I'll just bump this up because apparantly TLC hasn't seen it. Or has he?

 

[yllus]

I swear the majority of you people wouldn't know a fact if it kicked you in the face. The op-ed piece in the original post is based on information that's hideously erroneous and out of date.

And there's a new excuse in town, it seems. This one goes, "Saddam's regime was in compliance all along but evil Bush Sr. and his son conspired to keep them low for a decade until an invasion could be mounted by the neocons, and then the oil can be ours, OURS!" I guess President Clinton is a neocon too now, huh? Or, let me guess, the Bushes were REALLY in power all along in the shadow government. Yeah, that's it.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: yllus
I swear the majority of you people wouldn't know a fact if it kicked you in the face.

It's a small majority, only about 51%, although Bush does call it a mandate

The op-ed piece in the original post is based on information that's hideously erroneous and out of date.

And there's a new excuse in town, it seems. This one goes, "Saddam's regime was in compliance all along but evil Bush Sr. and his son conspired to keep them low for a decade until an invasion could be mounted by the neocons, and then the oil can be ours, OURS!" I guess President Clinton is a neocon too now, huh? Or, let me guess, the Bushes were REALLY in power all along in the shadow government. Yeah, that's it.

Clinton was a non-entity as far as the foreign policy is concerned. He did not make any bold steps, and pretty much if he lifted the sanctions when they should have been lifted in the early 90's, the Republicans would have accused him of being soft on defense democrat. I think Bush 2 just took too much bad advice from neocons like Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, and not enough from the two guys who actually knew anything about invading Iraq, his father and Colin Powell. From US point of view, the goal of the sanctions was not to remove the WMD's it was to remove Saddam. But undermining the livelyhoods of 25 Million people as a way to get to one man who was largely uneffected by the sanctions is a very cruel, cowardly, and futile action.