Rudy's running?

[Trumpetmaster]

Jamie,

Communism continued to be a great threat until the '80s and the collapse of the Soviet Union.

WIth the growth of China and that nation's continued buildup of military might, the threat continues to smolder beneath the surface - overshadowed now, of course, by the threat of radical Islam, but still there, still a danger.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

V/R
Shapley

Shapley

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

Shapley,
I agree with you 100%
TM

[Haggis@wk]

very similar method that was successfully employed by the Congress of the '70s to bring about the shameful end to the Vietnam War and destruction of the South Vietnamese government.

I could not care less about the south Vietnamese government...we were supposedly fighting Communism...you remember...the big red power that was out supposed to overcome the United States. Where are they now? Communism does not seem to be a problem in spite of our "shameful end to the Vietnam War". All we did was save billions of dollars and thousands of lives by getting out.

Many Americans, possibly including you, have no idea what happened following the abandonment of our allies in Vietnam. We didn’t just quit the war we basically changed sides.

John O’Sullivan in his new book "The President, The Pope And The Prime Minister", accurately describe our shameful behavior forced by a Democrat congress.

“the betrayal was truer than the defeat. America had not been defeated on the battlefield and South Vietnamese ground forces had themselves defeated a full-scale North Vietnamese invasion in 1972 when they still enjoyed US air support. Not only did the United States withhold such support in 1975, but Congress also refused to supply even the ammunition and military supplies that it had promised when the American forces left. For some perverse psychological motive, the American establishment acted as if the United States would not be genuinely free of involvement in Vietnam until its allies were conquered and occupied.”

Our actions then have tainted our diplomatic relationships ever since and other abandonments from Lebanon and Somalia have only convinced most of the world that we, as a country, do not have the requisite fortitude to resolve any problem when the going gets tough.

Even Osama Bin Laden was shocked when we actually committed ground forces into Afghanistan.

Stop to think about that for a moment. Do you think he would have authorized 9/11 if he thought we would do more than just lob a few cruise missiles?

So, its not a stretch of anyone’s imagination to view that the attacks leading up to and including 9/11 were committed because a common belief system was in place throughout the world that we would do little to respond to those and future attacks.

Frankly, the reasons for our entry into this war are immaterial to our goals now. We are fighting the people we need to fight there, not here. That’s more than enough justification for me to stay there and continue killing them there and not here.

I'm no longer confident that that will be the outcome but I damn sure know that if we pull out now we'll be back there under worse circumstances for a third Gulf War sometime down the road; THAT you can take to the bank!

[jamiebk]

Osama Bin Laden has nothing to do with Iraq...I think that's been pretty well settled. We invaded Iraq for other reasons. We were led to Iraq because Saddam had weapons of mass distruction aimed at the US - Not

[Haggis@wk]

Osama Bin Laden has nothing to do with Iraq...I think that's been pretty well settled.

I don't believe I implied otherwise. Just pointing out a question that's not unreasonable. Would he have attacked the U.S. knowing that he was going to become a troglodyte for the rest of his life?

We invaded Iraq for other reasons. We were led to Iraq because Saddam had weapons of mass distruction aimed at the US - Not

That’s not true either; you’ve just heard it spewed out so much from the Left side of Congress and the MSM that you actually believe it now.

Regardless, I said the reasons that led to our involvement are immaterial to what we have now; the opportunity to kill a bunch of our enemies a long way away rather than in downtown Manhattan.

As I said, I’m not confident that most Americans don’t think like you but I can guarantee that if we leave now we will be back within a decade and will very possibly be involved in the first nuclear exchange.

[Shapley]

Haggis,

I've said that Saddam and al Qeada had ties.

I've not said that Saddam had direct contact with Osama bin Laden.

I've not said that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11.

President Clinton cited the connection between al Qeada and Iraq to justify the attack on the al Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan. I believe you have also posted links and excerpts citing the connection between the two.

Jamie,

The history revisionists have modified 'connections to al Qeada' to be mean 'connections to 9/11'. They are not.

The President went before the United Nations and the American people and laid out the justifications for going to war in Iraq. Connections to 9/11 were not a part of them. Connections to terrorists, including al Qeada, were a part of them. The existence of WMD's were not a part of it. The mistakenly believed existence of a program to produce WMD's was a part of it.

The President clearly stated that to wait until Saddam had WMD's was to wait too long. That is why it was called a 'preemptive strike'.

V/R
Shapley

[jamiebk]

We invaded Iraq for other reasons. We were led to Iraq because Saddam had weapons of mass distruction aimed at the US - Not

That’s not true either; you’ve just heard it spewed out so much from the Left side of Congress and the MSM that you actually believe it now.

So, the WMD's were never the reason why we entered Iraq?

But make no mistake - as I said earlier - we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.
- White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, press briefing, April 10, 2003

MORE:
Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.
- Dick Cheney, speech to VFW National Convention, Aug. 26, 2002

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.
- George W. Bush, speech to UN General Assembly, Sept. 12, 2002

No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
- Donald Rumsfeld, testimony to Congress, Sept. 19, 2002

The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq.
- George W. Bush, Nov. 23, 2002

If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.
- White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, press briefing, Dec. 2, 2002

We know for a fact that there are weapons there.
- White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, press briefing, Jan. 9, 2003

What we know from UN inspectors over the course of the last decade is that Saddam Hussein possesses thousands of chemical warheads, that he possesses hundreds of liters of very dangerous toxins that can kill millions of people.
- White House spokesman Dan Bartlett, CNN interview, Jan. 26, 2003

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard, and VX nerve agent…. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
- George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 2003

We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.
- Colin Powell, remarks to UN Security Council, Feb. 5, 2003

We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons - the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.
- George W. Bush, radio address, Feb. 8, 2003

If Iraq had disarmed itself, gotten rid of its weapons of mass destruction over the past 12 years, or over the last several months since [UN Resolution] 1441 was enacted, we would not be facing the crisis that we now have before us.
- Colin Powell, interview with Radio France International, Feb. 28, 2003

So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad?….I think our judgment has to be clearly not.
- Colin Powell, remarks to UN Security Council, March 7, 2003

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
- George W. Bush, address to the U.S., March 17, 2003

The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.
- George W. Bush, address to U.S., March 19, 2003

Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly…..All this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.
- White House spokesman Ari Fleisher, press briefing, March 21, 2003

There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And….as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.
- Gen. Tommy Franks, press conference, March 22, 2003

I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.
- Defense Policy Board member Kenneth Adelman, The Washington Post, March 23, 2003

One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.
- Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clark, press briefing, March 22, 2003

We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat.
- Donald Rumsfeld, ABC interview, March 30, 2003

Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find - and there will be plenty.
- Robert Kagan, The Washington Post, April 9, 2003

Give me a break Haggis...If we did not go to Iraq because of WMD's, then it only suggests that the administration had some other alterior motives that were certainly NOT revealed to the American public.

[Shapley]

Jamie,

Here is the President's speech to the UN General Assembly outlining the justifications for going to war. Those justifications include, but were not limited to, the WMD issue. Nowhere does he suggest that those WMD's were 'pointed at us'. Nowhere did he suggest that Saddam had the capability to launch WMD's at us.

V/R
Shapley

[jamiebk]

Jamie,

Here is the President's speech to the UN General Assembly outlining the justifications for going to war. Those justifications include, but were not limited to, the WMD issue. Nowhere does he suggest that those WMD's were 'pointed at us'. Nowhere did he suggest that Saddam had the capability to launch WMD's at us.

V/R
Shapley

He sold the necessity of the war to the American public on the basis that Iraq (Saddam) was a clear and present danger to the US (because of the WMD's). It was not and he was not. And then the backpedaling began.

The truth of it resides in the following...so I guess you were right, WMD's weren't the reason:

For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, [as justification for invading Iraq] because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.
- Paul Wolfowitz, Vanity Fair interview, May 28, 2003

We were misled....

[Shapley]

Follow-up interview with Paul Wolfowitz

[jamiebk]

As I said, classic backpedaling...

[Shapley]

One man's clarification is another man's backpeddle...