Screaming Penguin - Source Does Matter

This is nowhere near the type of response that articles about 'Bush Lied' got on this board. Do you think they're just to busy eating crow?

True, true, but I'm still really looking forward to the witty banter on both sides; my side, and the wrong side :-D When it comes down to it, though, there's not a lot that can be said for 'the other side'.

Unilateral - We didn't go it alone
No UN Authorization - 17 UN Resolutions, I'd say that's a pretty clear statment that "..If Saddam doesn't do the right thing, our military hand will be forced"

Also, [url=http://www.boortz.com]Boortz[/url] has got a pretty good comment about how [i]Some People / Countries[/i] said that we (the US) were trading blood for oil. Now that this little nugget has surfaced, I wonder how stable their 'moral high ground' seems.

Sorry I missed you guys, havent heard much about this news or anything. I was at my granfathers funeral out of town.

I will check into this more it sounds interesting. I did read the article you linked and it looks very incriminating for France, maybe Germany, yet it doesnt really change anything?

I also heard a report on CNN about this same "papers" deal that included the names of US businessmen/diplomats.

If you guys think this is some vindication/victory that makes the lies about WMDs and imminent threats justifiable or something then you are really warped (and I give heimman more credit than this).

Lets look at your post:

"I remember hearing alot on this board how wrong the US was for going into Iraq 'unilaterally' (yeah, I guess all of those other countries really don't count)"
WTF do these papers even have to do with this, do they change how the US actually did invade Iraq unilaterally (pesky facts). Sure they formed the "coalition" with bribes and promises (but couldnt get many nations to go along even then, Turkey, Canada, etc) AFTER then invaded. The fact is that this thing was a US unilateral action where they drug along along other "supporters" including Britian. The "coaltition" did gain more nations as things went on, thats a victory for you right? Talk about greasing the wheels with payments and bribes. Nice coalition, sure sput that one, brilliant.

"and that we did it without approval of the UN (even though there were 17 resolutions for it!!!) "
We did, another pesky fact. There were UN resolutions against the actions of Saddam and Iraq, but NONE CONDONED FORCE (*yet*). So there was not one "FOR IT". And I find it highly amusing that now you, other folks that bashed the hell out of the UN BEFORE THE "war", and even the President are now using the UN as an excuse to justify their invasion. BULLLSHIT, use your own damn reasoning (even though it doesnt make any damn rational sense) not the reasoning of the UN which you went directly against. I aint buying this slight of hand that the President is trying to sell, apparently you are. The bottom line is that the UN WORKED! Thats right the sanctions, the inspections, all of the UN led directives against Iraq were responsible for removing the weapons and the threat. THANKS TO THE UN SADDAM DIDNT HAVE ANY DAMN WMD FOR BUSH TO FIND, IN FACT SADDAM WAS NOT A THREAT, THE UN PROGRAMS WERE WORKING PROPERLY AND CORRECTLY AND THIS MAKES THE "WAR" EVEN MORE UNJUSTIFIED.

"and how we are destroying relationships with trusted allies like France"
We were were and we are. True these "papers" may implicate France, and France may have had ulterior motives to not support the war which is very damaging, if these papers bear it out, but it doesnt change the HUGE DEBACLE that is President Bushes foreign policy in which we have eroded support from many nations, not just France.

"Russia, France and Germany had opposed the war because they feared it would be discovered that they had been helping Iraq to get around the UN sanctions that they themselves helped to pass" This would be incredibly damaging to the credibility of these nations. ANy reports of any countries helping to get around the sanctions would be. Yet there are also reports that American individuals and companies are on this list (not the American govt mind you). If these reports are verified and governments are involved then these countries are indeed despicable, but the actual governments have not yet been implicated.

I am amazed that the war "supporters" are arent eating some large black feathered creatures of their own right now. Maybe its all the news lately about the entire WMD and threat premise being bullshit and the UN sanctions working (despite the possible undermining of those sanctions by nations that might include France and Germany). Maybe all of that is just too much to take so every little thing sets them off and they actually now use the UN to JUSTIFY their positions? Amazing turnaround, I salute you all for your dexterity if nothing else.

First, for god's sakes, Bush did not say imminent threat. In the SOTU address, he said the exact opposite. Can we please move on now?

And I am NOT using the UN to justify anything, nor do I think we should depend on them to act. I'm only stating that everyone who says we should have waited for the UN is so wrong. The UN had already passed 17 resolutions in support of removing Saddam from power. And with security council member nations taking bribes from Saddam, it is almost assured that they would not act further. In other words, the UN was corrupted, and the US had to act.

And I find it hard to believe that you would be so naive as to say that if we found WMD's France would come on board. Give me a break! France already KNEW, as well as the UN, that Saddam had WMD's, and yet they still supported him.

For "gods" sake, interesting.

Just had to bring this over from the Franken thread. You continue to assert that "Bush never said Saddam was an immiment threat".

---------------------------------
"Bush never said anything about Iraq being an imminent threat. In fact, in the State of the Union, he said the exact opposite"

President Bush October 7 2002
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html
President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat

Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.

Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.

Iraq is "a threat whose outlines are far more clearly defined" than Al Qaeda.

------------------------------

From the other post:
"So my friend, sorry but you are full of **** on this one, and I think your claims that he DID NOT Say it are lies."

And again, I can go find seventeen thousand quotes about the "imminent" threat if need be, but I guess that wont matter to those that dont want to cope with reality.

Any person even TRYING to contend that the US administration did NOT say Saddam was an imminent threat is not accepting reality, IMHO.

My question would be "If we did not invade another sovereign country because of an immenent threat then why did we?" How can you argue that the UN resolutions were not working? Of course the UN resolutions were working - there are not any WMD in Iraq. Am I alone in thinking that if after the gulf war we just left Iraq alone, never sent in any inspectors, just let them pursue their own agenda they would have huge stock piles of WMDs.

To state [i]the UN was corrupted, and the US had to act[/i] makes no sense to me.
I think we all agree that the UN is a flawed body - but it's the best one out there at the moment. Some inspectors, some cruise missiles here and there, some economic sanctions and a bad guy is held in check. Those of us that opposed the US going to war alone argued that we needed the UN so the world would think this was legitimate. Instead of what we have now - which is are large portion of the world thinking the US wanted to occupy Iraq. I fear that when the world perceives the US will attack anyone and any nation without the need to justify it's actions to any other nation then they are more prone to treat us the same way - the end result being more attacks, more deaths, more soldiers deployed.