PNAC

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
And the UN blockade wasn't worthless...

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree

French Connection
http://www.washingtontimes.com/natio...3000-1796r.htm

Jim Ewald's A-10 Thunderbolt fighter over Baghdad and the discovery that it was a French-made roland missile that brought down the American pilot and destroyed a $13 million aircraft. .... A week after Ewald's A-10 was downed, an Army team searching Iraqi weapons depots at the Baghdad airport discovered caches of French-made missiles. One anti-aircraft missile, among a cache of 51 roland-2s from a French-German manufacturing partnership, bore a label indicating that the batch was produced just months earlier.

In May, Army intelligence found a stack of blank French passports in an Iraqi ministry, confirming what U.S. intelligence already had determined: The French had helped Iraqi war criminals escape from coalition forces — and therefore justice.

Then, there were French-made trucks and radios and the deadly grenade launchers, known as RPGs, with French-made night sights. Saddam loyalists used them to kill American soldiers long after the toppling of the dictator's regime.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]

Pretty much all evidence thus far shows that Saddam was not threat. And there seems to be plenty of evidence to show that Bush would have known as much.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you read the article about Clinton I linked to?

[phage]

[ QUOTE ]
Show me what is so wrong with the information/logic please.


[/ QUOTE ]
From the PNAC statement of principles:
• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

These principles contain many points on which people will disagree. As a result many will find the "logical" underpinnings of the group's arguements flawed. However the article from the OP is, as has been stated, a well referenced list and therefore can't really be said to be illogical.

[Roybert]

[ QUOTE ]

But you're probably right. It looks like Bush just just knew in his heart that Saddam had WOMD. He wasn't lying.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hey Kurto, G-Dub claims that God told him to run for President, right? I'm guessing that Saddam's WMD might've come up in the same conversation.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Hey Kurto, G-Dub claims that God told him to run for President, right? I'm guessing that Saddam's WMD might've come up in the same conversation.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are so right. I didn't even consider that he might have been getting his intel from a higher source.

Perhaps God was playing a little joke on Bush.

[ACPlayer]

If it was not a lie, it was incompetent decision making.

Take your pick.

I simply dont think that silly excuses are exceptable when you make a BIG BET. They fell into the classic trap of making the play because they wanted to rather than because it was the optimal play.

[andyfox]

Thanks for the kind words.

As for "fully engaged and never apologetic": by fully engaged, they want us to be able to fight two full-fledged wars at one time. This is because they expect us to. They want us to be involved everywhere at all times. This is impractical and a recipe for disaster in that we can't possibly have the expertise, kinowledge, or ability to eiuther know do the right thing all the time everywhere.

Never apologetic means talk loudly and carry a big stick. The world's policeman and bully. Another ingredient in the recipe for disaster.

[andyfox]

"nobody has yet to produce a quote from that website that shows why the left is so angry at this website."

I can't speak for others, but a major flaw in their logic is when they state we need to change regimes which are hostile to our interests and values. The United States has never hesitated to change regimes hostile to our interests. Frequently, though, the regimes we have installed to replace them have been hostile to our values (democracy, for example). Saudi Arabia's regime, to name one current regime, is hostile to our values, but, for the most part, it has not been hostile to our interests. Thus they have gotten (again, for the most part) a free pass. Ditto for China.