Anyone who supported 'Shock and Awe' had best not say that

[acmavm]

the execution of Hussein was wrong. Not here, not in Britain, not in Austrailia or Italy, and let us not forget, not Poland.

The attack on Iraq was intended to execute a bunch of 'high value' targets who's faces they put on playing cards so we could tell the importance of each target. And none, not one, of those buffoons were killed during the first bomb attacks of this obscene murderfest. The only people who were murdered were innocent Iraqis. Men, women, children who had never done one damn thing to us. And the governments of the above mentionend countries are the murderers. And so help me, I don't want to hear Hillary or John or John or ANYONE who voted to give that insane fool and his criminal murdering cabal the powers to indescriminately kill and pathetic hypocritical bullshit about killing Hussein. They didn't care who died in the first days of this wholesale slaughter, they'd better not get picky now.

[Ian David]

1. Some of the people in the deck of cards have been released from jail

Including those alleged to have been part of the imaginary Weapons of Mass Destruction programs.

[acmavm]

2. And that has what to do with what I said? Just asking because

your remark might just be some further info. But it does nothing to negate the fact that anyone who signed on for Shock and Awe were approving wholescale executions of Iraqis, both in the government and in the civilian population.

[Ian David]

4. I wasn't arguing with you. My point was that it was supposedly worth "Shock and Awe"...

to go after the people in the deck of cards, but then when we caught some of them alive, we just let them go.

They weren't so dangerous after all.

"Shock and Awww... let's let them go."

[karynnj]

3. Your interpretation of the IWR is a result of your anger

No one voted for "indescriminate killing". The vote was in Oct 2002. The invasion in March 2003. During those 6 months, the following happened:
- Saddam allowed the inspectors access - even to his palaces
- Saddam destroyed missiles
- There were still diplomatic negotiations going on between Saddam and the French and Russians
- Bush did not go back to the UN AS HE COMMITED to do, instead going to an island off Spain with the British and Spanish leader - because he KNEW (we bugged the UN in NYC) that he would lose.
- Blix had issued his preliminary report.

Bush himself said it was not a vote for war - and, at least Kerry and Harkin were speaking out in early 2003 against invading as much or more than many who voted against it. It was the wrong vote - but it was not what you said it was.

[90-percent]

5. Thanks

Thanks Karynnj for your concise summary of events and circumstances leading up to this never ending barbarism our government likes to create.

It's helpful to look back on facts and see how many outright lies and lies by omission were done by our President.

With your concise writing abilities a summary of Iraq and American events since 2000 would be wonderful!

I've been consuming bits and pieces over the years, like most of us here at DU, but a time line all in one document would be valuable.

-85% jimmy

[acmavm]

6. Oh bullshit. the news was already leaking out about the fact that

the bush** administration were LYING. The IAEA said that there was NO evidence of any ongoing nuclear program in Iraq (a country that had been under sanction for a decade I remind you). The CIA and Joe Wilson were pointing out the lies.

Did anyone really believe this shit? THE WHOLE FUCKING SANE WORLD knew that al Quaeda was NOT in Iraq. The whole fucking sane world watched psycho george tell the fucking inspectors that they had to get out and then lie and say Saddam wouldn' cooperate with the inspectors. That might have been slightly late in the dance, but there were plenty of signs that this was going to be bad, that the bastards weren't going to deal with anybody honorably. Check with a shitload of the original members of this place. It was discussed and discussed and discussed.

What did anyone think telling a bunch of proven psychos that they had permission (with strings maybe) to bomb the shit out of a country with the second largest oil reserves under thier sand? What the fuck had the pointy earred SOB done honorably up to that point? His approval rating was below sea level and reports were already leaking about the fact that they had plans to bomb the shit out of Iraq long before 911. And everyone with one, just one, living moving operational brain cell knew who was responsible for 911. And it was not Iraq as the lying criminal regime kept saying.

It's not my anger. Its the ability to reason that tells me that anyone who voted to allow these crazies, WHO GOT INTO THE WHITE HOUSE BY STEALING AN ELECTION, and who were backed by oil companies and who had a sick frigging drooling moran fronting for them (from a family that made their fortune dealing with the Nazis for God's sake) were NOT, NOT, NOT, doing their duty to the world, the American people, to the innocents in Iraq, to the Constitution of the United States of America, and if they believe in any higher power at all, their God.

[karynnj]

9. You need a TIMETABLE

The IAEA ws saying these things BEFORE MARCH, 2003, but AFTER OCTOBER 2002. The IAEA was not even in Iraq yet - neither was Blix. That was the problem the inspectors left in 1998 before Clinton bombed Iraq and had not returned. Joe Wilson's op-ed was after Bush's SOTU speech in 2003 where the Niger stuff was mentioned. The vote was in 2002.

Kerry spoke out in summer 2002, when Bush wanted to attack using the terror resolution (that allowed the atatck on Afghanistan). Kerry wanted him to go to Congress and the UN. Bush moved troops then - which as CIC he could do. The DSM also suggest that a manufactored provocation (easy to do when we were flying in the no fly zone and elsewhere)

Kerry wrote an op-ed on September 6 in the NYT that was considered anti -war. It said the same thing he said elsewhere. That we should go to war only if we exhausted diplomatic efforts and withh the UN. Only as a last resort. He said the same thing before voting for the IWR.

Kerry did speak out BEFORE the war. Bush said the vote was not a vote for war.

Kerry kept his word. Why not criticize the true villain - the one who lied.

[acmavm]

10. There were reports prebombing that Iraq did NOT have any

WMDs or program to build any.

Kerry was a buffoon. Just like the rest of them that voted to give a lying front man for a bunch of thugs the power to decide to go to war.

Why is it that Kerry supporters always like to pretend that he didn't go along with the scheme? You like to pretend that he was this big hero. He's not different than Hillary and every other dem that voted to give a bunch of scheming liars powers that everyone who'd been watching this bunch knew they'd use no matter what. And on false pretenses. Just like they did everything else.

I never thought we'd go to war. I was a fool. I really believed that someone, no not someone, that a group of someones, the saner ones, would step up and put a halt to the plans. Instead I watched in total disbelief as they empowered the biggest, most corrupt bunch of thugs that ever hijacked a democracy shift their plans into gear and start dropping bombs on innocent people.

[karynnj]

11. There were some reports that there were none AND some reports that there were

Kerry in his IWR speech does NOT state that there were definately WMD in Iraq - he questioned it. The fact is that NO inspectors were there for 4 years.

Kerry was well aware that Pakistan, funded by BCCI, secretly and illegally developed its bomb - that the world didn't know of until it was tested. In fact, the first item in Kerry's list of things not completed when his BCCI investigation was stopped was to further investigate this. Clearly, he knew that people were out their selling nuclear technology. Look where Iraq is, could they have obtained any unsecured nuclear material from the former USSR? on what grounds do you rule out the possibility that they had WMD.

The situation in Iraq was also not static. Various countries wanted to lift the sanctions - and the sanctions had done great harm, so they should likely have been lifted years before. To even consider doing that, yopu needed serious inspections - possibly even on an on-going basis.

Kerry wanted the same resolution - Biden/Lugar that Dean, Gore (I think) and Biden himself wanted. That was not the bill placed in front of them. Kerry voted for the Levin amendment that would have required Bush to come back to Congress, but it failed. Had it passed, Bush would have disregarded it just as he did weaker language in the IWR and more people would have voted for it.

Kerry has said that he regrets the vote - because of how it was used and says it was the wrong vote. It is clear though that he was NOT pro-war because he spoke against going to war before the war started.

[renie408]

7. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. n/t

[ProSense]

8. Are the people who voted against the IWR going to condemn Saddam's hanging?

Some who voted for the IWR never supported the war. Some who never had to vote for it cheered on the war and "mission accomplished."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3034413&mesg_id=3034938