Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Wed 06/02/2004 View Tue 06/01/2004 View Mon 05/31/2004 View Sun 05/30/2004 View Sat 05/29/2004 View Fri 05/28/2004 View Thu 05/27/2004
1
2004-06-02 Iraq-Jordan
They were begging for their lives
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-06-02 6:24:52 PM|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 Our invasion of Iraq made them angry at all Americans. We need to think more about what the consequences are when we decide to take over a nation. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the American contractors derserved it or anything, but we turned Iraq into a terror hotbed. At least under Saddam there was peace.
Posted by Jennifer 2004-06-02 8:50:06 PM||   2004-06-02 8:50:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 Jennifer, don't give all of we "Jens" a bad name with your Leftist/Liberal whining!
We thought PLENTY about going to war in Iraq.
It was in the air for discussion among the American citizenry for 18 months (the so-called "rush to war") and it was voted on by Congress shortly before a Congressional election.
Iraq was a hotbed when SADDAM took over (if not long before. Check your Bible for details about Babylon.)
Iraq is where we need to be and where we're making our stand against Islamist terrorism.
You clearly don't read any Iraqi blogs--the majority of Iraqis are glad we came and got rid of Saddam and are looking forward to a better, democratic future for their country.
Meanwhile, back here at home, we haven't had any big attacks here because the terrorists are busy trying to stir up the al-Sadr uprising.
Unless or until sKerry wins (knock on wood and crossing myself that he does not), you Lefty appeasement-junkies and apologists for terrorists should shut the hell up!
Posted by Jen  2004-06-02 8:57:10 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2004-06-02 8:57:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 bad choice "Jennifer" -I'll keep the comments to the fact that you haven't a clue
Posted by Frank G  2004-06-02 9:02:55 PM||   2004-06-02 9:02:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 I have a clue. I read the papers too. True we did talk about invading Iraq for about a year before, and true Congress did authorize the war. But you know why. Someone exagerrated the threat of terroism and Saddam. The Democrats had to vote in favor of the war because there was an election. Most Democrats were not really really in favor of the war. The rest of the world was against us and there were no weapons of mass destruction.
Posted by Jennifer 2004-06-02 9:14:07 PM||   2004-06-02 9:14:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 Jennifer, President Bush didn't exaggerate the threat at all and it was based on the best intelligence that everyone in the world had.
The fact that we haven't found Saddam's WMDs doesn't mean they weren't there.
And the burden wasn't on Bush to find the WMDs but on Saddam and his breach of 17 UN resolutions to PROVE that he had destroyed the WMDs he was already caught having by UNSCOM.
The Dimocrats up for reelection were perfectly free to vote against the war in the fall of 2002 and some of them did and many of them lost their reelection bids, because the American people are behind their President.
But the fact of the matter remains that the Dims screamed about voting on it, no matter when, and so President Bush made his case and let them vote.
And Leftist shills like you just have to suck it up and live with it.
Posted by Jen  2004-06-02 9:40:32 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2004-06-02 9:40:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 "The Democrats had to vote in favor of the war because there was an election. Most Democrats were not really really in favor of the war."

Jennifer obviously is not the sharpest nail in the barrel, but she stumbled into a truth. Most Democrats were against the war but voted for it because of politics. Does that surprise anyone? The depth of their thinking went like this - "Bush is for the war so I'm against it, but the people are for it so I will vote for it so they will think I'm for it."
Posted by Jake 2004-06-02 9:54:58 PM||   2004-06-02 9:54:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 At least under Saddam there was peace.

And Mussolini made the trains run on time and Hitler turned the German economy around. We should just ignore their other little faux pas, shouldn't we Jennifer?

Yes, Iraqis had peace - the peace of the mass grave.
Posted by sc88  2004-06-03 12:02:35 AM||   2004-06-03 12:02:35 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 Terrific comment, Jennifer. Peace in our time. It can still be achieved.
Posted by Rafael 2004-06-03 12:30:40 AM||   2004-06-03 12:30:40 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 Jennifer, I have asked several times and on several blogs -- When has Bush or his administration lied? Perhaps you can answer.

And please... no 'opinion polls' or 'they said so on the News!' or quote from some talking head or one of the steford anchors or other BS. Plain facts. Where in any of his statements or speeches did he lie?
Posted by CrazyFool  2004-06-03 12:48:31 AM||   2004-06-03 12:48:31 AM|| Front Page Top

02:24 Tresho
01:30 .com
01:22 .com
01:12 RWV
00:51 CrazyFool
00:48 CrazyFool
00:36 CrazyFool
00:33 Long Hair Republican
00:30 Rafael
00:02 sc88
00:00 Barbara Skolaut
23:57 Barbara Skolaut
23:46 Mike Sylwester
23:46 cingold
23:41 Long Hair Republican
23:37 Barbara Skolaut
23:31 Barbara Skolaut
23:30 Long Hair Republican
23:30 Anonymous5101
23:27 Long Hair Republican
23:25 Barbara Skolaut
23:21 Phil B
23:18 Phil B
23:14 Robert Crawford









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com