By DemocracyRules
Everything Nancy Pelosi said in Congress in Oct 2002 later proved to be true:
FROM the Congressional Record, Nancy Pelosi Addressing the US Senate October 10, 2002: "I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities, I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons."
~~~~ ~~~~
AS MORE becomes known, the more dangerous Saddam appears to have been. The connected article presents strong evidence, and has strong implications.
(1) The MSM is determined to re-write world history as they see fit.
(2)“Bush Lied, People Died,” is false. In October, 2002, there was strong consensus in Congress that Saddam HAD to be deposed. The majority voted to depose him. In the quote above, it’s clear that this was not based on ignorance or deception. Nancy Pelosi said, “Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities, I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein.”
Even the Democrat members of both houses who sat on their respective Intelligence Committees agreed that Saddam had to be deposed. Hillary, Gore, Kerry, Edwards, Kennedy, Rockefeller, and many more voted to depose Saddam. (Inexplicably, Pelosi voted against invasion.)
(3) "Saddam was not a danger". If an individual says this about their own personal sense of concern, their argument has some merit. Human assessments of 'danger' are highly subjective, and highly variable. As we see in Hurricane Ike in Galveston, Texas, many people do not regard flood warnings of 20 feet, and expert predictions of almost certain death, as danger.
However, most people got away from Ike, and most people regarded Saddam as a danger. Saddam was a serious danger to the world’s democracies. Nancy Pelosi said, “Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons.” In addition to his own secret domestic WMD program, Saddam was cooperating with Libya, Syria, and Dr. Khan' group in Pakistan.
Saddam maintained many parts and plans for nuclear weapons development, some as key physical components, others as hard copies of plans, and more as detailed information kept in the memories of Iraqi scientists and engineers. As soon as the inspectors were expelled, Saddam would have been able to quickly re-start his domestic nuclear weapons development program. Iraq could have nuclear weapons in as little as 18 months, as well as sell some to other states or organizations. “Iraq had nuclear weapons plans so advanced and detailed that any country could have used them.”
(4) "We should have negotiated." 10 years had been devoted to that, without success. Saddam’s mistreatment of his own people through the oil-for-food scam, and his use of those misdirected funds to bribe world leaders, was sufficient grounds to overthrow him. Clearly, peaceful measures had failed.
(5) “If we knew then what we know now, we would not have invaded.” This is patently false. Time flows in only one direction. Furthermore, I would have supported the invasion if I knew that, (a) Saddam had many secret weapons components and was trying to get more, (b) He was funding and training terrorists who were attacking Western democracies, (c) He was bribing world leaders to get their support, (d) was a cruel murderous genocidal despot, (e) He could be overthrown by April, 2003, and (f) The insurgency could be mainly defeated by 2008.
Yes, of course I would have supported the invasion. The allied democracies won, we are rid of a monster, the world is a safer place. The Iraqi people wanted and got democracy, and with their oil wealth they have a chance for a prosperous and free country.
Pro Patria
Gawfer - England (and London especially) is down the tubes. My brother lives there - right next to where high school kids walk past on the way to school . He says he hears new swear words every day. The place doesn't have a middle class anymore - it's full of real low people.
Of course it'S not all like that - but you've got to have money to not be a part of it.
Once a country has guns there isn't a way back really. I lived in a country where you'd go to someones for coffee and people would come in and plonk their guns down on the coffee table. I once counted 3 ! That was because you could get burgled at any time by violent gangsters. There is very little chance of a way back from that.
In this world you need very strong national structures and laws to maintain society. You also need a population that is educated and morally good hearted, low jobless and big middle class. If you have that and no guns allowed you're on to a winner.
Shooting guns is fun - I shot many things - but not animals - sorry but that is cowardly. Fight the animal with your bare hands if you are so mucho. Just my thoughts.
And ps - I did carry my mates in body bags.
cheers
Posted by: yes but truthfully | September 18, 2008 at 11:37 AM