>> [The Iraqi regime] possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons.
What bio-chem weapons were they producing and how much of it did they have?
>> On September the 11th, 2001, America felt its vulnerability... we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America.
How does this relate to Iraq? How was Saddam in a position to bring "sudden terror" to America? And of course I am assuming that you do see how bringing these two paragraphs one after the other along with media blitz of the time makes most people hear Saddam was connected to 9/11.
>> the threat from Iraq stands alone -- because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant...
So where were these WMDs that required urgent action?
>> ...murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people...
Now would that be weapons made out of chemicals that we Rummy sold him after Reagan took Iraq off the list?
>> ...has struck other nations without warning...
Ummm...would that be the war we supported and helped him to wage that we are not complaining about? Seems very hypocritical.
>> If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?
Ok, then why don't you present that arsenal and btw, if you know it is there, then why don't you explicitly send UN inspectors to the location ask them to destroy it.
>> And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons.
So what happened to them?
>> it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would be crossed. Saddam Hussein would be in a position to blackmail anyone who opposes his aggression. He would be in a position to dominate the Middle East. He would be in a position to threaten America. And Saddam Hussein would be in a position to pass nuclear technology to terrorists.
Now does this fall under Straw Man or Slippery Slope fallacy or just plain fear-mongering.
>> We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas.
Sarin and mustard gases are fairly simple to make and as far as chemical weapons go are rather lame. We'll never be able to prevent their production. VX is a different story. Did anyone find VX in Iraq or was this a lie?
>> These actions killed or injured at least 20,000 people, more than six times the number of people who died in the attacks of September the 11th.
Sure. Let's not miss any chance to bring Saddam and 9/11 in the same sentence. But what is the connection? After all, those 20,000 people Bush is being a bleeding heart for were killed by material that Reagan approved selling to Iraq and never did anything about.
>> We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas.
How true did this turn out to be? How urgent was the danger?
>> Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. Well, we don't know exactly, and that's the problem.
Ignorance as a justification for invasion...how quaint!
>> Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced the horror of September the 11th.
Does this really mean commentary? How many ways can he tie Saddam to 9/11? And how did invasion of Iraq improve the situation?
>> The time for denying, deceiving, and delaying has come to an end. Saddam Hussein must disarm himself -- or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.
Yes, for the sake or truth and peace we forge documents and go to war...I see where CB gets her training from.
>> Later this week, the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands. Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice and is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean something. Congress will also be sending a message to the dictator in Iraq: that his only chance -- his only choice is full compliance, and the time remaining for that choice is limited.
A total lie on all parts that matter. (A) the congress and everyone else at the time was intimidated to compliance or come under attack as unpatriotic or soft on anti-terrorism. This does not excuse their spineless actions, but does explain it. (B) It was damn certain that Bush was intent on going to war and anyone who voted for this believing Bush would find a diplomatic solution has his head in purple clouds. (C) If this was not an endorsement of War, then why did we go to war without declaration from Congress? (D) Which civilized nations were actually for this war? It is very hypocritical to use UN as the excuse to go to war where the majority of UN members opposed it. Why didn't Bush just ask UN if he should go to war if it was the "demands of the civilized world" he was concerned about? |
