Failing to Attack Iraq Would Have Been 'Irresponsible'

Vice President Cheney launched a White House counterattack yesterday against rising criticism of the administration's handling of Iraq, arguing that failing to confront Saddam Hussein would have been "irresponsible in the extreme" and could have endangered the United States.

Cheney was a main architect of the administration's case for war, which Democrats are challenging as exaggerated. He asserted that "the safety of the American people was at stake" because of Iraqi efforts to build weapons of mass destruction and "cultivate" ties with terrorist groups.

Full story

I'm pretty sure there has been only one "terrorist attack" on U.S. soil. All others have been against Israel, U.S. Embassies and U.S. ships.

And what about what Clinton said back in Dec. 1998:

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

Full Clinton transcript

So, if we destroyed all this back in DEC. 1998 what was the big massive invasion for if we could have just bombed them again? Easy, to occupy and control Iraqi oil, Hussein is losing billions of dollars in stolen oil. So, if you were Sadaam and were losing a lot of money, your palace invaded and raided and your two evil kids lay dead in a street, wouldn't you use WMD to avenge your losses IF you had them? I thought sadaam was a crazy genocidal freak. At least that's how I remember American mainstream media and the Bush administration saying.

Get your facts straight.

Clinton said just the other day "As of the day I left office Iraq still had unaccounted for WMD's", so the threat was still there. the reason we did not bomb them again was due to the fact part of the purpose of the operation was to unseat the military power controlling Iraq IE Sadam, and his whole political party. kinda hard to do that with a couple of bombs. No War for Oil"? listen to what you are saying? Do you mean that oil isn't worth fighting for, or that oil resources aren't worth protecting? with out them our whole economy would fall in to a horrible recession. The US dollar holds it value partly because of oil trade; with out this we would be facing another "great depression". Sadam is a crazy genocidal freak. Any one that would gas, torture, mame, his own people or hang women and children for waving at British troops Etc, is in my opinion a "crazy genocidal freak"

Originally posted by Phyberoptik
Get your facts straight.

What the hell are you talking about? What facts do I not have straight?

Clinton said just the other day "As of the day I left office Iraq still had unaccounted for WMD's", so the threat was still there.

Provide a link to this please.

the reason we did not bomb them again was due to the fact part of the purpose of the operation was to unseat the military power controlling Iraq IE Sadam, and his whole political party. kinda hard to do that with a couple of bombs.

I'm sorry, but according to my link above the reason we bombed them back in Dec. 1998 was:

spoken by Bill Clinton:
" Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. "

I even provided the full transcript.

No War for Oil"?

Huh? I don't understand this.

listen to what you are saying? Do you mean that oil isn't worth fighting for, or that oil resources aren't worth protecting? with out them our whole economy would fall in to a horrible recession.

I never said anything like this, what are you talking about here?

The US dollar holds it value partly because of oil trade; with out this we would be facing another "great depression".

Yeah, only because if we weren't holding the fields right now OPEC might change its standard from Dollar to Euro.

Sadam is a crazy genocidal freak. Any one that would gas, torture, mame, his own people or hang women and children for waving at British troops Etc, is in my opinion a "crazy genocidal freak"

Like I said before, if he his so crazy why has he not used any WMD? All i'm saying is something is not adding up, can you not see or are you so right-winged you can't?

Originally posted by Phyberoptik
Get your facts straight.

Clinton said just the other day "As of the day I left office Iraq still had unaccounted for WMD's", so the threat was still there.

Sorry, but that sounds a little too trusting and, dare I say it, ignorant ( ). It's ike saying "Clinton said this, so it is true." certainly not facts......I mean, Tony Blair said they had the capabilitie to use said weapons within 45 minutes, and I'm pretty sure that this was not true........what makes you so sure that just becausethe president said there was a threat there was one?