#5: First Debate? > Saddam, since the Gulf War?

THREAD BEGAN: October 1st, 2004

CHUCK: KERRY DESTROYED BUSH. Even an unbiased person admits Kerry won. HELP IS ON THE WAY

ZELIN: Well, of course I agree with Chuck. I was impressed by how Kerry was actually saying things and articulating points, while Bush, as we expected, seems to simply state the same few lines over and over again, almost in a pleasing manner. I think that Kerry did bring up some good rebuttals and sound presidential, but I am also worried. The shear fact that Bush is able to sit up there and say a few simple statements over and over, will work among many voters. I think a large amount of voters don't want to hear details and prefer to be comforted by their father type president and told that everything is going to be okay and we are doing just fine. In comes, W.
Waiting for 10 emails from Jay.

JAY: i agree w/ chuck and z-diggity. however, z, you give the pres no credit. kerry did make good points and had trong rebuttles, but bush did as well. they both have strong points and we have to choose which stance we prefer. most of you don't know this, but i am border line with a slight edge towards bush. the one thing that really bothers me about kerry is his contradictions, and yes there were plenty. first he said he wanted to supply the troops w/ all the necessry equipment, but he voted against the 87 billion. then he said saddam wasn't a threat, then he was. the fact is he looked at the same intelligence as bush and made the same decision as bush. now he says it's the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time. i know you say he approved of the war, but not in the way bush went about it. how do you approve a war if it's the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time. it makes no sense. what he is saying is that he wanted to go to war b/c it's the wrong war, wrong time, wrong place, but lets get the u.n. and other nations to help us fight this wrong war. by the way, there are 40 other countries that pose a more imminent threat, but i'll wait a year or two to bring that up. i agree w/ bush on this point: "how do you expect to build the coalition with this message?" however, this issue aside, kerry appeared strong. he is a much better public speaker. i like his "fresh start" theory. to bad they really don't debate. isn't that what we really need to see?

CHUCK: First, I will admit bush has one strong point, which you brought up jay. The ability to build a coalition for a 'wrong war'. its a good point. however, i think kerry just rebuts by saying 'it was wrong, but now success is vital, especially for you euros, so you better join'. not super convincing, but its something.
Otherwise, Jay, you must have not been watching the debate (or just not want to acknowledge kerry) if you are still reeling off stuff about 'sadaam not being a threat', 'not funding troops', etc. he stated repeatedly (and even i was impressed) that he had one position: sadaam was a threat and needed to be disarmed, there was a right and wrong way to do it, and bush did it the wrong way. and kerry has never said sadaam was a not a threat. he has just explained that sadaam was not the level of threat that deserved the emphasis bush placed on it.
well, i am going to just sit back and wait for some new polls. after last night i can calm down about all this other stuff, because i know kerry is in the game. bush could have won it last night. but he sucked. he interupted the moderator, and then had nothing to say.....he couldnt understand the color light system......and my favorite, he confused sadaam and bin laden (not a first). and kerry looked and sounded tremendous. i was really happy with the choices he put out there. and for anyone still considering kerry, there are 3 more debates to tune into and see the differences between the parties and the candidates.

DAN: Chuck, I completely disagree. I don't think either was great. But difinately, Bush did better. Obviously, Bush stumbled a bit, but who doesn't know that Bush will do that. He at times sounded redundant, but in his defense, the questions were so closely related it would be hard not to overlap your statements. Bush was clear on his ideas and what he stands for and was telling voters to vote for him.
Kerry on the other hand was not clear on anything. He looked like a immature, crybaby, asshole when calling Bush out when he (Bush) wanted a 30 second extension on one of Kerry's responses (I'd have to watch again to tell you exactly what question and when it happened).
By the way, I have a question...Ayman al-Zawahiri, second to Bin Ladin, trys to rally supporters with a taped message, according to a broadcast Friday by Al-Jazeera television. I know what Bush will/is going to do. After seeing the debates yesterday, what does everyone think will happen/would happen if Kerry were President?
My answer - I have no idea what this guy would do. Kerry continued to point the finger at Bush and said Bush was wrong in his administration. He didn't elaborate on any aspect of his implementation. He did though let the world know where he stands. He is against terror and WM-D's.----Who the fuck does this guy think he is? NO SHIT HE'S AGAINST THEM, SO IS THE REST OF THE FUCKING WORLD!----I feel bad for any swing voter leaning toward Kerry. His generalities and finger pointing are not going to get him elected.
I look at it this way. Obviously, you are for one party or the other (Dem/Rep), or your are in between ("swing"). If you have already made up your mind, either Dem or Rep, the likelihood of switching is slim. BUT, for those swing-voters that don't know what the hell is going on, this is a crucial time for Bush and Kerry. These people aren't looking to decide which candidate to vote for. They haven't made up their minds because they can't choose. They are looking to be told who to vote for. That is why I think Bush did an good (not excellent) job yesterday telling the American people that they need to vote for him. And if they don't then "this, that and the other" will happen. Bob, you have called this on several occasions a "scare tactic." I disagree with that statement. We have all heard this statement many times, "There are leaders and there are followers." These swing voters, guys, aren't leaders. It doesn't take much to realize that. They are waiting for someone to tell them what to do; who to vote for. They aren't waiting for the "perfect answer" from either candidate to all of the sudden push them over the hump. I think Bush did a great job yesterday being a leader by telling the swing voters (on numerous occasions) they need to vote for him. Kerry once again cast no sign of letting the American people know EXACTLY what he stands for, let alone taking charge, being a leader, and telling voters to vote for him.

BOB: THE DEBATE:
In the beginning Kerry looked, well…stiff….like a piece of petrified wood, with the exception of his shaky hands. And I saw immediately that Bush was on his game, laying on the Southern Charm thick like molasses. After the first two question I had my head in my hands. I wasn’t even looking at the screen. I was envisioning another 4 years with Bush and considering Brazilian citizenship.
But then something happened…something incredible. Bush started to drift a little. He didn’t look like the cool, collected, convincing Bush that we saw at the convention. Something was wrong. He seemed defensive all of the sudden. He was smirking off camera like Dennis the Menace. He seemed annoyed. He looked awkward. The Southern Charm seemed to miss the mark. He was rambling, “no…mixed messages…can’t…mix messages…I know world leaders…I talk to them on my phone!” He was getting all excited about the International Criminal Court! He was telling sob stories that couldn’t seem more forced. He looked like a little boy, “I know that Osama attacked us, duh!”
Well…Kerry smelled blood and the last 2/3 of the debate became an absolute thrashing. I couldn’t believe my eyes! I still wonder if I was just dreaming it! If anyone in this group thinks Bush won the debate last night he is one of three things: Delusional, Lying or Stupid.
We’re back baby!

JAY: someone respond to my contradiction theory. besides chuck (thanks).

SAMMY: Really. Kerry was obviously great. He demeaned the president in a respectful way. Pointing out a lot of the shortcomings of Bush. Bush as usual was stumbling over his words and was obviously taking this debate for granted showing up significantly unprepared. We all know Bush was redundant, saying "Wrong place, War, etc." so many times even after the fact of Kerry explaining himself on his past votes on the war.
To call Kerry a crybaby is crossing the line. The only baby I saw on stage was Bush. If he slumped over the podium any more he would be in the fetal position. Now come on STAND UP STRAIGHT. You are the president , act like one.
Bush was definetly irriated by Kerry, maybe for the first time he saw the error of his ways. And to be pointed out in front of all the world to see, how embarrassing.
Hard work. We heard that a lot from Bush. It must be hard work lying to the american people over and over again.
I also agree with Keeler. This will not win the election for Kerry, but when Kerry destroys Bush in the next 2 debates. Their will be a definite change in voter polls. Lets just hope the press keep showing pictures of bush slumped over the podium, rolling his eyes with his smug face, looking nothing but utterly defeated.
Dan, I also must agree with you on your previous e-mail. You make a good point on rep/dem sticking with their man. It is true I can easily pick out Bush's mistakes because I am partial towards Kerry, and the same goes for you. Although, when 56% of immediate polls taken say Kerry is the winner, only giving 33% to Bush clearly says something for Kerry. Kerry did a better job hands down. I also would like to thank Keeler for seeing past his favortism towards Bush and understand that Kerry did win the debate. I can see you are being impartial towards this roundtable and not being closeminded.

BEN: john, if kerry does better in the next 2 than bush, and thats no guarantee, but it still might not be enough,. yeah kerry "won", but all these people all over TV claimng he won were the same people wo said after his convention that he had the thing won already and bush was dead........i just think the debat reinforced sides....which was a net positve for kerry because he FINALLY gave his supporters somethign to cheer about. bush still has the upper hand, but if he performs like he did last night, i agree, he is in trouble. i will wait about a week to see the full effect of the debate. but yes, kerry did a good job. the only negative was that he just sat that and lied that he one position on iraq (because anyone with honesty knows he hasnt), and was jsut grinning the whole time while he said it. now i am sure you all can say bush lied about sometihing as well, so ok. so good night for dems, for sure. but last night just makes me and people like me more determined to do waht we can for bush. calling it as i see it.....ben

DAN: I have to say, I agree with Jay that Kerry did have valid points - as well as Bush. My only problem with Kerry's arguments is that there is no backing behind his counter-points. I will say this about Bush...someone needs to sit down with him and talk with him about proper edicate when it comes to public speaking. I mean, we all know he isn't the best at speaking, but leaning on podiums and banging fists, that shows signs of frustration, which like I stated earlier, swing-voters rely heavily upon what they are seeing when it comes to casting their ballots - in Bush's case during the first debate it shows a sign of weakness.
After talking with Mike Schmeltzer I think we should, for the next presidential debate, switch things up. My point, people see/hear things, in the debate and elsewhere, as they want the see/hear them. It is through a skewed lens. Now, I know it may be difficult, but if everyone could pretend they are voting for the opposite candidate and critique them in a manner as if they were voting for that candidate, I think it may help to realize a completely different perspective of the opposite candidate. Now keep in mind, only focus on the positive aspects as you would if you were voting for them.
Let me know if you think this is a good/bad idea. I figure it will not only change things up a little, but maybe give some realization for the other side's view as well. And like I said, people view/hear things they way they want them to be viewed/heard...this won't be easy to do.
p.s. - Bob, I have talked it over with several people and I agree with you when you said Bush came out strong and Kerry was weak in the beginning. But towards the end, tables may have turned. I still give Bush the upper hand, though slight, solely because of the reasoning that he was more of a "take charge" kind of guy, telling swing-voters what to do, rather than what I felt Kerry was doing, leaving them, "high and dry."

BOB: Jay, you send an email every 3 hours with a question attached
and complain that no one is responding to all your questions.
Meanwhile, I posted ONE question (Iraqi Election) and since you have posted 1,694 unrelated words, (Yes...I plugged it into Microsoft Word and did a word count, and yes...I need to get a life)
These 1,694 words include a dozen more questions and complaints that your questions aren't getting the attention that they deserve. This is ridiculous!
I am boy-cotting JASON THOMAS FILE until I get an answer to my ONE multiple choice question that I posted at the beginning of the last thread.
Period.
Dan, the PS on your last email is interesting. Maybe I am reading it wrong. Just exactly what are you saying? Cause it seems like your agreeing with me when I said, "Bush came out strong and Kerry was weak in the beginning. But towards the end, tables may have turned." Is that it? Cause I surely didn't say that. What I said was for the first 2 questions (15 minutes) Bush was winning big time. Then the next 75 minute Kerry was thrashing Bush. Please clear up this confusion. PS I am game for your bizzaro-world switcharoo idea. Good idea.

SAMMY: I was wondering how everyone expects the vice presidential debate to go on tues. I am gonna have to side with Cheney. But, Cheny will have to overcome the hurdle of his Halaburten controversy to win. And knowing Edwards years experience as a lawyer will make this debate probably one of the best. Hoping the best for Edwards, and Dan I like the idea of watching the debate through others eyes.

BOB: In my city, there are tons of kids who spend their days walking around, begging for change. They have dirty feet, dirty hands, crusty clothes and big, sad eyes. I see it every single day, first-hand.
When I am approached, I almost always say NO. Furthermore, I hope that other people don’t give these kids a penny.
Why?!...Because as the kids spend the days begging, they are missing school. Their poverty stricken parents have all realized that this is an effective way to put food on the table (and too often get money for booze, lottery and cigerettes) So they have pulled their kids from classes.
Now in Brazil, you only go to college if you’re in the top of your graduating class. These kids, after missing crucial years of grammar and math can never catch up. Smart or not, they are doomed to a life of poverty or crime, usually both. And when THEY have kids, they’ll most likely be forced to send them to the same square to beg for change. It is a cycle that needs to be broken.
So, I hope that these kids fail at bringing home money. Not cause I don’t care, but because I care. Because I am thinking about the big picture: their future and the future of Brazil.
The same goes for my view of Iraq. I said that I hope that we fail in Iraq. I said this not cause I like to see violence, but because I don’t like to see violence. I am thinking about the big pictue: the country that OUR kids will live in. We too are caught in a vicious cycle: bad foreign policy that leads to terrorism that leads to bad foreign policy. It is a cycle that needs to be broken.
When I see those kids go home empty-handed, or when I see U.S. casualities on the news, I am deeply, deeply saddened. (And I truly resent comments to the contrary.) But I am sadder yet, when I think about the alternative...an endless cycle of poverty or violence.
Bob “the devil”

CHUCK: I AM ALSO BOYCOTTING JAY.
I am waiting for Jay to point out what Sadaam did from 1992-2004. Examples of mass murder, genocide, etc? And remember, UN violations dont count, because bush makes fun of the UN (and any form of global law). Did we go to war because his son tourched the Iraqi soccer team?
(bob, good reminder of bush coming unhinged about the ICC)
jay, you said: By the way, I have a question...Ayman al-Zawahiri, second to Bin Ladin, trys to rally supporters with a taped message, according to a broadcast Friday by Al-Jazeera television. I know what Bush will/is going to do. After seeing the debates yesterday, what does everyone think will happen/would happen if Kerry were President?
What will bush do? what? what are talking about? what is he going to do? The only thing i know bush is going to do is spew nonsense about how "i will not relent". and then he will go on to undersupport our efforts to attack al queda.
Aside from all the uhm, uh, well, uhm, uh, (sigh), uhm, (i might of even heard an "i'm geting killed"), Here are some of President Bush's most ridiculous lines of the evening:"Of course we're after Saddam Hussein - I mean bin Laden.""We've got a hundred thousand [Iraqi troops] trained now." (The Defense Department's own estimates indicate only slightly more than half that many have been trained.)"The enemy understands a free Iraq will be a major defeat in their ideology of hatred. That's why they're fighting so vociferously.""Well, actually you forgot Poland.""[B]ecause Tommy Franks did such a great job in planning the operations, we moved rapidly. And a lot of the Baathists and Saddam loyalists laid down their arms and disappeared. I thought we would, they would stay and fight. But they didn't. And now we're fighting them now.""Of course I know Osama bin Laden attacked us. I know that.""I'm a pretty calm guy."

BOB: Chuck, I wanted to clarify, that quote about: "Ayman al-Zawahiri, second to Bin Ladin...", was actually DAN not JAY. I loved the Bush quotes. Vociferously yours, Bob

CHUCK: well, then my apologies would go to jay. but jay is on boycott
NOW ITS OFFICIAL. FOX NEWS LIES! Read this story. After a successful for Kerry, what does Fox News coverage provide. Well, the man that follows the Kerry campaign everyday (Carl Cameron) wrote a completely false story mocking Kerry and making up (lying) quotes that claim to have been said by Kerry. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news tmpl=story&u=/afp/20041003/ts_alt afp/us_vote_kerry_media&cid=1506&ncid=1963&sid=96378801
THEY ARE NOT NEWS, SO NO MORE QUOTING THEM. QUESTION: Is Congress going to investigate this? Or just Dan Rather? And for the good guys receiving this email, try not to have a heart attack the next time some fucking idiot tells you about the liberal media.

JAY: when did i say that? i think you are quoting dan

DAN: This e-mail is in regards to Chuck's question of what wrong-doings Saddam has done (during said time period) to warrant our Iraq invasion.
The following is a list that includes, but is not limited to, wrong-doings of Saddam:
1. The invasion and occupation of Kuwait. On August 2, 1990, Saddam Hussein ordered his forces to invade and occupy Kuwait. It took military force by the international community and actions by the Kuwaiti themselves to liberate Kuwait in February 1991. During the occupation, Saddam Hussein's forces killed more than a thousandKuwaiti nationals, as well as many others from other nations.
2. The suppression of the 1991 uprising. In March and April of 1991, Saddam Hussein's forces killed somewhere between 30,000 and 60,000 Iraqis, most of them civilians. Most of those killed were civilians, not resistance fighters -- a distinction that Saddam Hussein did not respect in 1991 any more than he has before or since. This qualifies as a crimeagainst humanity and possibly also a war crime.
3. The draining of the southern marshes. Beginning in the early 1990's, and continuing to this day, Saddam Hussein's government has drained the southern marshes of Iraq, depriving thousands of Iraqis of their livelihood and their ability to live on land that theirancestors have lived on for thousands of years. Saddam's efforts have served to render the land less fertile, and less able to sustain the livelihood or security of the Iraqi people. This qualifies as a crime against humanity and may possibly constitute genocide.
4. Ethnic cleansing of ethnic "Persians" from Iraq to Iran, and an ongoing campaign of ethnic cleansing of the non-Arabs of Kirkuk and other northern districts. This ongoing campaign of ethnic cleansing was documented by the former U.N. Special Human Rights Rapporteur for Iraq, Max van der Stoel in his reports in 1999.
5. Continuing unlawful killings of political opponents. Many groups have documented Saddam Hussein's ongoing campaign against political opponents, including killings, tortures, and lately -- rape. The regime is also carrying out a systematic campaign of murder and intimidation of clergy, especially Shi'a clergy. The number of those killed unlawfully is difficult to estimate but must be well in excess of 10,000 since Saddam Hussein officially seized power in 1980. The number of victims of torture no doubt well exceeds the number of those killed.
6. Iraq admitted to producing biological agents, and after the 1995 defection of a senior Iraqi official, Iraq admitted to the weaponization of thousands of liters of anthrax, botulinim toxin, and aflatoxin for use with Scud warheads, aerial bombs and aircraft.
-------to download the full report on the human cost of Saddam's policies by the Foreign & Commonwealth Office------www.iraqfoundation.org/hr/2002/ cdec/4_abuse.html
Feel free to speak freely now, Chuck.

CHUCK: Dan, you just taught me 2 things: 1) you are good at cutting and pasting (do you use right click, or ctrl-C?)2) Sadaam did nothing worthy of war, and was a pussy after Bush 1's war.
And any weapons he might of had left over, the great Bill Clinton destroyed in attacks (which he did in spite of the silly impeachment hearings, which consumed this nation and blinded us to the threats abroad)
There is ethnic cleansing in the Sudan right now, and we wont even send troops

BOB: I received this FWD today.
Note the reference to the Muslims killing those poor kids in Russia.
Do ANY of you conservatives agree with this?...

[Below is the FWD in question]
I don't know if this is true, but I am passing it on. If they do sell it, I won't buy it! Subject: A NEW CHRISTMAS STAMP IS COMING! CAN YOU BELIEVE IT?To the list that appears below, we can now add the attack on school kids in Russia!! Subject: Fw: A NEW CHRISTMAS STAMP IS COMING! CAN YOU BELIEVE IT?Maybe I am missing something ... but this one takes the cake! Please let others be aware of this ... How ironic is this??!! They don't even believe in Christ and they're getting their own Christmas stamp, but don't dream of posting the ten commandments on federal property? This one is impossible to believe. Scroll down for the text. If there is only one thing you forward today.....let it be this! REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of PanAm Flight 103! REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993! REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon! REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of the military barracks in Saudi Arabia! REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of the American Embassies in Africa! REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of the USS COLE! REMEMBER the MUSLIM attack on the Twin Towers on 9/11/2001! REMEMBER all the AMERICAN lives that were lost in those vicious MUSLIM attacks! Now the United States Postal Service REMEMBERS and HONORS the EID MUSLIM holiday season with a commemorative first class holiday postage stamp. REMEMBER to adamantly and vocally BOYCOTT this stamp when purchasing your stamps at the post office. To use this stamp would be a slap in the face to all those AMERICANS who died at the hands of those whom this stamp honors. REMEMBER to pass this along to every patriotic AMERICAN you know.

MANEY: I can't believe that, pretty bad must say.

JAY: bob, go ahead and boycott me. actually you have been boycotting me for a while, you are just declaring it now. i am pasting all the questions you failed to answer. there is another question that you failed to answer, but you did not post that e-mail in the blog. what's up w/ that? it was my conflict of interest w/ a bipartisanship. to answer your survey, which displays your inhumane undertone of "moderate disaster", i think the elections will go as planned. there will be a heightened level of resistance, but that is expected. here are the questions. i don't expect you to answer them:
how do you approve a war if it's the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time. it makes no sense. what he is saying is that he wanted to go to war b/c it's the wrong war, wrong time, wrong place, but lets get the u.n. and other nations to help us fight this wrong war. by the way, there are 40 other countries that pose a more imminent threat, but i'll wait a year or two to bring that up. i agree w/ bush on this point: "how do you expect to build the coalition with this message?"
Just for shit and giggles I want one of you liberals to give me the stats on Kerry's voting record. I know it, I just want to hear you say it. And I want some sort of rebuttle.
He found substantial evidence of an Iraqi push to boost the range of its ballistic missiles beyond prohibited ranges. Comments: If this report is correct, do you think Iraq was a threat? Is it enough that he was importing banned materials, working on unmanned aerial vehicles in violation of U.N. agreements and maintaining a dual-use industrial sector that could produce weapons?
Duelfer also says Iraq only had small research and development programs for chemical and biological weapons. It will also add more evidence and flesh out Kay’s October findings. He found substantial evidence of an Iraqi push to boost the range of its ballistic missiles beyond prohibited ranges. Comments: If this report is correct, do you think Iraq was a threat? Is it enough that he was importing banned materials, working on unmanned aerial vehicles in violation of U.N. agreements and maintaining a dual-use industrial sector that could produce weapons?
If there were plans, does that constitute a threat large enough to invade?
It's easy to say what he WILL do, but how is he going to do it? I havn't heard that yet. Do you think Bush is attempting to add to our coalition?
Dont you think it's a little shady that France (and Russia) had large financial incentives not to go to war? What would you think if these allegations turn out to be true?
in 1998 Bill Clinton signed an executive order that stated the US's official policy goal was regime change in iraq.bob, you respond the "maney jokes" e-mail and not mine. mine was specifically addressed to you. what's up w/ that
The Volcker Commission’s refusal to share documentation with congressional investigators demonstrates arrogance and disrespect for Congress and the American public that helps fund the Commission through the United Nations. What do you guys think about this? Is it possible that something fishy is going on (chuck)?
so you are saying beacause it has been a decade since saddam invaded kuwait then it is ok. no prob. and he isn't sitting quietly. why did the UN palce sanctions on iraq? why wouldn't he let people in? looks fishy huh?
where are all the "moderate disaster" e-mails? i think this blog is biased

BOB: Unfortunately, I MUST respond to Jay.
This is the SECOND time he has falsely accused me of not posting emails on the Blog. And it is starting to piss me off.
Please go to the fourth thread and read the third post from the top. There you will find the, "conflict of interest w/ a bipartisanship." email that Jay swears I didn't post. I am ignoring Jay until he retracts this false accusation publicly.

JAY: listen everyone, i'm sorry bob. i see them. my bad. you have to admit there are many q's you have not answered. i will go through them all if you want

CHUCK: i responded to everyone of those.
NOW: WHAT HAS SADAAM DONE IN THE LAST 10 YEARS?

JAY: that was addressed to bob

DAN: jay, in bob's defense, i don't think it is fair to call him out regarding him having answered/not answered any of the questions. this is a roundtable. the questions laid out, unless directed directly toward a person, can be answered/ignored by anyone. you, bob, and chuck, and anyone else boycotting need to lighten up.
there is a lot of ignorance in this world...this [stamp boycott FWD] just goes to prove that fact.

JAY: chuck, you seemed ok w/ discussing Kerry's voting record in the 80's, why not saddam's actions prior to 1992? are you saying that there is some sort of statute of limitations? i am also confused b/c you guys and kerry have repeatedly said that saddam posed a threat. are you saying that he hasn't posed a threat since 1992? before i respons specifically to your question, here is a summary of what he has done (which you want to ignore; how do you ignore that?): the killing of religious figures in 1974; gassing of Kurds in Halabja in 1988; killing the Kurdish Barzani clan in 1983; killing members of political parties in the last 30 years; the 1986-88 ''Anfal'' campaign of displacing Kurds; the suppression of the 1991 uprisings by Kurds and Shiites; and the 1990 invasion of Kuwaitanyway, here is my response to your question:
Saddam has continued to rule through a combination of fear, a sophisticated security network and various measures of political and economic cooptation. While the internationally imposed sanctions have limited the resources available to it, the regime has been able to establish increasingly sophisticated mechanisms of contraband trade to circumvent them. The sanctions also have deepened the population’s dependence on the regime that they were designed to weaken. Iraqi obstruction of the oil-for-food program is the primary reason the Iraqi people are suffering. Child mortality figures have more than doubled in the south and center of the country, where the Iraqi government controls the program. Rather than spend money to help its people, Iraq's leaders enrich themselves. Saddam Hussein's repression of the Iraqi people has not stopped. He was draining the southern marshes, causing grave environmental damage and forcible relocation of civilians in an attempt to eliminate opposition to the regime. He has destroyed villages and forcibly relocated people in both the north and the south and destroyed villages in the south. The Iraqi regime still is far from complying with its obligations under United Nations Security Council resolutions. It has not fully complied with a single resolution. It has not fully declared and destroyed its WMD programs. It has not ceased concealment of its WMD. It has not responded fully to questions from UNSCOM and the IAEA. Saddam has never complied w/ a resolution. We can't let a governing body like the u.n sit idle. What is the point of a resolution if it's not complied with? I can't stand when you guys keep saying we should have waited longer. How long? Should we have waited until he used a WMD? I like preventing disaster unlike others who want to see it.
Iraq has not returned Kuwaiti and third country POWs and missing persons. Kuwaiti POW/MIAs and 34 Saudis remain unaccounted for. It has not returned all stolen Kuwaiti property. In fact, some is still deployed with Iraqi military units. It has not stopped repressing its civilian population. Saddam Hussein and his closest aides have committed a long list of criminal violations of international humanitarian law and the laws and customs of war. It is Saddam Hussein who continues to reject UN recommendations for ordering adequate amounts of food and other basic humanitarian goods. Instead, he seeks to use the oil-for-food program to rebuild his army and export oil in order to build palaces and obtain luxuries for his family and regime supporters. Holds on inappropriate contracts help prevent the diversion of oil-for-food goods to further Saddam's personal interests.
dan, i'm just fueling the fire baby.

DAN: sorry prof. kozelka. next time i'll have my work cited in an APA format for you.

CHUCK: well, Jay, i appreciate your thoughtful response.
unfortunately for you, your description of sadaam's terror completely confirm everyone of my feelings. he was a real horrible dictator. he has done nothing to be deemed a threat.
the one thing you do, which is the only way you can frame the argument, is to connect a long line of dots. 1970's did mass murder (which was okay in US's eyes), 1980's did bad stuff (w/ initial support of US), 1990's went to Kuwait (pissed US off), and since then......DONE NOTHING but be a menace to the UN (the very UN you mock). But then deem the old acts as a threat. you connect a long line of dots to get to a WMD discussion.
sure he was bad. and we could have continued to put pressure on him. he let the inspectors in. he wasnt going to attack us w/ the inspectors there, was he? what was the rush.
well, i'll stop, because you did make your point. i appreciate it. and if you think about it, you connect a long line of dots, to get to sadaam's threat.
Isnt Kim Jung Il. He hates us just as much as sadaam, and has nukes. there are not as many dots to connect

ZELIN: Fellas, just to add some political humor to lighten things up. Check it out, pretty funny. Throughout the debates last night, Kerry could be seen writing furiously and taking notes, but what the camera didn't catch is that Bush was taking notes too. Let's take a peak:
http://www.thatsuncalledfor.com/debate_notes/