We did not go to war until after 3,000 people were murdered and billions of dollars of damage were done.
Saddam had broken the peace soon after 1991's agreement when he continued to arm with missiles that were prohibited under the peace agreement. Should we let felons continue to buy guns too?
Kerry and Clinton were arguing the case for war against Saddam back in 1997 and 1998. They said that we did not quickly run up on the war, that it was a continuation of Saddam's rogue acts.
With the terrorists strike on US soil, the nature of response escalated. Saddam Hussein was funding international terrorism even if he was not funding Al Qaeda (jury is still out on whether he trained such missions). He did fund Harms and the families of homicide bombers in Israel.
Since he was quite clearly working on programs to acquire WMD (whether he was successful or not) and such weaponry would be difficult for free-agent terrorists to safely develop, transport, and store, it is not unlikely that the two could have formed a partnership in the future. Saddam was already in violation. Taking Saddam down served as warning to other nations including Libya.
Then again, what do French college students know about world politics and war?
posted on 05/15/2005 4:33:27 PM PDT
(WE FOUGHT ZOGBYISM November 2, 2004 - 60 Million Voters versus 60 Minutes - BUSH WINS!!!)
Don't have to sell it to me. ;)
I have been following the Cannes Film Festival since it began watching for this type of rhetoric. Has been calm so far. Of course the real interviews have not started yet! Remember the Jessica Lange anti-Bush interview/video a few years ago? Lange is back there again in Broken Flowers with Bill Murray and Sharon Stone scheduled to open here in August.
I have just been keeping an eye on the Cannes.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson