IRAQ QUESTION

[cvq3842]

Just a thought here. If, as so many Democrats have said, the Iraq war was a mistake, isn't the logical extension of their opinion that Saddam should be put back in power? If it was a mistake, shouldn't it be undone?

No, of course no one will advocate this. But then what's the point of all the criticism? I'm sure some of it is sincere. But some of it is just election-year grandstanding, while our troops are still there.

Disgraceful. But then what do you expect? Look at their nominee.

[nsmart]

Did we want Milosevic put back in power in Serbia? Of course not. But that didn't stop me from opposing the war.

[Mr. Mojo]

But then what's the point of all the criticism?

The Nov. elections.

[cvq3842]

Fair enough! My main point was that some of this opposition just seems so poorly thought out.

[snooker]

Dims do what dims do. But thinking isn't one of those things.

[nsmart]

The Bush administration lied to us. Scott Ritter clearly pointed out that he knew Saddam had no WMD and Cheney knew too even as he lied directly to us. I hated the Clintons and what they did to Serbia.. I'm learning that both sides like to excite their base with a "good" war. With Clinton it was Serbia.. with Bush it's Iraq.

[evm]

I'd say that's a pretty silly argument. The basic argument against the war (and it comes from libertarians as well as liberals) is that taking out Saddam wasn't worth the loss of U.S. life and the financial cost, that Saddam was being contained and that he wasn't a threat to the U.S. So to make your argument reasonable you would have to bring back the dead and cure the wounded in exchange for putting Saddam back in power.

We now know that a lot of pre-war intelligence was off the mark, but the bottom line is that based on what we though we knew (and intelligence isn't an exact science by any means) at the time, invading Iraq was the right thing to do. We also know that we had no choice but to invade given Saddam's violation of UN sanctions. This was wasn't about a threat to the U.S. (IMHO), or about WMD, it was about Saddam's continued refusal to follow the terms of the 1991 cease-fire agreement and subsequent U.N. resolutions. We had every right to invade and topple him as a result of his own actions, actions which continue to be unexplainable given that we now know his WMD capabilities were a charade.

Hindsight is 20/20 but I doubt you could find too many folks who supported the war a year ago who wouldn't support it again based on what was known at that time. I supported the war then, I support it now, even with what we now know.

[nobody_knows]

nsmart=not smart?

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

If Scott Ritter knew, then why couldn't he have convinced the U.N., or France, or Hans Blix, or Russia, or Germany or any other country with reliable intel capabilities? France knew Iraq had WMD's, Germany knew Iraq had WMD's, Russia knew Iraq had WMD's. These weren't speculations, it was knowledge. Iraq had WMD's in it's possession in early 2003. What happened to those WMD's we are still looking into, but to deny the evidence because we haven't found the WMD's is foolish and irresponsible.

[nsmart]

Scott spoke truth to power.. he was charged by the FBI as a child sex predator. I'm beginning to question these charges as they always seem to be come at times when someone is speaking truth to power. Its the new american gulag.

[nsmart]

like I haven't seen that before. I've been posting here forever. quite original. Got to go to work.. bye

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

Didn't answer my question, did you? Nope. If he had the evidence, why was he not able to convince France, Germany, Russia, or the U.N.? All of the above dismissed his claims.

[nobody_knows]

Well it fits.

[Mac94]

For some of us that opposed the invasion of Iraq it was more about Iraq being lower on the radar than some other nations that posed/pose a greater threat to the U.S.

I still believe that we must do something regarding Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Hezbollah, Syria, and North Korea.

IMHO, Iraq was below each of these nations/groups in terms of a clear and present danger to the U.S.

That said, Bush made his call and we must as a nation see it through to a successful end.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

Reminds me of when the first Bush Administration proposed dismantling the Hetchy-Ketch (sp) damn. When the damn was originally built in the 1930's the environmentalist raised a hue and a cry. Bush proposed undoing the damage and of course all the Californian Democrats opposed it. But if it doesn't make sense to build the next damn, mightn't it make sense to dismantle at least one existing one? And there was none more controversial when it was built.

[evm]

If Scott Ritter knew, then why couldn't he have convinced the U.N., or France, or Hans Blix, or Russia, or Germany or any other country with reliable intel capabilities? France knew Iraq had WMD's, Germany knew Iraq had WMD's, Russia knew Iraq had WMD's. These weren't speculations, it was knowledge. Iraq had WMD's in it's possession in early 2003. What happened to those WMD's we are still looking into, but to deny the evidence because we haven't found the WMD's is foolish and irresponsible.

Keep in mind that just prior to the invasion, the UN inspection teams had unfettered access to Iraq and they couldn't find anything.

[Hillarys Gate Cult]

Keep in mind that just prior to the invasion, the UN inspection teams had unfettered access to Iraq and they couldn't find anything.

Thanks. I needed a good laugh today.

[cvq3842]

You are right - that wasn't one of my best posts, nor was it representative (I hope) of my thought processes. But it gets so exasperating to debate this over and over and over . . .

It's just not my day today.

:)

[agrace]

He was caught red-handed in a Burger King parking lot by local law enforcement. Do a google search. He set up a meeting with someone he thought was a 16 year old girl and it was actually an undercover officer.

And it wasn't the first time - there were TWO incidents in 2001 as well, long before he EVER denounced Bush's Iraqi policy. And it's clearly him in the 2001 mugshot.

Scott Ritter defined his own credibility long ago.

[cvq3842]

I had to revisit this one more time. If we do all go back in our time machine, I pretty much see three choices: continue the "Clinton era" cat-and-mouse, with the occasional missile attack, etc.; yet another round of "enhanced" inspections, with 150,000 troops sitting in Kuwait or wherever (and getting picked off there too, no doubt) and many screaaming that the sanctions were causing all that starvation; or doing what we did, after clear noncompliance yet again (which I believe would have been necessary sooner or later). But you put it really well.

Again, I know much of the criticism of Bush's policy is well-reasoned and sincere. I think all of the alternatives were unpleasant and we picked the "least bad" of them. (Hey, it's done now anyway!) But I am very concerned about Kerry & co. - I don't see any specifics coming from them, and what I have seen makes me sure that Bush is a much, much better alternative. I hope enough people agree with me!