Replies

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.

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.

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!