Posted on 10/07/2004 5:02:07 AM PDT by mrplind
A Washington Post editorial says it's now clear that Iraq did not have WMD at the time of the U.S. invasion: But, it says, "What can't be known is what would have happened had Mr. Bush chosen not to invade." The new report suggests some answers, the newspaper editorial says. Had Saddam Hussein succeeded in his effort to end international sanctions, "he would have resumed production of chemical weapons and probably a nuclear program as well." The editorial says Sen. John F. Kerry has suggested that Saddam's regime would have collapsed under pressure from weapons inspectors: Maybe, says the editorial. Another possibility is that Iraq "would have reemerged as a significant power in the Middle East, and as a de facto or real ally of the Islamic extremist forces with which the United States is at war."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Wow. Washington Post says the opacity of N. Korea and Iran are not going to make it any easier to determine their weapons capacity. Claims that Iraq would be on its way to WMD if we hadn't gone in. Asks what Kerry will do about a possibly nuclear, extremist nation (Iran) without a clear picture. Editorial infers that sometimes hindsight is all we have...
We could have played the waiting game with Saddam, essentially waiting for him to die. Kind of like we've been doing to Castro.
There are two problems with this scenario, named Uday and Qusay. It could have turned into another North Korea, where the wack job sons are worse than the wack job dad.
Here's the new cry for Repubs then: Whenever someone from the left brings up how Kerry is going to protect us from Iran and N. Korea, we need to remind them that this is only what our intelligence is telling us, and we have no proof. So we need to tell them to lay off those countries. They are just bragging to protect themselves from their neighbors. There is no growing threat. If Kerry says he will act strongly against either of those rogue nations, we need to remind him of his stance on Iraq was the same thing, but that he wrong before. So he must be wrong now, too.
The Senate needs to enforce voting rules. Kerry is AWOL and needs to be picked up by the authorities and forced to participate in the needed votes. If that authority doesn't exist, it should. Those democRATS in Texas hid out and held up the voting. Why should a Senator be allowed to do this? Hey Kerry, step down now!!!
We already know what their respective arguments would be, but while the President's answer would be clear as crystal, Mr. Kerry's would be shrouded in the double-speak of "global test" and "international summit" -- not because he doesn't have a strong opinion, but because he chooses not to express it -- peace at any price.
Why Mr Duelfer? What was the purpose of the clandestine WMD labs run by the Mukhabarat?
I think that sooner or later we would have had to invade, I doubt this war could have been avoided but it is all speculation now, we are there and we can not turn back until the job is finished I just pray that our boys are safe and we get it right.
1) we needed to make an EXAMPLE, and Iraq was suitable
2) we needed a presence in Middle East near the oil, in case Saudi goes to hell.
ONE POINT THAT SHOULD BE MADE MORE FORCEFULLY: OK maybe Al-Q recruiting is up in the short run, that is the nature of war (and a stupid argument), but a democratic Middle East is the long run MORAL way of destroying the raison-d-etre of these terrorists. What would the left have us do? Leave dictators in place or be forced to nuke a lot of people, down the road.
This from the WP? Answering the question, "what if we had not invaded?" and exploring realistically what would have happened is a big winner for the president. Would be cool if one of those "undecided voters" (yeah, right) at the second debate would ask about this.
Too true, my friend: I'd love to see Kerry answer (all six of them in one sentence) if asked what if we had just sat there and let Saddam continue to defy the U.N. Yah, Mr. Senator, where would we be today?
Kerry's a turd, a communist. His platform is that America is a bully and he wants to run it.
Kerry is now claiming that the decision to topple Hussein was wrongheaded, because the "real" culptrit was Osama bin Laden. Wrong. Bin Laden was no more a factor in the September 11 outrage than Ramsi Yousef was a factor in the 1993 WTC bombing. It's just another instance of liberals like Kerry wanting to address terrorism through isolated police actions, rather than at its roots.
Also, Bush needs to point out that it is very easy to criticize a decision with the advantage of hindsight (if I had known what I now know I would not have voted for the authority to go to war), but knowing what he--and Kerry-- knew AT THE TIME, why would ANYONE have expected more UN resolutions to accomplish anything!
And--Bush should ask--knowing what Kerry now knows about Osama Bin Laden would he have authorized the invasion of Afghanistan after the FIRST World Trade Center bombings?
Good summary, but I quibble with "any price" - IMHO, it should be "every price".
A little-read article in the Post over a year ago quoted an anonymous Administration source saying, "we know they (al Qaeda) will kill the White House. It's just a matter of when." Not "wants to kill," but "will kill." Like it is a certainty to happen. This person was described as being afraid every day when he comes to work at the White House. Scared the living crap out of me.
The Washington Post is close enough to the White House that it would be destroyed by a small nuke aimed at the WH, or by a firestorm that could be started by a series of car bombs in downtown DC. And you can be sure that the Post has more information which they choose not to print because they don't want to scare their readers to death. Everyone in Washington knows the city dodged the big bullet that hit New York on 9/11. They know al Qaeda does not rest once they choose a target, until that target is destroyed. The terrorists are coming back, and they are coming back for Washington. It's why I just moved away from there, and why the Post is going to endorse President Bush.
Presdident Bush should ask Kerry if he plans to restore Saddam Hussein to power and withdraw coalition forces, if elected president. If Kerry considers the liberation of Iraq a mistake, he can reverse it.
However, let's say, for the sake of the argument, it did happen. Imagine Iraq since April 7, 2003, WITHOUT the coalition presence. Iraq would be THE breeding ground for terrorists, and after a short "civil" war, all of them would be headed west with whatever "scraps" of Iraq's weapons programs they could gather up and a bloodlust. In short, instead of dying by the bushel there, the terrorists would be killing US by the bushel.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.