What If US Hadn't Invaded?

Washington Post ^

[unlearner]

"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!!!"

That was done in Texas because a quorum was not there to conduct business.

We just need to keep pointing out how Kerry and Edwards don't bother to show up.

Kerry mocked Bush and essentially called him lazy. Bush is busy running a campaign AND running the nation. It appears Kerry does not even understand the responsibilities of the job he is seeking.

[pawdoggie]

The simple fact is that John Kerry supported Bill Clinton when he bombed "dual use" chemical plants in Iraq and the Sudan. These bombings occurred post-1991, when the Duelfer report says Saddam dismantled his WMD program. Kerry now maintains that he was "misled" into voting for the authorization of force resolution by a President who had "Presidential level" intelligence information that he (Kerry), even as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, did not have. Bill Clinton, as President when Iraqi "chemical weapons" facilities were bombed, clearly had the "Presidential Level" intelligence Senator Kerry now claims he was denied. Barring the possibility that George Bush had significant new intelligence information on Iraqi WMD that Clinton did not have (something not even Michael Moore has yet alleged), then the inescapable conclusion we must come to is either that Bill Clinton really was "wagging the dog" when he bombed chemical facilities he knew, "or should have known", were not producing chemical weapons, or that both President Clinton and President Bush were acting on a perfectly reasonable concern for Saddam's WMD capabilities when they ordered attacks on Iraq.

[Mike Darancette]

The sanctions would have continued the "Coalition of the Bribed" would not have allowed the "Oil for Food" cash cow to expire.

[Dilbert56]

Theme for tomorrow night - the same thing said different ways until it hits home:

• If we had followed Kerry's approach, we would have played right into Saddam's hands.
• What Kerry advocated was exactly what Saddam wanted.
• A "President Kerry" would have been completely outmaneuvered by Saddam.
• The "coalition of the coerced and bribed" was the one opposing us at the UN.
• The real "Blood for Oil" was that some countries accepted Saddam's oil bribes to sacrifice the blood of countless Iraqis, and, at some future point, our blood.
• The UN inspections didn't find the secret laboratories, they didn't find the nuclear weapons material in the cheif scientists backyard. Saddam had "gamed" the inspections and relying on them would have been playing into Saddam's hands.

Net: Kerry would have been putty in Saddam's hands. Bush's resolve key Saddam from winning.

[browardchad]

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.

Excellent point -- particularly for those of the George Will/WFB ilk, that like to quibble endlessly about the impossibility of bringing "true democracy" to Iraq.

No one in their right mind expects Iraq to look like Des Moines in this century, but if these giants of conservative thought would exercise their gray matter, it's not so difficult to imagine what Iraq would look like if we weren't there to play referee.

[discipler]

You are right. Thanks.
Let's keep pointing out to Americans that Kerry spends more time getting primped than he does work.