Bush hasn't justified war (GREELEY ALERT)

Chicago Sun-Times ^ | December 26, 2003 | ANDREW GREELEY

[Chi-townChief]

Can this clown Greeley beat a dead horse or what? And now he equates our capture of Saddam with firebombing civilians during World War II.

[zarf]

Greeley is a clown and a typical leftie who has no clue as to thinking strategically.

That being said, Bush has done a crappy job as to explaining why we went into Iraq.
Tony Blair did a much better job of it 2 days after 9/11 when he stated forcefully that WMD's in the hands of terrorists was unacceptable now that we know they are willing to commit an so heinous as 9/11....any rogue regime we suspect of supplying these weapons is subject ot attack.

This is a no brainer, but the administration has not made it easy on themselves.

[Timmy]

The administration legitimized the invasion of Iraq as part of the ''war on terrorism'' and deceived the American people into believing that Saddam was involved in the Sept. 11

These guys would have a better chance of me keeping an open mind if they didn't start off with an outright, deliberate lie.

[Paleo Conservative]

The truth is that Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and their ''neo-conservative'' intellectuals wanted a quick little war with Iraq....

I'm surprised he put "neo-conservative" in quotes rather than "intellectuals".

[Timmy]

That being said, Bush has done a crappy job as to explaining why we went into Iraq.

Either you get it [post-September 11, 2001] or you don't. I understand completely why we went into Iraq.

[kennedy]

The Bush Doctrine: "We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them."

Why is that so difficult for liberals to understand?

[Mike4Freedom]

Can this clown Greeley beat a dead horse or what?

The WMD question is NOT a dead horse. No one who values justice or freedom would let it die. We still need to know did the president lie to us or was he fooled by his advisors? If the second, why are they still around?

How did it come to be that a large majority (roughly 70%) actually believed that Saddam planned the 9/11 attacks? Was this a great text book example of perception management(Propaganda when the Russians did it)?

There is no way that removing a bad guy dictator in another nation, that was no threat to us was justified. If we buy that as justification, we need to expect another dozen or so wars of invasion in the second term.

[TomB]

That being said, Bush has done a crappy job as to explaining why we went into Iraq.

That is a patently absurd statement.

Sixty-seven percent said the Bush administration made the right decision in going to war with Iraq.

Whenever you get that kind of percentage of people agreeing with you, you have done a good job making the case.

[LadyDoc]

Greeley is a sociologist and a writer of x rated religious novels.

He has no expertise in international affairs.

[Chi-townChief]

If you ignore the events of the last 20 years or so and begin your history with 2003, you're absolutely right.

[BluePatriot57]

Are you sure this Greely clown really isn't Michael Moore? HA!

[autoresponder]

Some people have less sense then your dog.

A dog knows who has been naughty and who has been nice.

Lefties and the impaired do not.

[pax_et_bonum]

Greeley sold his moral authority when he, a priest, began publishing novels of questionable value.

His opinion just doesn't matter.

[TomB]

The WMD question is NOT a dead horse. No one who values justice or freedom would let it die. We still need to know did the president lie to us or was he fooled by his advisors? If the second, why are they still around?

When did it become a legitmate question IF Hussein had WMDs?

Because prior to 9-11, there were very few people on the planet, outside of Scott Ritter, who didn't believe and state for the record that Iraq was in posession of WMDs.

How did it come to be that a large majority (roughly 70%) actually believed that Saddam planned the 9/11 attacks?

Hussein was horribly defeated and embarassed in Kuwait. He attempted to assassinate GHW Bush. He pays the families of suidice bombers in Israel. He was hip-deep in sponsoring terrorism for years.

Why is it so hard to make the connection?

There is no way that removing a bad guy dictator in another nation, that was no threat to us was justified.

Repeating that, no matter how often, will not make it true.

If we buy that as justification, we need to expect another dozen or so wars of invasion in the second term.

The recent actions of Qadaffi says you are wrong.

[international american]

Remove the tubes.....this guy is brain dead:)

[Chi-townChief]

I think that Mike makes the same mistake that Greeley and a lot of other people make: Like the firebombing of Tokyo, they look at this war in a vacuum as if nothing happened before and we just attacked Japan or Iraq because we felt like it. It's the same way with the A-bomb - a lot of people are not intellectually capable of drawing the line from Pearl Harbor to Hiroshima.

[YaYa123]

"Either you get it [post-September 11, 2001] or you don't"

Or......you get it but you can't ever admit you do, for fear of giving President Bush any credit at all.

This writer is one one those.

This writer also goes after the cheapshot. Accusing Bush of going to war because Saddam tried to murder his Daddy, as if this war is nothing but a blood feud. Shame on any American reporter who belittles the significance of a foreign power attempting to kill the President of the United States!

[xp38]

Too much weight differential but they speak the same thoughts.

[zarf]

I disagree. The administration line has shifted. All of them effective reasons for going to war, but the WMD argument was valid in and of itself. They didn't have to keep changing the emphasis to democracy, mass graves etc...

WMD's in the hands of maniacs is unacceptable and Iraq was a possible supplier based upon Husseins eratic behavior...that was enough of an explanation.