Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Iraq has everything to do with the war on terror… take that back, NOW Iraq has everything to do with the war on terror.

Now, I didn’t believe that it WASN’T a wedding party, I just wondered how the Republicans were going to explain that one. I think people don’t really want to do the homework and actually make the connection between Saddam and the terrorist networks… because there isn’t one.

On a much more important note, did you know Fantasia is the new American Idol?

Indeed. Iraq had nothing to do with anti-US terrorism. Thanks to Bush’s good efforts, however, it is now the major front, and a boundless recruiting point for Al Qaeda, just as we knew it would be. To me, the war in Iraq has been the second largest tactical error we could have possibly made, right behind “Not invading Afganistan after 9/11.”

Al, I think your story is less an illustration of conservative frustration with Bush than a demonstration of what confounds and frustrates us about the left.

(I’m training myself to say “the left” now instead of “liberals” because there could be nothing less liberal, in the classical political and philosopical sense, than the current American Democratic party whose intellectual allegiances are now closer to A.N.S.W.E.R. and Fidel Castro than John Locke).

Just look at what you’re saying about the “wedding party”. First you express the feeling that “I can’t believe my government lied to me.” Then you say you have “no idea what the truth of the incident is.” Do you see even a tiny problem with that?

I agree that not knowing the facts but being outraged about “lies” is exhibit number one from the left’s playbook, but this says more about the left than the administration.

Your other points are either outright wrong or not relevant to the administration’s rationale for the war. Do you not count the attempted assasination of a US president as an international terrorist incident? (It was attempted in April of 93, and clearly planned less than ten years before the war). When did the administration ever say that the 9-11 hijackers were Iraqis? No terrorists in Iraq? Does the name Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, an al Qaida funded operative mean anything to you? Abu Nidal? How do you explain the hijacker’s training camp at Salman Pak, complete with a Boeing 707? Is hijacking not terrorism in your dictionary? Were the 9-11 perpetrators not hijackers?

Apparently you believe that the millions of dollars Saddam spent on WMD programs produced only a single shell filled with sarin. I’ll leave you to that belief, but even if true, it was Saddam’s responsibility to identify and destroy that single shell. Should have been easy to do, I think, if it was the only one.

I’m trying to understand your position. So far it looks like this:

1. Unfortunately, this WMD (Iraq didn’t have WMDs) ended up in the hands of an Al-Qaida affiliated group (al Zargawi’s) which also didn’t exist in Iraq, a country where there was no connection between Saddam’s Baathists and non-existent terrorists.

2. The non-existent terrorists must have found this non-existent item by accident one day while digging in the sand. Certainly nobody gave it to them—they’re just better at locating such items than Hans Blix.

3. The ability for Iraq to perform military maneuvers is not a problem so long as “we know about them.” If we know about them, they can’t hurt us and we shouldn’t do anything to stop them. That Bush DID do something to stop them is unforgivable.

> Does the name Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, an al
> Qaida funded operative mean anything to you?

There is almost universal agreement, even by the Bush Administration, that Zarqawi came to Iraq after the invasion. That is, if he’s there at all - the Pentagon has backed away from the ID from the Berg video.

> Abu Nidal?

Ancient history. He hadn’t been active for 15 years by the time of his death in 2002, and many suspect that Saddam actually murdered him anyway.

> How do you explain the hijacker’s training
> camp at Salman Pak, complete with a Boeing
> 707?

The Salman Pak story was based on stories told by two of Chalabi’s accomplices. Just the other day the New York Times made a point of disavowing their original article about the Salman Pak “training camp”. The camp has apparently not been found. (The Times article, by the way, is the basis for your information.)

-Cf

Martin calls this not particularly extremist article “a demonstration of what confounds and frustrates us about the left.” Which evidently now includes the whole street, and Martin has to drive on the sidewalk. I hope and pray he has some influence on Republican strategists.

Martin is so inevitable with his list, none of which (NONE of which) gives a single good reason for having put Iraq on top of the “Things to do in 2003” list. I like the “they tried to assassinate president in 1993” angle though - nothing nutty about bringing that up now, no sir. Publicize that, Martin, remind people, they’re forgetting what a vast threat Iraq was right before the invasion and why it couldn’t wait another moment, and most of all why this was just THE finest possible choice to implement that new “pre-emption” doctrine. Otherwise “pre-emption” might be “pre-empted” and what kind of boring show will we have to watch then?

I think I’ve finally figured out how conservatives still believe anything GW says. Inductive logic! Let’s use the example of logic posited by Martin, a previous poster in this thread:

“How do you explain the hijacker’s training camp at Salman Pak, complete with a Boeing 707? Is hijacking not terrorism in your dictionary? Were the 9-11 perpetrators not hijackers?”

By positing three rhetorical questions, he manages to suggest that because there was (allegedly) a training camp at Salman Pak that there was some connection to Iraq of the 9-11 hijackers. Well done Martin! Rush would be proud…

Now if I could only figure out how anybody could rationalize that increasing mercury, carbon dioxide, and other emissions makes for “Clear Skies”…

Number of German planes that attacked Pearl Harbor: 0

Germany didn’t attack America. Japan did. Now, we DID also declare war on Japan, but the European war was the top priority.

So, Germany didn’t attack the US. Germany wasn’t capable of, let alone threatening to, invade the US. So, did we ignore Japan and invade Germany?

No. We invaded North Africa.

Huh? What the hell did North Africa have to do with the war against Germany, which was a distraction from the enemy that attacked us?

North Africa was a front that we opened up against the main enemy because we could do so. Iraq is a front we’ve opened up against the main enemy because we can do so.

Osama bin Laden and AQ are not the primary enemies in the war. They are but one organization among many. As critics of the GWOT are quick to point out, killing ObL and dismantling AQ wouldn’t constitute victory in the grand scheme of things.

The primary enemy in this war is medieval Islamicism, which simmers with hate and violence primarily due to abject poverty and oppressive government. Iraq wasn’t a greater big-picture threat to America than Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, or even Syria. Or Iran. But Iraq is a front that we could easily open, easily win, and use as a base for future operations against the heart of the enemy. We could defeat a constant thorn in the side, demonstrate our capability, and disarm a “rogue” state that, despite protests today, everyone thought had WMDs. That was the short-term gain.

The long-term gain, if democracy can establish a foothold, will be a direct attack against the root of the problem, which is what anti-war types usually say we’re ignoring. If a free society can be established where people have a standard of living high enough to make suicide bombing and fighting US Marines look like bad options, Iraq will be well on the way to joining the 20th century. It’s just a hop, skip, and a jump to the new millennium from there.

This has all be explained many times. I don’t understand why so many people keep asking “What does Iraq have to do with the war on terror?” It’s not that difficult.

Murdoc- That is way too forward thinking to make it on the front page of the NY Times.

And CF the argument on Zarqawi has always been that, while he was in Iraq along with Ansar-Al-Islam, he/they were not connected to Al Queda. I have never seen “universal” agreement that he was not in Iraq or that Anar al-Islam was not in Iraq prior to the war. Help me out on that one if I am wrong.

Murdoc - Your argument would be more powerful if it were true. A few items:

Sept 27, 1940 - Tripartite (Axis) Pact signed by Germany, Italy and Japan.

Japan and Germany were allies before Perl Harbor, Iraq and Al Queda were never allies, they were enemies.

Sept 13, 1940 - Italians invade Egypt.

Could it be that we invaded North Africa because that was where the enemy was? What a novel thought.

You say that “Osama bin Laden and AQ are not the primary enemies in the war.” but then who is? How do you define medieval Islamicism? Are they similar to the Amish or Christians Fundamentalist? Why did we pick Iraq to open a front and not Iran, or Seria, or Saudi Arabia they were much more culpable.

There is a reason Bush doesn’t use your reason, it has no substance or basis in reality.

Thanks for the additional detail, though I don’t understand what wasn’t true. It doesn’t alter my reasoning. (Italy didn’t attack us either, of course.)

We opened a front against the enemy that we could easily open. As long as Saddam was in power, our options in the ME were very limited. Now that we have access to send troops and planes anywhere in the ME (without having to beg Turkey, for instance), we have a hub from which to prosecute the war. Saddam and AQ very well might not have had much in the way of direct connections. No one spends too much time arguing that they did.

Which governments might we have to face, either militarily or otherwise? Off the top of my head, I imagine that Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan are still on the list. Pakistan is a little removed, but the others all share borders with which nation? We probably won’t have to fight them all directly. But the place to be is in the middle of things, and that’s where we are. Iraq was ripe for the picking, and UN resolutions and other things (like the fact that the 1991 war really never ended) gave us cover that we wouldn’t have had if we wanted to go into Syria, for instance. And until there’s a Plan ‘B’ for the nation’s gas tanks, Saudi is off the target list.

Iraq didn’t attack us. They might not have had much going on with AQ. It might even be true that they weren’t pursuing WMDs, though no one thought that at the time. Nevertheless, Saddam’s government was an enemy of the US. The 1991 war never really stopped. Try to think beyond the next two months. Bush and the military have demonstrated that they’re serious about fighting extreme medieval Islam. Iraq is the place to do it from.

The argument about the Tripartite agreement doesn’t really apply to this nebulous network of cells and individuals we keep hearing that the Army can’t defeat, does it? And despite whatever differences Saddam’s government and AQ had, there’s no doubt that they shared a common enemy and that they would each have to be defeated to “win” this “war”. And, like North Africa in 1942, there were enemies in Iraq. And not all of them were Iraqis.

Germany and Japan were allies on paper. How much real collaboration occurred? Not much. Those were two separate wars. I’d argue that Afghanistan is a little like Guadalcanal on one front and Iraq is like North Africa (or I’ve heard Sicily/Italy from others, but I’m not so sure) on the other.

And whenever I make the “AQ isn’t the real” enemy I hear the same thing. Maybe it’s because I’m wrong, but I haven’t heard anything to convince me, personally.

Medieval Islam is quite unlike the Amish. In fact, I think they’re about as far apart religious sects can get. Were you kidding about that one?

Medieval Islam is quite like Christian Fundamentalism, though, in many ways. Christian Fundamentalism around the year 1100. I find it more than a little ironic that the French, especially, seem to have a soft spot for what’s going on in much of the Muslim world these days. It’s like thirtysomethings looking a wild teenagers and reminiscing. That’s not really fair, but there you have it.

And of course Bush isn’t going to outline the grand vision. Are you kidding again? For the sake of argument, suppose that what I’m saying is actually the plan. Would Bush go on TV and lay it all out there in these terms? Of course he wouldn’t.

I always hear how Bush is such a liar. If he DID come out and say it, wouldn’t that discredit the idea then and there?

As for the other main point of your post, I agree that we don’t know what’s true. I’d say we’re far better off today than the folk in WW2 were, though. We would have never even heard of this incident in WW2.

I’m not sure about that wedding party issue. It sure doesn’t look good, though even if it WAS a peaceful wedding with no insurgent connections it still doesn’t mean that the Army was targeting innocents or that they’re trying to cover anything up. I felt that the press conference about the issue, though understandably given from a “we didn’t screw up” angle, left open the possibility that an error had been made.

This level of media coverage is a double-edged sword. We see a lot of the good (well, some of it when the media decided to show it) that our troops do, and we can all be more aware of what’s going on so that we can have more informed opinions. But the propaganda wars didn’t suddenly stop because of 24-hour news coverage. The misinformation is sometimes a side effect of the chaos and uncertainty of the situation, and it is sometimes very intentional, either by one side or the other or maybe by the media itself.

Al, I think you raise a good question about why Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran weren’t targeted although perhaps their societies, or elements in their societies, were more culpable for 9-11.

For one thing, revenge and punishment on nations where the guilty happened to origninate from wasn’t good strategy or even fair (the Saudi hijackers, for example, were just as vicious againt their own government as they were against the west). It would be like the Pentagon bombing Tacoma in retribution for Ted Bundy. The grand scheme was and still is to systemically change the middle east. A democratic Iraq, bordering Iran, Saudi Arabia AND Syria will place enormous pressures on the authoritian power structures of those societies. If Allah-willing, Iraq succeeds democratically and economicaly, the citizens of neighboring nations will demand the same. We already see this in Iran, where the mullahs are desparetly holding onto power in the face of an increasingly impatient population and the authorities are doing everything they can to support the Iraqi insurgency. Iraq was targeted for very good strategic and moral reasons. Another thing ignored so far in this thread is the explicit support—including financial support—that Saddam gave suicide bombers in Israel.

Want to tell me that offering $25,000 to the families of suicide bombing wasn’t financial and moral support of terrorism?

North Africa was a front that we opened up against the main enemy because we could do so. Iraq is a front we’ve opened up against the main enemy because we can do so.

murdoc, that whole argument falls apart when you remember that al Qaeda is not a country. It holds no territory. You can’t “open up a front” against al Qaeda by occupying a country.

Even at the currently estimated total of 18,000 al Qaeda terrorists dispersed around the world, it’s still a relatively small organization. The war on terror will be won by discrediting their brand of Islam, and removing or coopting their leaders.

The money given to the Families of the homicide bombers is certainly support of terrorism, although I doubt that was Saddam’s intention. He just wanted the positive press in the Arab world. He could care less about the Palestinians, just like most of the Arab leaders it is more convenient for them to keep the Palestinians in squalor and blowing themselves up so they can keep their own populations from turning focus on their own conditions.

Would a free and democratic Iraq be good for the region? Of course it would. Free and democratic countries are good in any region. How likely that this will happen in Iraq? Who knows? Bush decided to roll the global dice and hope for the best. However, he didn’t do much in the way of planning or preparation to make this happen. He didn’t lead and align the majority of the major powers to help us, he didn’t ensure that we had enough troops on the ground to do major nation building on this level, and he used fear of WMD to convince the country to go along with his gamble. Now he divides the country instead of uniting by not coming clean on these reasons for war. This makes us even weaker.

Every entry level project manager knows that you perform a risk assessment at the beginning of each project and continuously thereafter. Bush’s laissez-faire approach to management has left us wide open. Iraq is wide open to Islamic fundamentalists filling the power vacuum. Al Qaeda is wide open to continue their recruiting efforts. We are wide open due to our increasing global isolation.

Not a great start to building a free and democratic anything.

AP - You’re right. AQ isn’t a country. We can’t open a front against AQ. As I wrote earlier, AQ isn’t who we’re fighting. (Personally, I don’t much care for the War Against Terror moniker since it isn’t really honest. But it sells, so there you have it.)

We’re fighting extreme medieval Islamism (for want of a better description) and the territory of Iraq is a good front in that war. We’re fighting it militarily (short term) and we’re fighting it socio-economically (long term). Iraq is the best place in the world to do this, since we had a fair amount of political cover to go in militarily and (as many are so quick to point out) the majority of Iraqis aren’t of the middle ages Muslim mind-set.

Democracy in Iraq will be very very tough to pull off. But, since it will be easier than in many of the others, it makes a good starting point. The long-term and short-term are both served by going into Iraq.

Murdoc-

I’ve made these same arguments over the past year here on the Watchblog. Of the counter-arguments, David has stated that if this is the case then the cost of this war is too high and the probability of success too low (great libertarian arguments by the way).

I believe that if you would have looked at the cost of the cold war at its beginning (1950 or so dollars) and did the same analysis as David has done here you might have come to the same conclusions. I feel like those expenditures were justified, although I’m sure one could argue that it really hasn’t added much to our national security or GDP (the world is still a dangerous place).

My question to you is, is there a cheaper, better way to ensure our security and economic prosperity than to fight a multi-fronted war on radical Islam? An example might be the Saudi approach of paying off the Wahabi’s. I know in Islam that you can pay a “tribute” or tax and by their own laws they have to let you live in peace. We know that the containment strategy has failed, as radical Islam has spilled out of the Middle East into various parts of the world, and has landed firmly on our own shores. It is also threatening our own economic prosperity. But do you see another way to deal with this?

We’re fighting extreme medieval Islamism (for want of a better description) and the territory of Iraq is a good front in that war.

Hmm… That’s the first time I’ve heard someone actually say we’re fighting Islam. Ahh… The Crusades - convert or die, right? Good times… Good times. ;)

What we’re fighting is a few thousand wackos who think they’re on a mission from God.

Germany declared war on the U.S. on December 11, 1941, prompting our offensives against that country.

Iraq did not declare war on the U.S. in the days, weeks, or months prior to our invasion.

As much as the faithful defenders of Bush’s failed “strategy” in Iraq try to equate these two U.S. military actions, no similarity exists.

Saddam had all the time in the world to avoid the invasion of his country and he could have easily avoided it by leaving before the deadline. He did not. you also overlook the facts that there was enough evidence to link Iraq to AQ and 9/11 that a court decision gave 100 million in damages to a couple of surviving families that sued Iraq for complicity.

Not to mention the newly reported, yet unverified at this time, fact that a member in high standing in AQ may have also been a Lt-Col in the Iraqi military

there was more than one chemical shell discovered a mustard gas filled one was found a couple of weeks previously also over a hundred empty warheads made for the sole purpose of holding chemicals were found after resolution 1441 was passed and was a clear violation of that resolution.

it was also stated that Bush did not try to get other major heads of state on board and that is an out and out lie he did everything possible with the evidence but was trumped by the billions of dollars that Saddam was paying the French,Germans,Russians and chinese. these countries had a lot to lose with the invasion of Iraq not only the bribes being paid them but also the fact that they would lose other countries income for the weapons they sold after they were proven so ineffective against ours. Russian night vision goggles were found in Iraq that were a clear violation of the UN resolutions as were the suface to air missles from France that were produced in 2003.

Also for your information Germany had U-boats off the atlantic coast the Civil Air Patrol a group of 4f pilots attacked 51 of them with home made bombs and sank 3 and damaged more. Germany had sent their nuclear information to Japan in 1944 Japan was going to drop an atomic bomb on an american city however we beat them to the punch by two weeks.

Salmon Pak is a fact not fiction the camp was overrun after the war started and the documents captured have been validated

the New york Crimes, I mean Times, has been proven false and dishonest to often for any one to use them as a credible source any longer.

also that 18,00 members of Aq had a “potential” disclaimer on it I have the “potential” to make 18 million dollars tommorrow when I wake up but I don’t depend on it.

only in the minds of the left is “potential” a fact

WAY TO GO MIKE!!!

Al,Gaelen,Vic,Mike K.,Jerome,

If you can’t believe George Bush then how can you believe this guy?

“It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world. He has as much as promised it.”

“He is a war criminal who used chemical weapons against another nation, and of course, as we know, against his own people, the Kurds. He has diverted funds from the oil for food program which were intended by the international community to ease the burden of the Iraqi people. He has supported and harbored terrorist groups, particularly radical Palestinian groups such as Abu Nidal and has given money to families of suicide bombers.”

Remarks of Senator John Kerry on Iraq
October 09, 2002
US Senate

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2002_1009.html

Some creative editing, Charlie?

You left out some of the best from Senator Kerry:

“I want to underscore, this Administration began with a resolution that granted exceedingly broad authority to the President to use force. I regret that some Democrats supported it. I would have opposed it. It gave the President the authority to use force, not only to enforce all U.N. resolutions related to Iraq but also to produce regime change in Iraq and to restore international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region. It made no mention of the President’s efforts at the United Nations or the need to build multilateral support for whatever course of action we ultimately would take. I am pleased that our pressure and questions pushed the Administration to adopt some important changes in language.

“The revised White House text, which we will vote on, limits the grant of authority to the President to the use of force against Iraq. It does not empower him to use force throughout the Persian Gulf region. It authorizes the President to use U.S. Armed Forces to defend the “national security” of the United States - a power he already has under the Constitution as Commander-in-Chief - and to enforce all “relevant” Security Council relations related to Iraq. None of these resolutions, or for that matter any of the other Security Council resolutions demanding Iraqi compliance with its international obligations, call for regime change.”

And the lines that prove to me that Senator Kerry has been remarkably consistent in his views on Iraq:

“Let me be clear: I am voting to give this authority to the President for one reason and one reason only: to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction if we cannot accomplish that objective through new tough weapons inspections. In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days - to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out “tough, immediate” inspections requirements and to “act with our allies at our side” if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force.

“If he fails to do so, I will be the first to speak out. If we do go to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so in concert with others in the international community. The Administration has come to recognize this as has our closet ally, Prime Minister Tony Blair in Britain. The Administration may not be in the habit of building coalitions, but that is what they need to do - and it is what can be done. If we go it alone without reason, we risk inflaming an entire region and breeding a new generation of terrorists, a new cadre of anti-American zealots - and we will be less secure, not more secure, at the end of the day, even with Saddam Hussein disarmed. Let there be no doubt or confusion as to where I stand: I will support a multilateral effort to disarm Iraq by force, if we have exhausted all other options. But I cannot - and will not - support a unilateral, US war against Iraq unless the threat is imminent and no multilateral effort is possible.”

You should have kept reading…

Wow, Mike. I’m not sure you made one single point that was backed up by any facts. Why don’t you reveal your sources - but keep in mind that I don’t get the Psychic Friends network on my cable plan.

The court award is a classic frivolous lawsuit,

U.S. District Judge Harold Baer ordered that the damages be paid by bin Laden, al-Qaida, the Taliban, Saddam and the former Iraqi government. The judge ruled against them by default in January after they failed to respond to the lawsuits brought on behalf of two of the trade center dead.

I can’t believe obl and Saddam wouldn’t show up for their day in court! I’m shocked!

Baer said lawyers relied heavily on “classically hearsay” evidence, including reports that a Sept. 11 hijacker met an Iraqi consul to Prague, Secretary of State Colin Powell’s remarks to the United Nations about connections between Iraq and terrorism, and defectors’ descriptions of the use of an Iraq camp to train terrorists.

All of which were proved bogus. Thank you Mr. Chalabi.

I’m curious where you got the info on the 51 German U-Boats, I don’t think Germany even had 51 at the time.

And Bush certainly did not try everything possible to get other heads of state on board. Read Woodward’s book based on interviews with Bush himself. In fact, according to a book on Blair’s part in this (backed up independently by Woodward), Cheney attempted to torpedo every effort to get the UN involved. He was actually afraid they would.

The Salmon Pak thing was discredited. The UN misidentified the plane as a 707 in 1991, and every defector since, including Chalabi’s, also referred to it as a 707. It was actually a Tupolev 154 or a 727. The 707 has four engines under the wings. 154s and 727s have three engines on the tail. Oops! In fact, the documents you talk about can’t be verified and were found by an “anonymous” high-level Iraqi official - Chalabi, again, I’m sure.

No one is denying that Iraq was not in compliance. All we’re complaining about is that Bush didn’t give the UN three more weeks to confirm it and authorize force. But, again, that’s the last thing Cheney wanted.

All this is true.
But:
You missed the point Jerome,
I could have copied the whole speech but I wanted to show that Kerry believed that Saddam had WMD and was willing to use them. George Bush believed he had WMD and was willing to use them.
So they both lied or told the truth. Which is it?

I didn’t miss your point, it’s just that your point is irrelevant.

The reason that Kerry supported the resolution granting Bush the power to invade Iraq was the WMDs that he and so many others believed Saddam had. That we know he once had.

Kerry, in the speech you cited, was clear in his statement that he endorsed the resolution only to the extent that our military action in Iraq protected us from an imminent threat. And only after all other efforts, including inspections, were exhausted.

So if your point is that anyone who says Bush lied about WMDs should paint Kerry with the same brush, I can agree with that. But if you’re trying to counter the argument that Bush acted willfully and unwisely— and contrary to the wishes expressed by Kerry and others in the Senate— then I can’t agree.

You got it man!
PS.
I am glad President Bush acted willfully and not unwisely to the contrary of Kerry’s wishes. The whole world is better off without this mad man in power. I heard a report on the radio the other day; it said that terrorism world wide with the exception of Iraq is at an all time low. This to me means that most of the bad guys (terrorists) must be there and not here.

To my way of thinking, it is better to fight them over there; than sitting and waiting for them to attack us again.

What do you think?

Charlie:

I think we had them on the run in Afghanistan and Bush used the War on Terrorism as an excuse to settle an old score. If the statistics you quote are the same ones I’ve seen, they don’t include any Palestinian terror attacks, nor do they include any of the “terrorism” being inflicted in Iraq and Afghanistan currently. So the results are debatable.

I’ve said all along that Bush’s initial response to 9/11— waiting a respectable period of time, then attacking the Taliban— was justified, well planned and well executed. Iraq was none of the above (at least not at the time he attacked).

Bush was bound and determined to go in and get Saddam out when he wanted to. This wasn’t about WMDs or terrorist ties. If it was, why would he have stood on the deck of the aircraft carrier that May day and said “major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed”? Those few words revealed his true intentions.

Now we’re paying for his bloodlust for Saddam. Or more correctly, our troops are paying.

If Bush had waited to get more allies on board, especially some from the Middle East, we wouldn’t be dealing with the kind of problems we’re dealing with now. But this was his chance and he wasn’t going to let it pass by, no matter what Congress, the world, or the American people wanted.

First- We had every right to go into Iraq:
107th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. J. RES. 114
[Report No. 107-721]
JOINT RESOLUTION
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;
Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;
Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq’s continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations’ and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations’;
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq’s demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);
Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677’;
Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),’ that Iraq’s repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,’ and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688’;
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge’ posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,’ while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable’;
Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq’s ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;
Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and
Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

Second- No one is perfect who could have guessed that extremists would come in from outside of Iraq.

I don’t know about you but I feel safer with him out of power.

Once again, you’ve left out part of the story:

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the “Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq”.

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to—

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. —

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. — Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. — Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

When I first read this several months ago, I was thinking that Congress had given him carte blanche to attack at will. But this little section here at the end, the true gist of the resolution, reinforced my thinking that Bush did not act according to the wishes of the resolution.

And as for feeling safer, I would if I lived in Iraq. But I live here and I feel like we’re now more of a target than ever.

Jerome,

You can’t be serious.